# Talk:Queen Camilla

These, from the state visit. I'm a fan of the first, but I see why someone would prefer the 2nd! Rexophile (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Added proposals E and F. E is the highest res image (which I bolded), and I also added years to each proposal. I think Proposal E would be the most agreeable replacement; while it is not the same formality and lighting as the 2019 one, it is updated, high-res, and she's also facing the text. And also, let's not forget that Catherine's image was recently changed to a suitable low-res image compared to the former image that showed her whole face (and facing the camera). Rexophile (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
This is proposal E in the infobox, for anyone needing a visual reference. Rexophile (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Rexophile (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Option A ItsShandog (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the present image is superior to both of these. Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Surtsicna. I do understand the urge to use a more recent photo, but the proposed photos need to be of sufficient quality, which these two clearly are not. Keivan.fTalk 05:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I still think that the shots from last year's state opening (Proposal C, cropping can be altered) are the best.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone should crop option C further and then we might actually end up having a reasonable candidate. Keivan.fTalk 22:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Proposal D. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
D is not bad but I still find it to be a major downgrade from the current photo where her face is fully visible. Let's see what others might have to say. Keivan.fTalk 01:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Current image first choice, Proposal D second. In D,E,F she is not looking at the camera and in E,F there are other people in the background. Proposal A is all hat and B is too low resolution. DrKay (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC) Amended 16:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
It's preferable to have the subject looking at the camera, but look at Catherine's new photo compared to her old one.. And other lead photos (that aren't painted portraits or official photos). For Catherine's she actually is barely even facing the camera, almost a quarter of her face is obscured and the image itself is a ~540p crop of a larger image. I think we really should replace the current image, even if this 6 year old image meets most of the preferable criteria. Rexophile (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I actually really like D, but I have a preference for B even though its low-res. Rexophile (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
D is a good image, just not as good in quality as the current one. ItsShandog (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Option F to distinguish her clearly from the many more casual photos which have been published of her for decades. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
The current image is the best. However, it consesus is to change it, F would be the best second option. cookiemonster755  (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Queen Consort Camilla, not Queen Camilla. A Queen has independent ruling powers given by blood or birth right and can rule on her own. A Queen Consort is the wife of a reigning King but holds no independent ruling power for when he passes; she will no longer be a Queen when the King is gone and the succession will be handed down to the next royal in line. AW79057 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. DrKay (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
 Not done This move has been requested multiple times, to the point of me not able to move the page for you.  Theeverywhereperson  (talk here) 16:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Who exactly calls her that? Surtsicna (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The infobox says "Queen consort of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Right. So who calls her that? Surtsicna (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
What do you recomend? At Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck & Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mother, we use "...and the British Dominions" in their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
I recommend finding reliable sources that refer to Camilla as queen of the other Commonwealth realms or lose it from the infobox. Is she queen of Australia? Source? Is she queen of Jamaica? Source? etc Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Does this also cover Charles III's & Elizabeth II's infoboxes? The hatnote mentions the other realms. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
We have sources stating that Charles is king of those realms and that Elizabeth was queen. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Well if they're monarchs of those countries. It would be obvious that their legal spouses are consorts of those countries. I believe you're looking for a solution, where there's no problem. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
That's WP:SYNTHESIS. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
This source says it. https://qormuseum.org/soldiers-of-the-queens-own/appointments/honoraries/the-duchess-of-cornwall/ ItsShandog (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The other realms do recognize her as queen consort as is evident by the Government of Canada's website. And funnily enough I remember having this discussion before. Keivan.fTalk 19:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
