text:
Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 3

Vote
Should the article's lead sentence include the term "Princess Charles, Princess of Wales"? Please consider the debate at Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall/archive2 before voting.

Yes
 * 1) Emsworth 19:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (or just "HRH The Princess of Wales")
 * ALoan (Talk) 20:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (I doubt that Princess Michael of Kent will be changing her name to fit the new rules that people seem to be espousing) Far be it from me to resist the weighty evidence below.
 * 1) john k 20:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (moderately - it seems to me that this is her official full name, even if it is not ever used. But various other options would also be acceptable.)
 * 2) Princess Charles yes, Princess of Wales no. See Lady Louise Windsor. (Alphaboi867 20:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))
 * 3) With hesitation. POW has to be used. I would perfer however to use it in a second paragraph in bold, like Lady Louise Windsor. I am seriously doubtful about "Princess Charles" though. When I mentioned it to someone in Clarence House as a title he burst out laughing. I've asked him to check it out. So my vote on Princess Charles is a deeply hesitant 'maybe'.  Fear ÉIREANN  21:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as we follow it with "styled as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall"AndyL 21:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes; if she is legally and technically the Princess of Wales, whatever style she prefers, it should be in the intro sentence or at least in the first paragraph in some manner, for the sake of clarity and accuracy. As for the laughter at Clarence House re "Princess Charles," not everybody everywhere knows the proper protocol or how titles have been traditionally used in the Royal Family. Perhaps it would surprise him to know that the Queen Mother was Princess Albert, Duchess of York, when she married. Most people seem to be, even when the evidence is placed before them, even to the point of refusing to believe it and calling it a mistake. (I'm curious as to why they're so positive. Any ideas? I mean, nobody laughs when Princess Michael of Kent is called Princess Michael.) Mowens35 22:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Their understanding, and that in the Palace when I talked about this some time ago for something I was researching, is that the form Princess [husband's name] is only used where the husband has no peerage. Buckingham Palace said categorically that Princess Albert was 100% wrong. It would only have been right if her husband was still Prince Albert, not the Duke of York when they married. As Charles is a peer (and has been since 1952) they said Princess Charles is ridiculous, non-existent and frankly laughable. The person I spoke to checked with others and came back with the same response -'no'. He is however going to check with one of the most senior figures, and will get back to me. But as he said "HRH will be amused". (He didn't say which HRH!!!) Fear ÉIREANN  23:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If Fear's contact can be trusted, then I say we can go with his/her advice on this and would be happy to go through all Wiki entries to ensure that the correct style is used elsewhere. Mowens35 16:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * He has an agenda of his own,I think,being sympathetic to modernist interpretations.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you accusing James, one of our longest-serving and best contributors, of "having an agenda"? James F. (talk) 20:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Jtdirl's user page,which you linked to,clearly shows where he's coming from politically.He doesn't come from the same angle as a traditionalist by any means!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's certainly never used for husbands with peerages. Whether it's proper to actually have it, I don't really know. john k 00:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * if it's "never used," as you state, then why has Debret's and other registers of nobiliary enrollment used statements such as "HRH the Princess Albert, Duchess of York" in period volumes pertaining to the Queen Mother in her early newlywed days. Even the Court Circular called her that in its day. Surely somebody back then had it right. Mowens35 20:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am rather dubious that the Court Circular did not call her simply "HRH The Duchess of York" or "TRH The Duke and Duchess of York," unless you can present an actual example. john k 18:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. James F. (talk) 15:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. Gabbe 19:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should state that it is her correct title but also pointing out that she wants to be called the Duchess of Cornwall. Dabbler 20:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) It turns out Princess Charles is not part of her correct title under any circumstances. Dabbler 19:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, as above. SlimVirgin (talk)  08:10, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. There are so many pages in which wives of royal peers are called "HRH Princess ______, Duchess of _________". For example: Diana, Princess of Wales is said to have been "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales"; Sophie, Countess of Wessex is said to be "HRH The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex"; Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester is said to be "HRH Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester"; Katharine Worsley is said to have been "HRH Princess Edward, Duchess of Gloucester"; Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent is said to have been "HRH The Princess George, Duchess of Kent" before her widowhood. So, I'd just like to ask... why are we having all these examples and setting Camilla apart, saying she isn't Princess Charles? It makes no sense. Matjlav 01:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. – ugen64 00:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales (Camilla ...) (born X), styled HRH The Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall elsewhere, etc. Proteus (Talk) 07:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No
 * 1) "Emsworth" invited me to comment.As I see it,the "Princess Charles" is a "buried" title...it is in her most formal and complete style,just as every British Duke is "Most High,Potent,and Noble Prince",but this is always abbreviated to "Most Noble".In any context in which one is not calling her husband Earl of Chester and Carrick and so forth,one would not call her Princess Charles.My main beef with the article's presentation is the use of "Mountbatten-Windsor" rather than Windsor,as I hold to the interpretation of the 1960 Order-in-Council that seems out of vogue,namely that this surname attaches itself only to those who are NOT HRH by right,and serves the specific purpose of identifying those persons.I know Clarence House staff are infected with modernism,but they are therefore mistaken.Note that the marriage register of the Prince of Wales and Diana (nee Spencer) did NOT (and should not) use a surname for him.I don't know about the second marriage,but it shouldn't have either.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Buckingham Palace and Clarence House are unambiguous in stating that the POW's surname is most definitely not Windsor but is Mountbatten-Windsor. That is their legal advice and has been the consistent legal advice they have received. You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. But if the Palace, CH, the Lord Chancellor and successive Attorneys-General say you are wrong then, as far as I am concerned, you are wrong. And wikipedia cannot decide to ignore all the legal heavyweights saying you are wrong just because you disagree with them. Fear ÉIREANN  02:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A copy of the marriage certificate was printed in the Daily Express, it had the Prince's name as His Royal Highness The Prince Charles (& his other middle names), with surname as PRINCE OF WALES. Camilla was Camilla Francis PARKER BOWLES. Therefore his surname is Prince of Wales then? Astrotrain 15:11, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Prince of Wales DOES NOT HAVE A SURNAME,and now both of his marriage documents have reflected this fact.He,his advisers,and especially the current Government subscribe to a school of political thought,hostile to traditional monarchism,that wishes he had a surname,and thus encourage interpretations to that effect,heedless of the offense this offers orthodox monarchists.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Not any more than it should give preference to "High Stewardess of Scotland" or any other of her titles. Clarence House and Buckingham Palace have stressed that her preferred title is Duchess of Cornwall, NOT Princess of Wales.  If their assertion that her preferred title is Duchess and that is how she will be referred to by all Royal publications and the media, then that should be the title under which she is listed.  The vast majority of people on the street in the UK, nevermind anywhere else, will never have heard the title "Princess Charles, Princess of Wales" and, at best, will associate Diana as Princess of Wales.--Ayrshire--77 07:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I think we risk ridicule if it is. I suggest starting with "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (born" etc., and then in the second sentence note that her formal title is Princess Charles, Princess of Wales but that she has chosen not to use it. Dbiv 08:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) She is not called Princess Charles, Princess of Wales by anyone. She is only legally entitled to the title Princess of Wales, not legally obliged to use it. Astrotrain 08:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Astrotrain, I am curious as to why you insist that such an authority as Debrett's, the standard reference book about nobility and royalty in the United Kingdom, is incorrect re its advice to me re the use of Princess HIS FIRST NAME. What do you know that they do not? Or are you just being contrary? Mowens35 16:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * We need to go by the common name for the person, regardless of what some dusty old book has to say on the matter. Camilla is now known as the Duchess of Cornwall. That is how she wishes to be represented, and that is how everyone (ie the media, people she knows, the royals) addresses her. She may be entitled to the title Princess of Wales by her marriage, however she does not use that title. There is no definable law in the UK that says she is Princess of Wales, it is only by tradition that she has this entitlement. In the UK, we may call ourselves whatever we like. Astrotrain 17:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * You may indeed call yourself whatever you like (though I think a judge might disagree, given the circumstances) but that doesn't make it accurate or correct, does it? As for that "dusty old book," Debrett's is the standard reference material on this kind of matter, so I believe what it believes/states supercedes whatever you might have to say in the matter. It is the acknowledged expert; you are not. Mowens35 20:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) It should not be simply Princess Charles, Princess of Wales as she has clearly expressed that she does not want to be called Princess of Wales. I would sugest we use Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Charles, Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall Qazsedc 23:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But though "Duchess of Cornwall" is the preferred-to-use reference,the use of "Princess Charles" is appropriate only in the context of references that do NOT leave anything out.Princess Charles,Duchess of Cornwall is mixing fish and fowl;she is Duchess of Cornwall for daily use,and The Princess Charles,Princess of Wales,Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay,Countess of Chester and Carrick,and so on and so forth,in the most formal of documents.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we do have to have and actual name in there somewhere, like we do for the Countess of Wessex and the Duchess of Gloucester. She's not actually "Princess Camilla", she's "Princess Charles." Perhaps Princess Charles, Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay would be best. That way we include her name and the titles she uses, without cluttering it up with myrad subsidiary titles. Qazsedc 01:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Absolutely not. So far no reliable source has been cited to show that she is actually called this in real life. Without such a source - we just look silly. Wikipedia should not stand alone on this. Please provide a reliable source! jguk 16:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Crossing the floor. ALoan (Talk) 20:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Entirely neutral, you fight it out among yourselves

