This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles
See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:
Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report7 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Latest comment: 1 month ago24 comments6 people in discussion
Recently, I have been studying the Royal Standards of the United Kingdom and noticed that there has been no publicly used Standard of The Queen with the impaling of her father's arms. DrKay began reverting my edits citing that there was no verifiable source for the use of the ermine variant. Following that, I put on his talk page the following images: [1], [2], [3]. I also told him that I noticed that The Queen used the ermine variant on the state car she arrived in at Constantine II's Service of Thanksgiving. Needless to say, a small edit war insued. I then emailed the College of Arms yesterday, late at night, via their online form. I received a reply this afternoon (an image is provided; image is allowed on Wikipedia as it contains plain text and an image already having a Creative Commons license).
I reverted DrKay's revert and cited the email. DrKay reverted my revert of his revert, saying that private correspondence is not a verifiable source for Wikipedia. I reverted his revert of my revert of his revert, citing the WP:IGNORE policy. However, I must clarify something from a perspective of a person that is quite an expert. This tweet shows the version of Camilla's standard as a Lady of the Thistle. I must say that for consistency, it is more technical to use the ermine variant. It is my speculation, after hearing that her official standard is the ermine variant and that there may be one in the future means that they are probably currently trying to literally make the standards with her father's arms. The banner used for her being Lady of the Thistle might be an independently-made banner not released by the College of Arms. But as of today, her official Standard is the Standard with ermine. Just remember, there is no reason to not include a banner on her wikipedia page.. There is already an official variant. And there's also no reason to use the banner with her father's arms, as it has been verified by the Bluemantle Pursuivant that she uses the ermine standard. So... What does everyone think?
@SKINNYSODAQUEEN Please carefully read WP:VERIFIABILITY, which states Unpublished materials are not considered reliable.. A private communication between you and another person, no matter there standing in a matter, is never considered reliable. VERIFIABILITY is one of if not the single most important policy we have here, and you simply can't WP:IGNORE your way out of it. estar8806 (talk) ★01:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:TRUE goes into this aspect too. No matter how certain you are that something is true, it must be verifiable. You have shown evidence of a private communication, sure, but nobody can verify the information in it, or even verify that it is genuine. And, while it is moot given the above, I note that your correspondent qualifies his response, stating that this is his understanding rather than presenting it as a definitive fact. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
UPDATE: I was interested in the nature of The Queen's stall plate as a Lady of The Thistle, and I emailed the Bluemantle Pursuviant and received a reply about an hour ago, to which he replied (line break indicated by []): Dear Ms Whittemore [] The stall plates for the Order of the Thistle do not come under the jurisdiction of Garter King of Arms or the College of Arms. They would come under the jurisdiction of Lord Lyon King of Arms. I suggest you contact the Court of Lord Lyon (link below) or Mrs Elizabeth Roads, Secretary of the Order of the Thistle. [] index (courtofthelordlyon.scot) [] Yours sincerely [] James Peill. An email has been sent to the Court of Lord Lyon. I thank you for your comments and it has come to me that the best possible thing to do at this moment is to not include a Standard on her Wikipedia page, for now. Thank you, SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Regardless of of the comments here, I added a correct source of a Youtube video uploaded by The Royal Family Channel which is unedited and a trusted source, and it verifies the visual appearance of The Queen's Standard and appears to be the Royal Arms surrounded by ermine. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SKINNYSODAQUEEN See WP:YOUTUBE and WP:RSPYT. In a nutshell, a YouTube video is only a reliable source if it comes from either a well-known news or television program (such as the BBC, CNN, or the Associated Press), or from an official channel (of a publisher) (ie. if it came from the Royal Family's official channel). Unfortunately the source you provided does not meet either of those criteria and is not reliable source, so the edit still fails WP:VERIFIABILITY. estar8806 (talk) ★01:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
But it's there visually, and I even found another video here, which displays her Standard (in England at least).. As the ermine variant. I don't think it really needs to besaid when you can see it. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, it mentions the general standard that lackeys use when they don't have another one they can use. I still don't see its Wikipedia:Relevance. We don't stick this information on Diana, Princess of Wales's article, even though the same standard was used for her and the situation nearly identical. This article is a biography of one person not an article about general royal minutiae. I can see the point in showing her personal arms but not a barely significant small decorative icon of another arms that is too small to be seen clearly anyway. DrKay (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