I will not be surprised if it turns out that this was discussed back when we were hammering out queen vs queen consort, but I cannot find it. I do not see where she is called queen of Canada on the page you linked. Charles, on the other hand, is explicitly called king of Canada. Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. She is referred to as "The Queen Consort", which honestly makes sense. She is again listed as "Camilla, The Queen Consort" on their list of kings and queens of Canada which obviously is concerned with her position in Canada. Even during their latest visit to Canada she was sitting on the throne next to Charles at the opening of Parliament. Obviously they would not put any random person on the throne. Does she have any constitutional role? No, but then again even in the UK a consort has no constitutional role. The whole thing is just based on precedence, etc. Keivan.fTalk 22:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The thing is, she is queen of the United Kingdom in British common law. We have reputable sources calling her queen of the United Kingdom and reputable sources explaining how and why she is queen. The queen consort does have a constitutional role in the UK: the Regency Acts entitle her to act as a counsellor of state and as the guardian of the king should he become incapacitated. The Canadian government website may, for all we know, simply be acknowledging her British title. Is the government website calling her "The Queen Consort" quite sufficient to conclude that the Canadian government considers her queen of Canada? I would be wary of that conclusion because they list everyone by their British titles and we might arrive to the conclusion that the rest of them are all princes and princesses of Canada too. Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
I should have said "legal" precedence in my comment. And yes, a British consort may exercise certain powers if the sovereign is incapacitated. But that sovereign is also the monarch of a number of other realms; so technically if he is not of sound mind the consort would be able to act on his behalf (with the other counsellors), and that would arguably cover all his duties. And this is why the whole thing gets a little bit messy because on one hand you might think everything is just limited to the UK common law and yet we have concepts such as Canadian royal family but then there are no Canadian titles. So in short we have an acknowledgment from the Canadian government that Camilla is the queen consort (could be a reference to either her title or position as you said) and the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada Regimental Museum and Archive describing her as queen of all the Commonwealth realms. I have personally not seen any direct clues from any of the governments signaling that she's not the queen consort in any of the realms; she appears to be acknowledged as his consort in openings of parliament sessions, etc. But I'll leave it to others to provide more input. Keivan.fTalk 00:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Camilla's title was Queen Consort until the coronation. How do we know that the Canadian government has just neglected to update its website to reflect her new title? TFD (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
That is not what we are discussing. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
@Surtsicna The prime minister's office refers to her as 'The Queen', as does the [Canadian government|https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/2025-royal-visit.html]. A queen consort "is the wife of a reigning king", so it is accurate to describe her as the queen consort of all the territories in which her husband reigns. Jèrriais janne (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces:, Surtsicna is questioning whether Camilla is queen of any of the (14) aforementioned realms, outside of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)  
I've mentioned this discussion at WP:ROY & WP:BLP, to garner more input. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of that. However, their original question that began this discussion was ""Queen consort of the other Commonwealth realms" Who exactly calls her that?" [21:36, 13 October 2025] Are you saying that has now been resolved in which case we can close the discussion thread and open a new one about whether she is "Queen of the other Commonwealth realms." TFD (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
The emphasis is not on the word consort at all. Surtsicna (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, so just to clarify, no one is disputing her title here (which is The Queen). It is her position within the Commonwealth realms that is being discussed. In other words, we know she is queen consort of the United Kingdom, but is she also queen consort of Canada, queen consort of New Zealand, etc.? And we already went into the details about what some of the sources say so I'm not gonna repeat myself. Keivan.fTalk 19:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Here are some sources that may help answer the question. I have not included any that are obviously unreliable, meaning these are at least plausibly reliable but I haven't investigated beyond that.

Holland Becket "The spouse and family of the monarch do not enjoy special legal status in New Zealand, or titles in their own right. Technically, Camilla is not the Queen Consort of New Zealand. As a matter of etiquette however, she will be referred to as such."
BBC News (2014) When William, Catherine and baby George disembark, first in Wellington and later in Sydney, they will be welcomed not merely as the "super-celebrities" they undoubtedly are, but as prospective kings and as a future queen consort of New Zealand and Australia.
Governor-General of New Zealand The Queen Consort (then Duchess of Cornwall) accompanied [King Charles] on his visits in 2012, 2015 and 2019.