Isn't it a wheeze that she's Princess Charles but would be Queen Camilla?Grace Note 05:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reading the above debate, and having been a fan of Star Trek for much of my life, I am beginning to understand why some people look at my fellow fans' fanaticism and feel the urge to tell them to get a life. WCityMike 18:14, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Some comparisons...
In terms of "Princess Charles," it should be noted that, at present, we have

Article: Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, First name used: "Her Royal Highness Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester"

Article: Katharine, Duchess of Kent, First name used: "Her Royal Highness Princess Edward, Duchess of Kent"

Article: Sophie, Countess of Wessex, First name used: "Her Royal Highness The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex"

In terms of the "Princess Husband'sname" issue, we should come up with a common policy here. I would be highly amenable to not giving the "Princess Husbandsname" version at all for any of them. But we need to be all or nothing.

Re: Princess of Wales, it seems to me that we often give as the first name a name which the person did not actually go by. On the other hand, we have:

Article: Lady Louise Windsor, First name used: "Lady Louise Windsor"

john k 15:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I always thought that the policy was "HRH The Princess Husbandsname" if husband is still alive, "HRH Princess Husbandsname" if widowed. So, yes, two of those articles need fixing, if we still follow that policy.
 * Note, however, the LLW was changed to the semi-standard of giving the 'correct' name first just yesterday - - but was immediately reverted by Astrotrain.
 * James F. (talk) 15:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent are neither of them "The Prince Firstname," so it stands to reason that their wives are not "The Princess Husbandsfirstname". "The Prince" only goes to sons of the monarch.  Gloucester and Kent are grandsons of the monarch.  At least, I think that's the deal. john k 16:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect; the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are the grandsons of monarchs in the male line and were born princes. Check Debrett's, et cetera. When Prince Richard of Gloucester (who became the Duke of Gloucester in 1974) married in 1972, he was a prince and he remains a prince until he renounces the title or dies. And his new wife became Princess Richard of Gloucester, in the same manner as Princess Michael of Kent. Mowens35 20:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not incorrect. I was referring to the distinction between "Prince Richard" and "The Prince Richard."  Only sons of a king get the direct article. john k 05:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What I am confused about is this: Regardless of what the ladies in question wish to be called in public or in print, if Debrett's or another register of nobiliary enrollment that is considered the standard reference book re the aristocracy and royalty states that technically, legally, and traditionally someone is known as "HRH The Princess John, Duchess of Sussex" (made up title here), why can that title not be included in said entry as being the lady's specific though little used FULL designation. Is there anything wrong with including it and explaining it succinctly? It need not be the introductory line, but if it is part of her legal, technical, and historical titular distinction, it should be part of the entry, yes? No one should be offended by that in the slightest, least of all Wiki's contributors. Mowens35 16:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Isn't the issue that the Duchess of Cornwall's full designation would be "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay, Countess of Chester and Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess and High Stewardess of Scotland"? Why is "Princess Charles" more relevant than "Baroness of Renfrew," would be the appropriate question. john k 16:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it's the senior of those titles, so would be used first; the other titles are called subsidiary for a reason. Mowens35 20:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as Scotland is concerned the name is used, at least in the heirs principal title thus The Duke of Cornwall, but The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay ;;;;

 * Re Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester. As any standard reference book will tell you, she was known as Princess Richard of Gloucester when married in 1972, a la Princess Michael of Kent. Then two years later, when her husband inherited the Gloucester title, she became HRH Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester. It's in all the standard reference books. She didn't stop being Princess Richard; she merely gained an additional titular distinction. I've just zapped Prince Michael of Kent an email via his website to see if he can or will shed light on our discussion. Mowens35 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed, but the Duchess is never any longer called "Princess Richard." john k 16:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Whatever she is called, she technically remains a princess by marriage. That does not change. Mowens35 20:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reverted LLW because by having Princess Louise of Wessex in the first line of the article contradicts what she is called by her family, and everyone else, and also the article title. Personnally I think we should remove all Princess Edwards and Richards. Astrotrain 17:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * That has been made abundantly clear. ;-)
 * James F. (talk) 17:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. I see absolutely no justification for it. Fear ÉIREANN  20:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * there looks to be an error later in the article in comparing lady louise to princess anne's children, who are not called by royalty titles because they are not entitled to them, because their father mark phillips did not accept a peerage when they married. this distinguishes her from the other royal grandchildren, who are entitled to be styled princes & princesses because their parents are titled.

 * Should Elizabeth II be "Her Royal Highness" The Princess Philip, Duchess of Edinburgh, styled HM The Queen ???? Astrotrain 20:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * The analogy is a false one. If The Queen were not Queen, then the style proposed would be accurate. However, her monarchial dignity is higher than her station as wife of a Duke, so your point is not applicable. -- Emsworth 20:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed. john k 05:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, it would not be correct, considering she used her own royal title, being HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. Also, HRH The Princess Philip would be incorrect regardless, considering he was not given the definite article in his title.

My view, worth exactly 2c, is that so long as we note her full title in the article, it actually doesn't matter what we call her. This is one of those arguments where all parties are entirely correct. Yes, she is properly Princess Charles. If we were inviting her to luncheon, I daresay we would write our invitation to their Royal Highnesses The Prince and Princess Charles. But she is actually Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Consider Bangkok. It has a very ornate name, which we give in the article. It also has a Thai name, which we (rather foolishly, I think) put in boldface. But the article is about Bangkok and rightly so. It is what it is called.Grace Note 12:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Um,no...if you were sending them an invitation you would send it to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess "of Wales",not "Charles".--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Most likely, you'd write it to "HRH The Prince of Wales and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall". (Or would it be "TRH The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall"?) john k 18:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you'd single them out as of different levels writing them both an invitation.TRH the Duke and Duchess,or Prince and Princess.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 23:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help!
Someone stuck a "number" tag on my comment above to count it as a "no" vote.My browser's line-length limit won't let me remove that tag,but I don't count my comment as a no vote!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Is it a "yes" vote, then, or just a neutral comment? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've reformatted; happy? James F. (talk) 20:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marriage certificate
See copy of their marriage certificate at BBC News.

