Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 2

message: After the wedding this page should be moved to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.  While technically it's the style of a divorced peeress it's the simplest way to combine her name and title.  It should not be moved to Camilla, Princess of Wales.  Even though she will legally become Princess of Wales (unless the Queen issues letters-patent stating otherwist) she won't use that title and won't be know by it.  Even the Court Circular will list her as the Duchess of Cornwall.  For a similiar situation see Lady Louise Windsor who is technically HRH Princess Louise of Wessex.  (Alphaboi867 04:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's so important to get Camilla's title right shouldn't the article's title be changed   from "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" which is clearly wrong and inappropriate since it reflects the title of a divorced peeress (like Sarah, Duchess of York)?  What about simply "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall," which is how she is refered to at the offical website of the British royal family http://www.royal.gov.uk. Of course the artcile could be redirected from Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla Parker Bowles, Camilla Shand and any other name someone might use to look the subject up.     
I agree -- to a point. But isn't Wiki convention (not always followed, obviously) to have entries labeled with birth name? I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum but if Wiki is to have a stated rule about this, we should stick to it. So what will it be? "Camilla Shand" or "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall"? Or something else altogether. Who is the final arbiter about this? BTW, would it not be easier for the entry's title to utilize the name by which she/he is most famously known, ie the one most of the world knows? Again, there must be an arbiter on this. Mowens35 10:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Convention is that articles on peers and peeresses include the title of nobility in question. Thus, the article will be at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. -- Emsworth 11:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: She is, and it's right that we refer to that. However, everyone is calling her the Duchess of Cornwall, and she has asked to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall. It's not for Wikipedia to go out on a limb on this one - we should use the style Duchess of Cornwall for the article title, and throughout the article (although it is proper, of course, to refer to her technically being the Princess of Wales too), jguk 12:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with "Duchess of Cornwall" being used in the article title, and in the introduction. However, since she is (as you admit) legally Princess of Wales, I see no problem in putting such a title in bold. -- Emsworth 12:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Andy, you are correct, and I wish more people would understand this. I have worked for years at newspapers and magazines which often get royal and aristocratic titles wrong and who disbelieve my advice, even when I crack open a copy of Burke's Peerage and show writers the errors of their ways. I am forever arguing in favor of strictest accuracy -- something for all of us to remember since we're putting together an encyclopaedia, which is all about accuracy and information properly delivered. And since so few people understand the terminology and use of titles, but blithely and happily use them like something out of a fairy tale, it is important that Wiki get it right, even if others get it wrong. Mowens35 16:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall 

message: If this article is to be headed Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, as it should, then why is the late Queen Mother's article headed Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and not Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother? Adam 15:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency

message: I have serious doubts about the wisdom of using styles up front rather than contextualising them in articles (many people internationally in places where styles are never ever used don't understand that calling a pope 'His Holiness' is not expressing an opinion but using a style, for example). But it is really going overboard when an article is filled with paragraphs starting Her Royal Highness was . . .  etc. This is an encyclopaedia, not a pro-monarchist publication (or anti-monarchist for that matter). I've removed the ridiculous HRH stuff at the start of paragraphs and replaced it with "The Duchess of Cornwall . . . ". Come on, folks. Don't make wikipedia look ridiculous with over-use of styles. It is one thing to start an article with one, but even Charles and Camilla would find the use of styles in this article sychophantic and embarrassing. This isn't the Court Circular! FearÉIREANN 00:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the's no need to constantly use HRH every time you mention her.  Camilla or the Duchess of Cornwall will do. (Alphaboi867 00:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this is absurd.  We should not use HRH to refer to her. john k 03:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that recommended protocol (the Palace doesn't insist on any set protocol) on talking to a member of the Royal Family is to refer to them by HRH once only when first referring to them and then Sir/Ma'm in the first person (or in this example Duchess to refer to her in third person) surely this suggestion does not only read better, but is actually quite correct.--Ayrshire--77 13:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Styles going overboard

message: Will people who have no concept of how royal/aristocratic titles are used PLEASE stop making unnecessary and incorrect "corrections." The Duchess of Cornwall, though married to a Prince, is not a Princess, ie Princess Camilla. The former Princess of Wales, Diana, was aware of this and often corrected people who called her or referred to her as Princess Diana. She was technically the Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, as is Camilla now, technically. This is not unlike, in the United States or elsewhere, of a woman being Mrs. John Smith. If people have any questions regarding this, please check the nearest Burke's Peerage, Debrett's, or Almanach de Gotha. Or better, yet, make a call to the British embassy or consulate near you. Sarah Ferguson became "HRH the Princess Andrew, Duchess of York," et cetera. This is correct usage. It may seem illogical to some people but it is correct usage, so please STOP fiddling with the text.
:No, she is a princess.  She is not Princess Camilla. john k 17:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fully aware she is Princess Charles, just not Princess Camilla, as my postings have made perfectly clear and continual editing/counterediting make clear. End of subject. Mowens35 17:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  She is NOT Princess Camilla 

message: "Wales has said that "it is intended" that the Duchess of Cornwall will be known as the Princess Consort if he becomes King."
In this sentence, is Wales a person or a governing body? please make it more clear in the article. Kingturtle 00:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification needed