Talk:Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4

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)

Contents 1 Royalty? 2 Partner or mistress? 3 Inappropriate References 4 Rosemary 4.1 Title Princess of Wales 5 Order of Precedence 6 Intro paragraph... again... 7 HRH 8 "Princess of Wales!!" 9 Picture naming 10 Princess of Wales list 11 Proposed move 12 maiden names for deceased consorts 13 the funniest comparison i've ever heard 14 Member of the Royal Family 15 Sinister vs. Dexter 16 Style 17 Cleanup 18 Edits by 65.77.169.190 19 A number of fair use images with shaky fair use claims 20 Christened Camilla Rosemary Shand? 21 Page title wrong?

[edit] Royalty?

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

[edit] 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)

• 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)

[edit] Inappropriate References

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [1]

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 [2]

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 — 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: [3] (The Right Honourable Mary, Baroness Soames); [4] (the Right Honourable Margaret, Baroness Strickland of Sizergh); [5] (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)

[edit] 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. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)}

I removed the style to bring the article in line with the consensu in Wikipedia: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)

[edit] "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

• • 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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\^(caint) 13:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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\^(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. Prsgoddess187 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.

[edit] the funniest comparison i've ever heard

The late comedienne Linda Smith once remarked that she like to think of Prince Charles & Camilla as Rod Hull & Emu! [6] Veej 07:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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\^(caint) 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 // DBD 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)