This shows Prince Charles' surname as PRINCE OF WALES and not MOUNTBATTEN WINDSOR or WINDSOR Astrotrain 21:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is his title, not his surname. Peers do not have surnames. -- Emsworth 21:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That last statement is manifestly untrue. Peers do have surnames. I suggest that you look up the following peers and tell me that they don't have surnames. Dabbler 21:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk
 * Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath
 * John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich
 * Peers, Dabbler, still do not have legal surnames; that is to say, no surname would appear on an official document. The title replaces the surname. Thus, the individuals you refer to are properly known as "Edward, Duke of Norfolk," "Alexander, Marquess of Bath," and "John, Earl of Sandwich." It is conventional, however, to use surnames in encyclopedias and other reference works. -- Emsworth 23:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe you have the situation slightly off.The most formal documents will include a peer's surname,but they are not legally required for ordinary use.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A surname is merely a legal family name and dukes, earls etc. etc. have legal family names which are used by other members of their families., Lord Randolph Churchill, Winston's father, was a younger son of the Duke of Marlborough who was descended from John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough. However, the common usage when addressing the peer is not to use the family name but merely the title. What about someone like Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. He was called Bernard Montgomery before he became a peer. I would draw your atention to BURKE'S PEERAGE, BARONETAGE & KNIGHTAGE, one of whose sections is entitled "Surnames of Peerage Families".Dabbler 01:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, re Lord Bath ... I once went to Longleat and conducted an extensive interview with him for an American magazine, and believe me, he is quite aware of his surname and its legality, et cetera, to the point of dropping the traditional final "e" (Thynne) because he believes that it is nonhistorical and basically an error of spelling that has held firm over the centuries. Peers do use their surnames on occasions. But, yes, it is common and indeed usual for a peer to couple his first name with his title ie Alexander Bath, when he becomes the title holder. But that does not negate a surname that nearly everyone else in his family uses daily. Mowens35 08:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We don't vote on facts
The "vote" above is somewhat misguided and premature. Before any result can take effect we should discuss whether it is in fact true that she is "Princess Charles". My understanding is the Debrett's Correct Form says no - a Princess of Wales is never referred to in this way. Certainly, I never remember seeing Diana referred to in this way. Before her, there was Queen Alexandra, but was she really called - "Princess Edward" - again, I remain to be convinced.

 * There was Queen Mary (Princess George?) and Alexandra would have been "Princess Albert Edward." john k 19:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I await a reputable source to say that "Princess Charles" is even an option. Where does it come from? It's certainly contradictory to what our own article on "British princesses" says. Absent a reputable source, we cannot use the term - full stop! jguk 19:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * By denying that she is Princess Charles, we are saying what is contradictory to several articles on wives of royal peers on this website as well... including the article on Diana, Princess of Wales, which is totally analagous to this case. Matjlav 01:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not convinced of this either. john k 19:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * John, I'm not being difficult, merely asking for a reputable source for a statement that I dispute (namely that she is "Princess Charles). My understanding of Wikipedia practice is that, absent a reputable source, a disputed phrase should not be inserted (or remain) in an article. Of course, if a reputable source for the statement were found, that would be a different matter. At present, the statement is unsourced, so cannot go into the article, jguk 19:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree 100%. I suggest the so-called Princess Charles name be deleted until it is established beyond reasonable doubt that such a form of address

 * legally exists
 * is or ever can be used
 * From what I understand it is a complete fiction. As I said the Palace itself burst out laughing when they were told of it. They think it is ludicrous fiction. So do I. Fear ÉIREANN  21:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Jguk asks "where does it come from," referring to the style in dispute. It comes from her husband's style, "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," which is used in legal documents, including Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments. See, for example, the Solicitor General's Salary Order 1997 ("His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew, Duke of York"), the Saint Vincent Constitution Order 1979 ("His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales"), and the The European Communities (Designation) (No. 3) Order 1991 ("His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew, Duke of York"). There can be no doubt, then, that princes who are peers are known as "HRH The Prince [Forename], [Rank] of [Title]." There are, of course, no acts, letters patent, or royal warrants that define the style and title of wives of members of the royalty. Nowhere in such documents is it stated that, for example, the wives of princes are princesses. However, it is conventional to give wives styles equivalent to those of their husbands: hence Mrs John Smith, Princess Michael of Kent, and Princess Charles, Princess of Wales. -- Emsworth 22:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * for the wives of royal princes without peerages, maybe, but where is the evidence that it has ever been used for the wives of royal peers. Fear ÉIREANN  23:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Our Princess Diana article currently says "Upon her marriage, Diana became Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales" which seems hard to reconcile with John Kenney's interpretation of Debrett's that "a Princess of Wales is never referred to in this way". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No doubt put in my the same people who insist Camilla is supposedly Princess Charles. All it takes is one person to believe something on wikipedia and they can plonk claims like that all over wikipedia and if they are wrong make wikipedia look a right ass. Fear ÉIREANN  23:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course "Princess Charles" is accurate (if not wholly useful), in much the same way that "Mrs. David Beckham" is accurate. It may be that in these post-feminist times it is confusing to some as such forms of references to wives of people are rare, their being now normally refered to as "Mrs. own first name husband's surname".
 * James F. (talk) 22:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You could say Camilla is Mrs Charles Mountbatten-Windsor but that doesn't mean that the same applies to royal titles. Fear ÉIREANN  23:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed compromise
I wonder if the users involved would be interested in a compromise under which "The Princess Charles" would not be used in the introduction. However, the article would begin with "Her Royal Highness  The Princess of Wales." Beginning with "HRH The Princess of Wales" would not be inconsistent with WP practice; on the contrary, it would be consonant with it. Many other articles begin by first listing the official name, and then the common name; see, for example, Tony Blair: "The Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (born 6 May 1953), commonly called Tony Blair..." (Other examples of articles that use this format for the lead sentence include Voltaire, Mark Twain, Tony Benn, and Viv Richards.) This compromise would, I hope, satisfy (a) those who argue that there is no basis for "Princess Charles" and (b) the WP convention on royalty that states that articles should begin with the official style or title. -- Emsworth 01:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I too would like to see an end to this dispute. It seems we spend all the time arguing on what to call her, rather than actually expanding this somewhat short biography of her.

 * First, the objection to "Princess Charles" is that it is not a correct formation - as noted by Debrett's Correct Form, FearEireann's telephone discussions (which, as they are unverifiable, do not constitute a source), and the complete lack of anyone using that formation. Indeed, no source (not even a non-reputable one!) has been cited in support of the formation. I feel there can be no compromise on the facts, which means that the "Princess Charles" formation must not be referred to in the article.

 * Second, I think it is important to note that etiquette says that her official title is "The Duchess of Cornwall". She could, of course, have chosen to be styled "Princess of Wales", but she has chosen not to be. Her correct style is the one she has chosen, which is the one that is commonly used. I would ask those who think "Princess of Wales" is "technically correct" to consider that it would be a great social gaffe to, say, send a letter or an invitation to her addressed to the "Princess of Wales" - and even worse to persist on calling her that to her face. The styles that are "correct" in etiquette-land are "Duchess of Cornwall" and "Duchess of Rothesay".

 * It is true, of course, that she is the Princess of Wales, and could have chosen to be styled as such. This should be mentioned - it takes only one short sentence to do so, and there are plenty of sources to support the fact, such as Hansard. But this isn't a big deal - it's of passing interest, no more - and the article should treat the info accordingly, jguk 07:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think as a matter of principle we must start the article with the form of address we use in the title. Blair is different, to be honest. We say Blair in the title and in appears in the long name. But saying Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in the title and then Princess of Wales in the text would IMHO be wrong. I would suggest

HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, (Camilla . . . . ) is the second wife of HRH. . . As the wife of the Prince of Wales she is officially styled HRH The Princess of Wales (inset Hansard link), however she has decided to use as her working style that of Duchess of Cornwall. (inset link to Clarence House statement) Her full official titles are '''HRH The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall. . . '''etc.

That way we Fear ÉIREANN  07:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * keep consistency with between the opening line and the article name
 * explain what she officially is and what she calls herself
 * then can move on without any more complications.