But the inclusion and clarification of a Standard is with nearly all consorts. Even Philip, Duke of Edinburgh received a page for his Standard (of which I have now requested deletion of). The inclusion of a Standard was there since her becoming Queen... But suddenly, when it is fact-checked, it is removed seemingly just because it is "too small" to even be noticed by anyone. You cannot blame me for the inclusion of her standard. If you need someone to blame in including a standard without a proper source, you can blame Nford24 for this edit. All I did in this circumstance is add a correct source and revised the page, as I would expect anyone who has the mind of even the most simple of Wikipedia's principles to do so. I thank you for your help in keeping with the protection of the rules and guidelines, but now that a correct source and the subject of her Standard has been mentioned, I ask we keep it. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I said, it's not her standard. It is a general one. Philip had a personal standard and didn't use the general one, as far as I know. DrKay (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Philip had a personal standard. Heraldically, I understand the viewpoint that Camilla would use a banner of her arms. However, nearly every modern consort's subject page has included her Standard. While Camilla doesn't have a "standard", she does use the general banner for members who do not have their own Standard. I think it is better to list that she uses that as her banner rather than not put one or have the wrong one put there. We could include the Scottish variant, however, as that uses her Arms.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that I emailed the Court of Lord Lyon. James Peill, Bluemantle, suggested I speak to the Secretary of the Order of the Thistle, and I emailed. They sent me the same image used on the tweet with her Standard above her stall plate... So we could use her Scottish variant, but I feel like that would be odd as most people would be interested in the one she uses the most. I feel like the ermine standard is a good placeholder for a banner of arms. After all I could just add in notes.. "Queen Camilla doesn't have a personal Standard." and cite the same Twitter source I added a bit ago. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You don't have a source for the contention "Queen Camilla doesn't have a personal Standard." The tweet that you added states explicitly "yet Camilla does .." [have her own standard]. That's the opposite of what you're saying, which also contradicts the Thistle banner. DrKay (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, I do have a source that the banner being used for Queen Camilla is the ermine variant of the Royal Standard... Can we just agree to keep it...
Someone had a false fact on the page for two years, unsourced.
I fixed it and suddenly it should be removed? Please explain why, even though it was unsourced, you didn't want to remove her standard even before my corrective edits? SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I already have. I'm not going to play the game where you pretend you didn't read my argument about relevance, keeping details of personal arms but not general royal minutiae, and force me to endlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over again at this page, and my talk page, and your talk page, and the dispute resolution board. I don't have to respond to your endless and unceasing WP:BLUDGEONing. So I won't. Congratulations on your success in having the last word. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
But let us not forget that I am not the one accusing people of harassment after one edit revert. Let us not forget that you refused to answer the question of not reverting the wrong edit before I even walked in here. Let's not forget that you have also made mistakes. Harassment? No. Truth? Yes. Be silent all you want, but don't be shy to tell why. I suggest taking that smug look off your face before you talk to me again. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've been following the topic of Her Majesty's arms for some time. I wrote this blog post on it back in March, followed by this one in July.
I would also recommend reading this short Twitter thread: The photographs at the bottom (unsourced, likely amateur) clearly show Camilla's Audi with a banner of her impaled arms (though quite why she'd use her banner of arms as British consort when acting in her capacity as Queen of Australia is anyone's guess). The top of the thread shows a Getty photograph by Brook Mitchell. Allegedly you can see the banner of arms, but unfortunately the watermark obscures the image at just the right spot. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
At 00m37s in this video by "The Royal Family Channel" (ITN) you can get a better look at her flag. It's a moving target some metres from the camera so I can't say for certain, but the art style looks like it might actually be the version that Fry1989 made for the Commons. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2024
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments5 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This is incorrect. The Queen was referred to as Her Majesty The Queen Consort following Elizabeth II's death so that there was no confusion between Elizabeth II (Her Majesty The Queen) and the new queen, Camilla. On Charles III and Camilla's coronation day, her title was altered to the traditional form Her Majesty The Queen. She is not Queen Camilla, she is not Queen Consort Camilla, and she is certainly not The Queen's Consort. She is simply Her Majesty The Queen or The Queen. While she is the consort of Charles III, she is not addressed as such. All other wives of reigning Kings have also taken on the title of Her Majesty The Queen. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The notion of even thinking of changing a consistent title throughout history is controversial, especially on a site that strives to be as accurate as possible. Her page name used to be Camilla, Queen Consort, until the Coronation, but she was never "Queen Consort Camilla".. She wasn't addressed as Camilla before she was Queen either. When The King was The Prince of Wales, she was titled Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall.. Not Duchess Camilla or Princess Camilla (but she did assume the title Princess Charles of the United Kingdom upon her marriage).. I hope you understand this now. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
but she did assume the title Princess Charles of the United Kingdom. While I agree with the rest of your points I think this part is not backed by a source. Keivan.fTalk21:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This old argument is getting incredibly tiresome now. A kings consort is addressed as queen, with consort indicating the type of queen she is. Someones personal popularity has no bearing on this. I formally request the moderators permanently ban anyone who brings up this topic any further. 92.29.195.203 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not done I see nothing wrong with 'born'. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)_2024.jpg)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the