New Zealand Herald (2022) King Charles III and Queen Consort Camilla could visit New Zealand early next year [...]
Vogue Australia Kicking off on October 18, official duties began the second the King and the queen consort hit the tarmac at Sydney Airport
I was unable to find anything reliable explicitly and unambiguously describing her as Queen Consort of the Bahamas. I've run out of time to look regarding other realms. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Women assume the feminine version of their husband's title on the assumption that the legal personality of women is merged with that of their husbands upon marriage. Hence when Jane Doe marries Richard Roe she becomes "Mrs. Richard Roe." Therefore, it's confusing to say that she is queen consort of the UK and the Commonwealth realms. Where her husband is king, she is recognized as his consort. But does it make sense to call her queen or queen consort of the UK or any other place? TFD (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
We're getting two discussons at the same time here. @Surtsicna: wants proof that Camilla is also queen (consort) of Canada, New Zeland, Australia, etc. 
Meanwhile @The Four Deuces: wants to talk about whether or not she should be called queen or queen consort. Let's handle one topic at a time, please. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I just addressed the issue of whether "it makes sense to call her queen or queen consort of the UK or any other place?" [ 16:39, 18 October 2025] Please note that I am not asking whether she should be called queen or whether she should be called queen consort but whether she should be called either one. Hopefully that clears up the questions and we can address whether she is also "queen (consort) [whether one calls her queen or queen consort] of her [other realms]."
We could also be confusing what "of" means. William is a prince of Wales, while Harry is a prince of the UK. "Of Wales" means (at least historically), that he was the sovereign of Wales, while "of the UK" means that his title was bestowed by the king of the UK. TFD (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Not queen consort of the other Commonwealth realms - After glancing at this briefly; I don't really know (or really care) about the legality of this issue, but I agree with User:Surtsicna that there don't appear to be sources who call her this. We ought not to either. Out of curiousity, would anyone object to me just being WP:BOLD and removing it? NickCT (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp148149/camilla-queen-consort this source does. ItsShandog (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Hmmmm..... some of that language in that source looks like it was copy/pasted from Wikipedia. Are you sure it's not WP:CITOGENESIS? NickCT (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I object to removing it. The Canadian government refers to her as the Queen Consort, and more usually simply the Queen, in contexts where they are clearly referring to their Canadian roles. If there are suggestions to better reflect the sources, I would be open to that, but removing any mention of a relationship with Canada simply because the exact phrase "Queen Consort of Canada" isn't used would misrepresent the sources.--Trystan (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
If you're going to say something like "The Canadian government referes to her as the Queen Consort", could you provide a reference? NickCT (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
As in the UK, she was referred to as the Queen Consort prior to the coronation to distinguish her from the late Queen, and is more typically just referred to as the Queen. There are still some references to her as Queen Consort[1], but more to her simply as Queen.[2][3][4]--Trystan (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I should have been more clear. Do you have a Canadian goverment source that refers to her as the "Queen Consort of Canada"? There are US government sources that refer to Charles simply as "the King". Obviously he's not "King of the US". NickCT (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I guess the heritage source does call her a "Canadian Royal", which sorta infers that she must be Queen of Canada.
I guess sources sorta exist that support the claim that shes queen of "others", but we may be missing the WP:DUE element of this conversation. If we're having to go to super obscure sources to support the claim, while lots more, better sources, refer to her simply as Queen of England or UK or whatever, isn't including the claim simply undue? NickCT (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I can't quickly find a Canadian government source that explicitly says "Queen [Consort] of Canada" (though there are plenty that call her "Queen" in an official Canadian context). However, here's a UK gov one: The royal visit in May 2025 will be the King's 20th visit to Canada and the Queen's fifth, but their first as King and Queen of Canada.[5]. There are also plenty of reliable news sources calling her "Queen of Canada", e.g. [6] [7] [8]. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
There’s nothing wrong with the current wording. King Charles is king of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, and Camilla is his consort. By virtue of marriage and coronation, it’s common sense — and constitutional convention — that she is queen or queen consort of those realms too. We don’t need separate sources for each realm to confirm what is already established. Queen Mary’s page refers to her as queen of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions — the same logic applies here. If we start changing this, are we supposed to revise and remove references to the Commonwealth realms and Dominions from every royal consort page? The National Portrait Gallery already refers to Camilla as Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms — and that link has already been provided. ItsShandog (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@NickCT: Camilla is the Queen Consort of Charles III, who is King of Canada. She has official Canadian portraits as Her Majesty the Queen, and sat before Parliament on the Consort's Throne. It is an entirely different situation than the US government referring to the King by his title.