 * Just one note. She is officially called the "Duchess of Cornwall" or the "Duchess of Rothesay", as noted on the Royal Family website, Court Circular, etc.. It's more a point that she is the Princess of Wales, although she has chosen not to be (officially) styled as such, jguk 07:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A fair point. One other suggestion. We should include as one of those hidden notes an explanation that wikipedia on advice and after research has concluded that Princess Charles should not be used. That might deter some others from continually re-inserting it. We should similarly insert a hidden note to that effect in the text of Diana, P of W's article for the same reason. It might just stop the Princess Charles brigade for continually adding in that nonsense.  Fear ÉIREANN  07:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My main point seems to have been missed. HRH The Princess of Wales is her official title. She may choose to be called the Duchess of Cornwall, but that does not change her official title; she is the Princess of Wales. Above, I have provided numerous sources that indicate that this is indeed her official title. I have also provided examples of articles that begin with a name that is not the title of the article. Therefore, my proposed compromise is still: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor), styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, ... I would also note that a majority above are in favour of beginning the lead sentence with Pss of Wales. -- Emsworth 14:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm puzzled as to how you are interpreting "official" here. To me, "official" means "used by officials" or "used in an official context" - which in this case gives the conclusion that the "official" title or "official" style is "Duchess of Cornwall" or "Duchess of Rothesay". She is the Princess of Wales, but that style is not used officially, jguk 19:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not talking about what she is called. I am talking about what she is. Legally, she is the Princess of Wales: nothing she says or wants changes this fact. -- Emsworth 19:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * She may be legally entitled to be Princess of Wales, but there is no law to she actually is the Princess of Wales. And since niether she, or anyone else uses it, it is silly for Wikipedia to do so. Astrotrain 19:42, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Except that numerous legal authorities have said that "she actually is the Princess of Wales." john k 19:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous articles where someone is referred otherwise than how their first reference calls them. We have the article Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, which begins "Robert Stewart, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry (1769-1822), known until 1821 by his courtesy title Viscount Castlereagh," and then call him Castlereagh throughout the article. Michael Ancram begins with "Michael Andrew Foster Jude Kerr, 13th Marquess of Lothian, PC (born 7 July 1945), known as Michael Ancram." I think Emsworth's suggestion looks good to me - the analogy with Ancram, in fact, seems quite proper, in that in that case nobody is denying that he is Marquess of Lothian, even though he doesn't use the title, in much the same way that Camilla doesn't use the title of Princess of Wales. john k 14:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor but I believe important changes to follow encyclopaedic standards.
 * It is clear legally that Camilla is the POW. That wasn't spelt out clearly. I've made it clear in the second paragraph that legally she is POW (which I've bolded) and will be queen, but has decided to use a different title.
 * It is rather grating to call Camilla a mistress. It is an old-fashioned term of abuse indicating that she is not co-equal in a relationship. I have stated instead that prior to their marriage she had been his longterm partner, which is far less offensive. (In terms of balance, if we called Camilla mistress what would be call Diana's many lovers during her marriage (and she had many, though not all their names are in the public domain. It is even suggested by friends of the couple that one of her lovers is a king of another country. What word should we call James Hewitt if we call Camilla a mistress? I think it is far more objective and accurate to call her simply Charles's long term partner. Fear ÉIREANN  00:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again your prejudice against the "old-fashioned" shows.I know I have my own views here (I thought Charles should not have married Diana,I thought he should have chosen any woman in the whole world other than Camilla for a second wife because his history with Camilla would taint the relationship)...but adultery is adultery and in the case of any cheating spouse the terms used should be negatively-judgemental.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whatever your personal views on the matter, Louis, they don't comport with wikipedia policy of NPOV. john k 03:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Terminology chosen to evade describing an extramarital relationship as extramarital is inappropriate.Saying the side of the street someone was driving down is appropriate even if it was the wrong side;obfuscating isn't useful.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 03:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * FearEireann's new second paragraph looks okay. I think it would go better down the article under the list of styles, though, rather than the second paragraph - as it really gives us no information on the Duchess of Cornwall's life. Also, the article needs boosting up significantly - she must have done more in her life than what we have in the few paragraphs we've already got, jguk 18:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, she hasn't "done more in her life" thus far. Some people just don't do anything considered publicly significant, ever. We'll have to see what she does from now on. She rides, she used to hunt, and she is a patron of an osteoporosis organization, at least one, I think. That's about it. Mowens35 07:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Her being Patron and later President of the National Osteoporosis Society - and what she has done in those roles, is certainly worth a mention (and is currently not referred to in the article). The Royal Family website says she is also Patron of St John's, Smith Square, Trustee of the Wiltshire Van Bobby Trust and Patron of New Queen's Hall Orchestra. There must be something to write on these roles too, jguk 17:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 3


text:
Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 4

camillagate tapes
Is the inclusion of the taped conversations between Charles and Camilla really appropiate for an encyclopedia? It may be of note to state that such a tape exists, but surely the actual conversation should not be listed. This isn't a tabliod column. Astrotrain 19:40, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The text of the conversation is not really encyclopaedic in the context.
 * James F. (talk) 23:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * ditto TAS 13:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * 'Thirded' --Ayrshire--77 14:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Formal, Public Request to User:Jguk
Please stop reverting the article back to your opinion. Allow the banner to stay in place until the matter has been resolved here on the talk page. We're rapidly approaching the three revert rule. And, for what it's worth, I have absolutely no opinion on this discussion; I am simply trying to indicate on the main page that the matter is in dispute and is being discussed on the talk page. For you to be consistently removing it is, in my opinion, just flat out rude. Please, knock it off. — WCityMike (T 22:42, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * What you are doing is inserting a formulation of her name that is distinctly pro-republican. This may be inadvertent, but as I noted in the edit summaries, we do not refer to the Royal Family as "Mr and Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor". Doing so is POV, and, as you can see from my user contributions, I have a consistent record in editing against POV statements. I also have a consistent record in editing out dubious and unsourced information - which is what some people (ie the "Princess Charles" lobby) appear to be doing, jguk 06:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree with JGUK Astrotrain 09:17, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * I assume that "pro-republican" means something in this argument differently than the American political party, but since I don't know what that would be, you can rest assured any pro-republican formulation of Camilla's name was inadvertent on my part. But I've given up on this, anyway, and I'm not going to check this page any more.  The page is protected, so hopefully that'll make all of you come to a peaceful conclusion so you can start editing her again.  Life's too short. — WCityMike (T 12:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * What it means in this case is that the you support the removal of the monarchy and replacement with a president. I presume you don't, or you'd know what it means. TAS 13:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, on a purely theoretical basis, yeah, such an action sounds good to me on its face, now that you explain what you mean. But that definitely wasn't where I was coming from. — WCityMike (T 19:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

This edit warring getting quite absurd. I think that it would certainly be advisable to forget about "Princess Charles." It would, I think, also be quite fair to begin the article as follows:
 * Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Parker Bowles, née Shand) (born 17 July 1947), styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall

Perhaps others would agree, or would care to make their own alternative proposals. -- Emsworth 23:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Much as I respect Emsworth, I think he is wrong on this one. We should start the article with her working title, which is DoC, and explain later that technically she is also PoW. Ditto with the Lady Louise Windsor article. It would be grossly misleading to people who don't know the reality to use an unused title and demote the actual used title to second place, especially when it is the working title, not the unused one, that is the name of the article. PoW can be used when stating her full titles later on. But not in the first line or IMHO first paragraph.I think the opening is fine as it is. Fear ÉIREANN  23:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very well, then. In the interest of ending the constant reverting, I would support the form used for the Lady Louise: that is to say, the first paragraph would begin "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall...," while the second paragraph would begin "Though legally Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales..." I hope that the bolding of "Princess of Wales" will not be objectionable. -- Emsworth 23:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * There's no need to over-promote the fact that she is PoW - this is most suited to a discussion of her titles. Of course, once the article has expanded to cover more of her life and what she's done, a completely new second para can be added introducing that, jguk 06:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering if anyone opposed to using her proper title first in favor of her "working title" would explain whether they support changing the intro to Michael Ancram, as well, and, if not, how the two cases are to be distinguished. john k 14:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't want to go through this argument again on the Michael Ancram page - but yes, I think it would be more appropriate to amend that article too. I do feel that some WPians take the approach that titles and honorifics are more important than the people themselves. This may have been appropriate perhaps even as far as the 1960s, but isn't so now. I think people are more relaxed now - treat people and people - and are happy to respect how they wish to be called. I find it unfortunate that there is a vocal minority on WP who disagree with this.

