Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 1

message: And references to "Parker Bowles" always refer to Mr Parker Bowles. The misuse gives an unintentional "gay" subtext, that's humorous but distracting. Affectations of familiarity do need to be correct. "Camilla" would do, if "Mrs Parker Bowles" just won't.  ...I inserted a reference to Thomas Cubitt, who is not utterly unknown... Wetman 01:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Parker Bowles is not Parker-Bowles, then?

message: Her title will be HRH the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland.  In order for her not to become Princess of Wales doesn't the Queen need to issue new Letters Patent?  And isn't an Act of Parliament needed to prevent her from becoming Queen-consort.
:An Act of Parliament would be needed for both. (Well, there's a slight chance that she could be styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall with Letters Patent, but an Act of Parliament would definitely be needed to stop her actually being HRH The Princess of Wales.) As to her style in Scotland, I'm not sure what it would be even without all this nonsense Clarence House is putting out. The Prince of Wales, of course, is HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, but HRH The Princess Charles, Duchess of Rothesay seems unlikely. Anyway, he's only really styled that because it was the style of the heir to the Throne of Scotland, and as the Princess of Wales (which she will be, short of Tony Blair taking Parliamentary time to pass a law to say otherwise) will not be heir to the Throne of Scotland normal rules should really apply (the Duke of York, for instance, isn't called "HRH The Earl of Inverness" in Scotland). Proteus (Talk) 18:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unopposed Acts of Parliament don't take very long at all though (and I can't imagine this would be opposed in any significant way). It would surely just be a one-line Bill (something like "On her marriage to Prince Charles, Camilla Parker Bowles can not take the title 'Princess of Wales', or Queen Consort on his ascent to the throne), and they then have the Second Reading, no speakers beyond the actual reading, Speaker calls for a (verbal) vote, which takes less than a minute (they literally just shout "Aye" or "Nay" when prompted) the Ayes Have It, go to the Lords, same again (except it would be Contents and Non-Contents, not Ayes or Nays), and once more for the Third Reading, run round to Buckingham Palace, it could be an Act in three or four hours, taking up less than an hour total of Parliamentary time. -- SoM 19:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing's really weird, but I've got a feeling that Camilla's title is just a question of what Buckingham Palace decides.  I think the act of Parliament, if it had been needed at all, would have been needed to allow them to marry, not to decide which title she takes. They seem to be considering legislation purely for reasons to do with the Civil List. Deb 23:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The Prince of Wales's previous wife was known as the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland (I could hardly imagine using awkward forms such as "Their Royal Highnesses The Duke of Rothesay and The Princess of Wales"), so I presume that the same would apply to Parker Bowles. -- Emsworth 23:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not about being in the line of succession. It's about being the heir to the throne and about being the future head of the Church of England. Deb 15:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland & legal matters 

message: After the 8th of April, what would the title of the article be? "Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall" seems ridiculously obscure, while "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" suggests that she has divorced her royal husband. "Camilla Parker Bowles" would, similarly, be incorrect, as she would no longer have the surname Parker Bowles. -- Emsworth 19:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. We have Sophie, Countess of Wessex as a precedent. (And thanks to our helpful Royalty intro format, we can quite happily write "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales (Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor, née Shand, formerly Parker Bowles) (born 17 July 1947), styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, is..." :-) ) Proteus (Talk) 20:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just hope Charles never ascends the throne, otherwise we'll have to have that debate again.  Precedent dictates that she will have to go back to either "Camilla Parker Bowles" or "Camilla Shand" once she becomes a consort. Deb 15:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) would seem to suggest that, as an existing Queen Consort, she should switch to Camilla of the United Kingdom, only going back to Camilla Parker Bowles after her death. Proteus (Talk) 16:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Camilla, Princess Consort would be more in line with her wishes - and consistent with Anne, Princess Royal. However, God willing, the Queen will continue to enjoy good health, so that this question does not arise for real for many years, jguk 18:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Since Diana was "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales" during her marriage, I fail to see what you're getting at here. Proteus (Talk) 08:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: Will people please stop moving this page to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and refering to her as Her Royal Highness in the opening paragraph!  She isn't married yet.  Untill April 8 she's just plain Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles.  While it's true that barring some catastrophe she will marry, Wikipedia doesn't predict the future.  Either Charles or her could die before the wedding, preventing her from ever holding the title.  And she should not be list on the Royal familly template either.  (Alphaboi867 05:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jumping the gun! 

message: Re the future titles entry ... The inclusion of these seems unnecessarily speculative, so I have removed this section. It also was uninformed. For one example, though Camilla will become after her marriage, technically and correctly, HRH The Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall, she will not be "Princess Camilla," unless she is granted that distinction (see entries re Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent). Even Diana, Princess of Wales's entry notes that she objected to being called "Princess Diana," because technically she was not that. It was a casual convention used by the public and the media. Mowens35 13:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Titles 

message: The new signature of the Queen Consort has been released, "Camilla R". A picture of it is on the daily mail site, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11344693/King-sends-telegrams-reign-people-celebrating-100th-birthdays.html Jjfun3695 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Signature