I don't think there is a DUE issue; there are plenty of sources that refer to her as the Queen in a context where the Monarchy of Canada is evident. If we are looking for very specific set wording, it is not unusual to find it only in a few places. I don't think the official Canadian royal portrait is an obscure source for this sort of question.
But how about the wording Camilla (born Camilla Rosemary Shand, later Parker Bowles, 17 July 1947) is Queen of the United Kingdom. She is the queen consort of King Charles III, monarch of the 15 Commonwealth realms.?--Trystan (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I think I prefer the wording ItsShandog offers to the current wording. It emphasizes her role as Queen of the United Kingdom, which is what most references refer to her as. Since most references point to her in that role it's DUE that we emphasize that role. NickCT (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
It was someone else who referenced it to be that wording, I think it should stay as it is.  ItsShandog (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me; I missed signing.--Trystan (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the existing wording is fine, while the proposed change is unnecessary and overly pedantic. Insisting on citations for the fact that the wife of the king is queen consort in each realm is pretty close to WP:SKYISBLUE territory; that's the very definition of a queen consort. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I think there is confusion between title and office. Charles is king of each of the Commonwealth realm and has a different title in each of them. His wife is then called "Queen" in each of these realms. But Queen is put before her Christian name, Camilla. Hence her title by custom in each realm is "Queen Camilla." She has however no constitutional role in Canada. But then she is also called Queen Camilla in countries where her husband is not king. TFD (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
She has no constitutional role in Canada, but she does have a ceremonial role that is distinct from "visiting foreign dignitary" (as evidenced by having an official Canadian royal portrait and sitting on the Consort's Throne in Parliament). Similarly, I'm not aware of any legal status for the viceregal consort of Canada, but the role still exists.--Trystan (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The Canadian government refers to her as Queen Camilla.[9] It is OR to say that makes her Queen of Canada. TFD (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Canada's protocol guidelines say the king is address as "His Majesty King Charles III, King of Canada," while the queen is addressed "Her Majesty The Queen Consort."[10] (I imagine it has not been updated since "Consort" was dropped.) So she isn't referred to as Queen of Canada. TFD (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I think there's some confusion as to what the quesiton is here. I don't care (and I don't think User:Surtsicna cared) what her title or office is. I only care what RS's refer to her as. The foundation of WP:N and WP:DUE is that we reflect the viewpoints and wordings in sources based on the relative prominence of those viewpoints and wordings. Many people/sources call her Queen (or Queen consort or whatever) of the United Kingdom. Few people/sources call her Queen of other places. The way the wording is now, we unduely give equal weight to those two roles. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Where are the rs that say she is Queen of the UK? Does it make sense to say that the consort of the king of the UK is the queen of the UK? TFD (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't really have a strong opinion on that topic. I guess I'd note that if you search engine test it "Queen of the United Kingdom" seems ~4X more common than "Queen consort of the United Kingdom". NickCT (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry if I was not clear so I shall rephrase my questions. Where are the rs that say she is Queen of the UK [or Queen Consort of the UK]? Does it make sense to say that the consort of the king of the UK is the queen of the UK [or the queen consort of the UK]? TFD (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
People calls her "Queen Consort of the UK". Vanity Fair calls her "Queen of the UK". There seem to soures for both. NickCT (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)