 * I would add that I am surprised at the controversy that my changes to how the article was introduced on the marriage of the Duchess of Cornwall to the Prince Wales. I was the first one to edit the article after they married, and I, somewhat naïvely thought that by using the name absolutely everyone was using for Her Royal Highness would naturally be the one we would use here. I remain surprised that there are still those who argue differently (and by that I note that I fully agree that the article should note, in passing - as it's not a big deal, that she is the Princess of Wales, but does not use the style). Kind regards, jguk 19:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're consistent. But the basic fact of the matter is that the first name given in an article is supposed to be their full proper name, and not the most commonly used name (which is the page title). Michael Ancram is Marquess of Lothian, and on official legal documents he is "The Most Honourable Michael Andrew Foster Jude, Marquess of Lothian". His children bear the surname "Kerr," not Ancram. He, and anybody else, can call himself whatever he wants to, and wikipedia should respect that decision by using the best known name in the article title, by mentioning it in bold early in the article, and by referring to the person by it in later references in the article. However, it has been consistent policy for a long time now for the person's full legal name, including titles, to be used at the beginning of the article. john k 19:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Debretts Opinion
I decided to ask Debrett's directly and I quote their expert at peerage@debrett.co.uk
 * Her title, if she used it, would be HRH The Princess of Wales (not the Princess Charles which would never be used) just like other royal ladies HRH The Countess of Wessex, HRH The Duchess of Gloucester, and HRH The Duchess of Kent. HRH Princess Michael of Kent is so styled as her husband has no territorial title i.e. he is not the Duke of Kent being a younger son. If Prince Edward had no title, his wife would be styled HRH Princess Edward. Dabbler 21:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, I'm not quite sure about that. Considering that the email for general inquiries is "people@debretts.co.uk," not "peerage@debrett.co.uk," I'm not sure you're telling the truth.
 * I sent my original message to people@debretts.co.uk, but it was forwarded to Dr M. L. Bierbrier FSA, Co-Editor who uses the address peerage@debretts.co.uk. The ommission of the "s" in my quote of the e-mail address was a typo on my part. I am sorry that I have to quote chapter and verse in every detail and not make the slightest error to avoid being called a liar by some people here. Dabbler 03:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, I'm seriously sorry for the mistake. But you have to admit, not knowing any better, it would sound a bit suspicious. Matjlav 19:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as it being incorrect to refer to the Prince of Wales as "Prince Charles": here, I do know of official documents that demonstrate the correctness of "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." Examples: the Solicitor General's Salary Order 1997; the Saint Vincent Constitution Order 1979 -- Emsworth 01:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good work, Dabbler. That was always my understanding too. As I wrote above way back in the debate

" . . . the Palace when I talked about this some time ago [said] . . . that the form Princess [husband's name] is only used where the husband has no peerage. Buckingham Palace said categorically that Princess Albert was 100% wrong. It would only have been right if her husband was still Prince Albert, not the Duke of York when they married. As Charles is a peer (and has been since 1952) they said Princess Charles is ridiculous, non-existent and frankly laughable.''

I think when you have sources like Buckingham Palace and Debretts saying that, we should change all the articles to follow those rules. Fear ÉIREANN  22:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One final point to put a nail in the coffin of the Princess Charles rubbish. While in theory a bride of one of a monarch's husbands may be called Princess (husbandname) that can never happen with brides of PoWs. Royal princes lower down the Order of Succession may indeed be given a title on their marriage, or afterwards, in which case Princess (husbandname) maybe right. But POWs always have titles, either Duke of Cornwall (automatic) or Prince of Wales (awarded). So Princesses of Wales never ever need be Princess (husbandname). Fear  ÉIREANN  19:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dabbler is right. I sent one as well for verification, and I got this response:

Dear Sir,

''No to your question. The correct form of address is HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, HRH The Countess of Wessex. If Prince Edward had no title except Prince, then his wife would be HRH Princess Edward like Princess Michael of Kent. The Duchess of Cornwall can never be called HRH The Princess Charles. Indeed. it is incorrect to call him Prince Charles. He is HRH The Prince of Wales.''

Thus, I believe, making sure to put a clear note in the editing field, that we should request an unlocking. Matjlav 20:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Before you do - are we agreed that we refer to her as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall? I note that we already refer to her being the "Princess of Wales" under "List of styles". I suggest that, as we only need to mention that point once, that is where we make it, jguk 20:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

" I note that we already refer to her being the "Princess of Wales" under "List of styles"."

Technically she is Princess of Wales, as the Lord Chancellor admitted. She chooses to be called the Duchess of Cornwall, which she automatically is also but in all the lists of Princesses of Wales Camilla will automatically feature. So it is correct to list her in lists of Princesses of Wales and would be wrong to leave her out. All we need to make clear is that she chooses not to use that title, but it still is her official title. She could choose tomorrow to use it. If (and Clarence House hopes it will) public opinion changes she might be able to use the PoW title she possesses. Similarly when Charles is king Camilla will have to be listed as a queen consort as she will be that too. Yet again it will simply be a case that she chooses not to use it. Fear ÉIREANN  00:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's her style in Scotland? Because my understanding is that Charles's style there is "HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay"... john k 00:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing that people are willing to treat as definitive someone who thinks the Countess of Wessex would be called "HRH Princess Edward" were her husband not a Peer, when she'd obviously be called "HRH The Princess Edward". This (rather less than expert) Debrett's chap obviously doesn't know the difference between a style (which in this case is clearly "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall") and a legal name (which is "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales"). Proteus (Talk) 16:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I sent a similar letter, and he did respond saying "HRH The Princess Charles" would be correct. And I made sure to make it very clear that I meant full title. And he said no. Matjlav 21:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know what your qualifications to make that statement or better still what your sources are for that information. Perhaps you could reference them for us. There has been a lot of assertion and name-calling here but only a few hard statements backed with reasonably authoritative sources. Debretts is known to be a reasonbably authoritative source. If you have a more authoritative one, lets us see it. Dabbler 16:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly right that Sophie would have been HRH The Princess Edward, although that's more likely sloppiness on the part of the Debrett's guy. But I would agree that he doesn't seem to know the difference between a style and a legal name. Certainly Camilla's legal name can't be "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall." john k 16:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to the Prince of Wales's staff, his title is HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. The Prince Charles relates exclusively to the heir. I have not heard of any credible source to suggest that there is a 'Princess (husbandname)' naming format in Scotland. AFAIK the Duke's wife's name is simply ''HRH The Duchess of Rothesay" in all cases. I'll check that out to make sure. Fear  ÉIREANN  23:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The Court Circular from 15 April says: The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay and The Duchess of Rothesay, this morning opened Ballater Play Park and were received by Her Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of the Aberdeenshire (Mr Angus Farquharson), Ballater, Aberdeen., which (dodgy grammar notwithstanding) would seem to confirm your belief. Proteus (Talk) 23:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welsh People
Stongly Object

Has anyone bothered asking the people of Wales? Of course not. Well I, being a Welshman and living in Wales, have no wish to see this lady associated with our historic and proud people. --Emdec 20:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why should they be asked? The position is not elective. The people of Wales no more influences the choice of the Prince of Wales and of who is his wife, than the people of Connacht influenced the identity of who was Duke of Connaught and who was the duchess, or than the people of Ulster had over the naming of one royal as Earl of Ulster. Prince of Wales is the principal title of the Heir Apparent to the British throne. His wife automatically is Princess of Wales. Camilla is the Prince of Wales's wife. So she is Princess of Wales and we must say that here. However she has chosen not to use that title, and we must say that too. Fear ÉIREANN  23:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The opinion of the people of Cornwall, needless to say, is not involved either. john k 00:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Democratic opinion doesn't have much place in a monarchy. :)

This discussion has now given me rather amusing images of a referendum of the people of Norfolk when the Duke of Norfolk wants to get married. Although it'd be considerably more difficult for the Duke of Manchester, and I dread to think what would have to happen if the Dukedom of Albany were ever unsuspended or if someone were created Duke of London. Proteus (Talk) 12:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I had thought that the Dukedom of Manchester was named for a different Manchester than the one in Lancashire. john k 13:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Moving On
As ususal seems to be a lot of people discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to no so sensible purpose.

I believed it preferable to improve the article; removed a lot of irrelevant genealogical detail. If all you have to say about someone is who they are related to, then you have nothing to say about that person. The paragraph beginning "According to genealogist William Addams Reitweisner..." was particularly valuless. I mean really?! Exactly the same thing can be said of any individual randomly selected off the streets of Britain. The information may be correct, but it is valueless.

Are peers in their own right different?
I notice that while we have now agreed to call royal wives HRH The Countess, HRH The Duchess, and HRH The Princess, we still have not changed the male forms. Are we saying it's correct to call the princes "HRH Prince Firstname, Duke of Duchy" but not their wives? I'm just a little confused... Matjlav 20:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * In the UK, there is no legal definition of what a woman can or may call herself after marriage. It is customary for women to take their husband's surname, although some now do not. For royals and peers, the woman will take their husband's highest title, but it is only a curtesy title, and it is not their own. The Princes who get peerages remain princes under letters patent of 1917. The wifes do not become princesses. Some people on her think that as soon as a woman marries, her "legal name" changes to the feminine of her husbands, which is not true, as their is no legal name in the UK, except what is on the birth certificate. Thus Camilla Parker Bowels became HRH The Duchess of Cornwall on her marriage. The HRH is entitilement under the 1917 letters patent, and the Duchess of Cornwall part is due to her choice of curtesey title (ie what titles her husband has). She can also call herself Princess of Wales, but chooses not to.

 * That's almost completely wrong. Proteus (Talk) 21:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

There's no "agreement". Ignorant and foolish people just keep changing things away from the established and correct format, that's all. Proteus (Talk) 21:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Tell me why you think you are right? Many people think the "Princess Charles, Edward or whatever" is wrong, Debretts and the Royal Households think it is wrong. No where else uses it. Astrotrain 21:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Neither of them have said anything of the sort. One person from Debrett's has said you shouldn't address Lady Wessex as "Princess Edward", which is perfectly true but completely irrelevent to the question of what her legal name is (which is most certainly not "Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex", any more than the Duchess of Norfolk's legal name is "Her Grace The Duchess of Norfolk" [it's "The Most Noble Georgina Susan, Duchess of Norfolk"]). And what "many people" think is utterly irrelevant. Proteus (Talk) 22:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * What is your definition of a "legal name"?

 * What do you mean, "my definition"? There's only one definition - the name that would be used on a formal legal or official document. (Frankly, if you have absolutely no knowledge on this subject (which is obviously the case), you have no business lecturing other people on it. Try reading Debrett's Correct Form for a start, which has a section on legal names.) Proteus (Talk) 22:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Your definition has a slight flaw in that it suggests someone can only have one legal name. I don't believe this is necessarily true, jguk 05:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Please do elaborate. Proteus (Talk) 08:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Weddingguide.co.uk- Changing name upon marriage UK Deed pool advice website
 * Looking at other sources:

So, you have a legal name upon birth (what is on the birth certificate). For woman, they have the opinion of changing it upon marriage, the marriage certificate giving proof (this is by custom, not law). For peers, I imagine their letters patent for the title gives their legal name when they gain the peerage. For the rest of us, we need a Deed pool. Astrotrain 11:10, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what possible relevance any of that could have. Please address the actual issue. (I really find it hard to believe that I'm being lectured on the law by someone who can't spell "deed poll".) Proteus (Talk) 12:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not lecturing. Someone asked a question and I gave my answer. The issue is do wifes legally take their husbands name on marriage. I say no, and have backed this up with evidence. You have just stated I am wrong, without giving a good reason why. You are just being rude. Astrotrain 13:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at the following Royal Warrants to see how the Court views the legal name of a woman:
 * Her Majesty The Queen by Royal Warrant bearing date the fifth day of June 2000, has been graciously pleased to ordain and declare that Barbara Marie-Louise Constance the wife of Alexander Clement Gilmour and Ann Denise the wife of Brian Peter Harvey Orange, the sisters of Richard Gomer Viscount Kemsley, should henceforth have hold and enjoy the same title rank place pre-eminence and precedence as the children of a Viscount which would have been due to them had their father Denis Gomer Berry, Esquire, survived his brother Geoffrey Lionel Viscount Kemsley and Baron Kemsley, and thereby succeeded to the title and dignity of a Viscount.
 * The QUEEN has been graciously pleased to ordain and declare that Lucy Helen, the wife of Michael Alan Pelham, Katharine Mary, the wife of Franklin Watts, and Alice Marian, the wife of Thomas David Fremantle, shall henceforth have, hold and enjoy the same title, rank, place, pre-eminence and precedence as the daughters of a Duke which would have been due to them had their father, Cyril Reginald Egerton, survived his kinsman, John Sutherland, Duke of Sutherland, and thereby succeeded to the title and dignity of the Duke of Sutherland.

So the legal identity of a married woman is as the wife of her husband. But according to you these women don't take their legal names from their husbands. And for peeresses:
 * The QUEEN has been graciously pleased by Warrant under Her Royal Signet and Sign Manual to give and grant Her Majesty's Royal Licence and Authority that David John, Baron Herbert, together with his wife Jane Angela, Baroness Herbert, etc.

I still don't see where this is getting us, though. You're still not addressing the actual issue. You're not arguing that Camilla didn't take Charles's titles on marriage, you're arguing that her legal name is somehow "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall", which is just complete rubbish. (According to you Lady Herbert's legal name would be "The Right Honourable The Lady Herbert", which, as the above Royal Warrant shows, clearly isn't the case.) Proteus (Talk) 15:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not arguing that Camilla's legal name is "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall". I am arguing that a woman has a legal name at birth (on her birth certificate). On marriage she can choose to keep her maiden name, or assume her husband's surname. This I have backed up with other sources. Thus Camilla Shand became Camilla Parker-Bowels by choice. To prove her change of name (eg on passport), Camilla would have sent the authorities a copy of her marriage certificate. On her marriage to the Prince of Wales, he doesn't have a surname (as you yourself said previously). Therefore it is unclear what her new "legal" name would become. She became HRH on her marriage to a British prince, and then was entitled to use the feminine version of his titles (eg Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall). She choose to use Duchess of Cornwall, and is thus addressed as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. As for the name she would have in her passport or bank account, I don't know, it could remain Camilla Parker Bowels, or be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, or some other variant. Astrotrain 15:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Firstly, as she hasn't chosen to remain CPB, the whole "does she necessarily take her husband's name" thing is irrelevant. Secondly, it isn't at all unclear what the feminine version of Charles's titles is. She can't be "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall" or "HRH The Princess of Wales" because it's not clear enough - legal documents have to make it absolutely clear who they are talking about, and in ten years time HM could be dead, Charles could be King and William could be PoW and married, and so his wife would be "HRH The Princess of Wales" and "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall" - this is why first names are used. The Duchess of Norfolk has to be specified as "Georgina Susan, Duchess of Norfolk" because the legal document she is named in could last for decades, and in the future she could be a widow in which case her son's wife would be "Her Grace The Duchess of Norfolk". The only possible options are "Her Royal Highness Camilla Rosemary, Princess of Wales" and "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales". As Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent (not "Her Royal Highness Marie-Christine" or similar) shows, wives of Princes are Princess Hisname. The fact that Camilla is a peeress means she is not styled like this, but that doesn't stop her being it. (The Debrett's person is just confused, and clearly thought someone wanted to write a letter to Lady Wessex as "HRH The Princess Edward" or what not, which, clearly, no one actually wants to do. The fact that you wouldn't address a letter to "The Most Noble Georgina Susan, Duchess of Norfolk" doesn't stop it being her legal name.) You'll note that when the 1st Duke of Gloucester died, his widow could have chosen between "Her Royal Highness The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester" or "Her Royal Highness The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester". The fact that she wanted her own name used meant she had to be "Her Royal Highness Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester", and get HM's permission for that. If she'd been "Her Royal Highness Alice Christabel, Duchess of Gloucester", she could easily have become "Her Royal Highness Alice, Duchess of Gloucester" without any fuss and without HM's permission. The point was (and is) that Royal titles don't work like that. You can't just stick "Her Royal Highness" in front of someone's forenames if they're married to a Royal Prince. She had to be "Princess Alice" because "Her Royal Highness " is a completely unprecedented format. Thus if Camilla can't be "Her Royal Highness Camilla Rosemary, Princess of Wales" and can't be "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales", there's only one thing left for her to be - "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales". (By the way, passports and bank accounts don't have legal names on them.) Proteus (Talk) 16:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I see your line of argument. However, if you are saying The Duchess of Norfolk's legal name is "Georgina Susan, Duchess of Norfolk" then surley Camilla would be "Her Royal Highness Camilla Frances, Duchess of Cornwall". BTW if you do not use your legal name on your passport or bank account, where the hell do you use it???? Astrotrain 22:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

From what I can gather, Camilla has a legal name and a legal title, but that in Britain while a person holds it the legal title can be treated as legal name for the duration of their title. Camilla has chosen to take her husband's name as her legal name so she is Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor and nothing else for her legal name. Her legal title (in law) is The Princess of Wales, (in usage) The Duchess of Cornwall. If her husband had not a peerage her legal title would be The Princess Charles but that name is an impossibility in English law because the male heir to the throne automatically has a title and is never without it from the moment their parent becomes monarch. So Princess  does not and never has had a validity and existence in English law. Where the wife of the heir to the throne is herself a princess prior to marriage, there is a third option, Princess  as in Princess Mary, Princess Alexandra. But as neither of the current Prince of Wales's wives were princesses before marriage, that option is out for them.

In countries (eg, France) where the use of titles as titles is prohibited, usage usually combined name and title to create what is technically a name. But in the UK that is not the case. BTW as the wife of a royal prince Camilla will have a diplomatic passport. Charles's passport calls him The Prince of Wales. Hers will probably call her The Duchess of Cornwall or maybe even The Princess of Wales. But the name Camilla will not appear on it, as the form Camilla, Princess of Wales denotes an ex-Princess of Wales separated from the Prince either by his death or their divorce, while Princess Camilla of Wales would indicate the daughter of a Prince of Wales. The only option is to use Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor as name on the passport and rank as HRH The POW/DoC. But most likely going by precedent she will simply be The Duchess of Cornwall on her passport, with no other information. (In contrast, as an ordinary peer I understand the Earl of Rosse's passport calls him simply Brendan Parsons, but it mentions that he is the Earl of Rosse elsewhere.)Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Given the confusion, surley saying HRH The Duchess of Cornwall or HRH The Countess of Wessex is the best option? Astrotrain 22:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

But by that reasoning, the Duchess of Norfolk's legal name at the moment would be "the Duchess of Norfolk", which (as I've pointed out) it isn't. (And as I've said, passports don't use legal names. A peer's passport has "The Rt Hon. The Earl of Somewhere, KG, PC" under "surname" and "John Henry William" under "forenames". Camilla's passport would most likely say "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales" and "Camilla Rosemary" (and "Princess of the Royal House" where mine would say "British Citizen" [if I had a British passport, which I don't]). This is all from Correct Form, by the way, it's not just me making it up. (-: )

And in reply to Astrotrain above: If Camilla's legal name were "HRH Camilla Rosemary, Princess of Wales" (it wouldn't be "Duchess of Cornwall" as it would use what she actually is rather that what she uses), then what is Princess Michael of Kent's? "HRH Marie-Christine"? "HRH Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent" (which would suggest her husband is "HRH Michael George Charles Franklin, Prince Michael of Kent", which looks absurd)? Much more likely that she's legally "HRH Princess Michael of Kent". As to why this is the case, I'd imagine that it's because HRH is not treated in the same was as "The Rt Hon.", "The Most Noble", etc., as it's so closely attached to the title of "Prince" or "Princess" that it would be odd to use one without the other. And, as to Jtdirl's point about "Prince Charles" (and therefore "Princess Charles") being impossible, I've seen legal documents naming Charles as "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales".

As to what legal documents are, they're the sort of things that solicitors would draw up. Deeds of all kinds, wills, things like that.

And if I've come across as rude, I apologise. I've got exams coming up and I'm a little stressed at the moment. Proteus (Talk) 23:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I mostly agree with Proteus here. I will ask the question of what about the Duke of Edinburgh, who was made an HRH in 1947, but not a prince of the UK until 1957 (and was not considered any longer to be Prince of Greece and Denmark, either). This would suggest that his legal name between 1947 and 1957 was "His Royal Highness Philip, Duke of Edinburgh." john k 13:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Regency Act 1953, a copy of the said Act is at . The act lists him as His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. Suggesting thus that this is his legal name. Astrotrain 20:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that is because he was not a Prince of the United Kingdom at the time. So, his legal name became His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh, and nothing else. Matjlav 12:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Philip's definitely an exception. For a time (a very short time, granted), he was actually "Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten, KG, RN". But his very peculiar status makes it rather risky to extrapolate to other members of the Royal Family.
 * There's also this, which makes matters rather more complicated:
 * Whitehall, November 9, 1948.
 * The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 22nd ultimo to define and fix the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnized between Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be designated. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter.
 * Proteus (Talk) 21:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 4


text:
User talk:Smashery

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 13:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

List of Wii games
Hey there Smashery,

I've noted that you've contributed before to the List of Wii games. Just wanted to let you know that the list is getting ready for Featured status and is currently undergoing a Peer Review. If you can take a moment to look over the article and add your suggestions/comments for improvement here, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks! -Digiwrld1 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup
Delivered on behalf of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Giggabot (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation
Hey there, you're invited to the second Brisbane Meetup. Please see the page at Meetup/Brisbane/2 for more details. Hope to see you there!

Automated message delivered by Giggabot (stop!) to Wikipedians in Queensland and known Brisbaneites, at 03:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

Brisbane meetup with Sue Gardner invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on 11 Febrary 2013 with Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.

More details can be found at Meetup/Brisbane/7. I hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 02:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to you because your userpage (user:) says you are located in 'Queensland' without specifying which region of Queensland you are located in. Please add a more specific sub-category in order to be informed of what is happening in your region.)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

title: User talk:Smashery


text:
User talk:Guernica~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 13:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Fix You IS the 2nd single
Plz don't jump to conclusions...

 *

Not to mention the fact that it was performed on SNL, played on the OC, etc.....

--Madchester 06:59, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Guernica. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Guernica~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Guernica~enwiki


text:
Water net

The water net (genus Hydrodictyon) is a taxon of freshwater green algae in the family Hydrodictyaceae. Hydrodictyon does well in clean, eutrophic water, and has become a nuisance in New Zealand, where it has been recently introduced. The name water net comes from the mesh structure of their colonies, which can extend several decimeters.

Hydrodictyon consists of colonies of cylindrical cells that are joined end-to-end to form a net-like structure. The cells usually form pentagonal or hexagonal subgroups. Cells contain a parietal chloroplast with many small pyrenoids.

Reproduction
Algae in the genus can reproduce asexually or sexually. Asexual reproduction takes place by biflagellated (having two flagella) zoospores formed by the thousands inside a cell. However, the zoospores hardly move, as they are packed very densely. The zoospores form a cell wall, become cylindrical in shape, and arrange themselves in a hexagonal pattern, much like the mature tissue. The mother cell disintegrates, releasing the microscopic daughter net.

During sexual reproduction, which takes place by iso-gametes (gametes of the same size) even smaller than the zoospores, the iso-gametes escape through a hole in the cell wall of the mother cell. Two gametes fuse, forming a zygote, which then develops a thick cell wall and becomes angular in shape. After a rest period, 2-5 zoospores, which are bigger than the ones formed by asexual reproduction, are produced. The zoospores then enlarge into polygonal cells. The cytoplasm of the cells then divide into new zoospores which lose their flagella and form a new net by lying against each other.

title: Water net


text:
Category:Aqueducts

 * Aqueducts — canals, conduits, and constructed watercourses to convey water, for water supply and/or water transport.
 * For aqueduct bridges used in transport, see: Category: Navigable aqueducts.

title: Category:Aqueducts


text:
User:Spacefun~enwiki

Hallo

Costa Rica Online is a free site without commercial interests - to bring infos to the users.

pura vida - luis

title: User:Spacefun~enwiki


text:
Talk:Scheduling (computing)

Mach threads in Mac OS X
I removed the statement that Mac OS X Mach threads are cooperatively scheduled. This is not true, the linked reference actually states that cooperative threads can be build on top of normal Mach threads. According to the document there are three scheduling algorithms:

- the standard policy (THREAD_STANDARD_POLICY), under which threads are scheduled by a system-defined fair algorithm

- the time constraint policy (THREAD_TIME_CONSTRAINT_POLICY), under which threads are scheduled according to real-time constraints, and

- the precedence policy (THREAD_PRECEDENCE_POLICY), which allows a task to specify the importance of a thread relative to the task's other threads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.36.82 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Category
If I would have to choose to put this article into Category:Scheduling (computing) or Category:Scheduling algorithms (the second category is a subcategory of the first one) I would choose Category:Scheduling (computing). What do you think? --surueña 13:22, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

 * Agreed. --huwr 00:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Swapping vs. Paging
Could you elaborate why paging in/out is incorrect?

 * Paging is the process of mapping pages of virtual memory to and from physical memory; swapping is the process of moving pages of physical memory to and from secondary storage (disk-based swap files/partitions).
 * According to virtual memory, "Paging is the process of saving inactive virtual memory pages to disk and restoring them to real memory when required.". This challenges what you're arguing. The Paging article differentiates "Paging" and "Swapping", but not in the way you explain. From my understanding of that article paging in/out covers the swapping in/out definition but can also apply to other kind of page/disk operations like Memory-mapped I/O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.133.101 (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess, strictly speaking, you could say that only if a memory page cannot be "paged in" (in other words, a page fault occurs due to the page in question not being mapped in the page table), then it gets "swapped in". --Piet Delport 08:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Without any references, I'm guessing that swapping is applied to processes and paging applies to smaller pieces of a process. In other words, if RAM cannot be allocated for a process's Working Set, the process should be medium-term suspended, marking all of it's pages should be swapped out (or marked as free if they are unchanged from the most recent disk image).

If the sum of all Working Sets fits within RAM, a single page can be paged out and another one paged in. A good paging algorithm places inactive pages on an inactive queue but does not page them out until something needs to be paged in (well, they are still likely to be reused and reusing them is nearly overhead-free.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.178.29 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Software vs. Hardware
What about the schedulers in CPUs? Should that be a separate article, or should it be included here?the1physicist 20:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Either here or in the central processing unit article, probably, depending on the content. You don't need to worry too much, though; be bold and add it! :)  The content can always be moved later.  --Piet Delport 22:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Scheduling Criteria
This entire section is an unattributed verbatim quotation from parts of Chapter 5.2 of the book Operating System Concepts (8th Edition) by SilberSchatz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctxr (talk • contribs) 08:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And I concur. This is almost same as junk. Reality differs from the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmondal (talk • contribs) 05:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Job Shop Problem
The Job-Shop-Scheduling is linked to the article job shop. As far as I know, a job job is a sort of factory, but the job-shop-problem is a wide-spread scheduling problem with which a job shop can be analysed an optimized (and other problems, for sure).

Todo: Add this
This is a theorists nightmare : Given a single CPU, and multiple process, how the scheduler runs itself? A.K.A who schedules the schedular? (As Alan Moore would suggest - who watches the watchman? ) It can not. This is a classic bootstrapping problem, and none apparently gave an answer here. We should add this information under non linear (interrupt driven ) programming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmondal (talk • contribs) 05:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The scheduler determines which process to run based on:
 * Intrinsic Properties and
 * -Running time
 * -Space allocated
 * etc

 * Extrinsic Properties
 * -Is there a priority associated with the program
 * -Is the program focused
 * etc

Separate communication article?
I suggest that the data packet scheduling issues are removed from scheduling (computing) and scheduling algorithm articles into a separate article on scheduling (communication). Perhaps the remaining scheduling algorithm article should be merged with [scheduling (computing), which now should focus on operational systems and multitasking.

Which of all the scheduling disciplines, policies and algorithms listed in the scheduling (computing) article belongs to networking, and which belongs to operational systems?

Is it possible to clearify what is an algorithm (such as fair queuing), and what is a policy or discipline (such as max-min fairness)?

Mange01 07:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Be bold, and take a stab at it! --Piet Delport 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 * This article needs to be improved before contemplating a split. The same basic processes are involved in communication and computing scheduling. I think it best to consolidate, improve then look and see if a split is still warranted. As such, I have merged Scheduling algorithm into this article. --Kvng (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Unisys 2200 Operating System CPU Dispatch Algorithm
The pattern used to allocate CPU time based on spiraling through the levels. The pattern is 1213121412131215... The time on CPU (ignoring intervening interrupt pre-processing) doubles for each step increase. For example, 1 might be 50 ms., 2 would be 100 ms., 3 would be 200 ms., 4 would be 400 ms., 5 would be 800 ms. When a thread is put on the dispatch queue, it is assigned the shortest quantum corresponding to the 1-level. If it runs until it exceeds its quantum without causing an I/O, the quantum doubles and the level increases by 1. Eventually, the quantum assigned and level assigned is at some maximum. An I/O request causes a thread's level to revert to 1. The plan is to permit CPU bound problems to solve with infrequent, long slurps from the CPU resource whilst I/O bound problems get frequent, short slurps to start the next I/O. Thus, context switches are minimized whilst I/O resources are kept as busy as possible.

A CPU quantum has traditionally been measured by a clock that runs only when the CPU is in user state (i.e. in Guard Mode). A thread that has not exceeded its quantum can continue to process until it exceeds its quantum or an exigent event (i.e. an interrupt that must be handled for longer than it would take to pre-process an I/O interrupt) occurs. On the Unisys 2200 architecture a context switch is not necessary in order to pre-process an I/O interrupt because the CPU contains a set of registers for user mode and an identical separate set for executive mode. Pre-processing an I/O interrupt entails recording everything necessary to be able to post-process the I/O interrupt: which IOU? which channel? which sub-channel? which device? what status? --72.75.104.219 (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Outdated Reference
In the reference section, the link "Information on the Linux 2.6 scheduler" is outdated as only covers the Linux scheduler up to the 0(1) scheduler which, as the current article says, has been replaced by CFS in 2.6.23. I believe this should be noted next to the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.133.101 (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing numbered references
There are no numbered references in this article (and they have never been there, as far as I looked), while there are paragraphs referring to them (for example note #2 in the Operating system scheduler implementations section). Virtlinkt•c 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly-erroneous citation
Citation 1 (http://www.jgcampbell.com/caos/html/node13.html) says: "Windows 95 introduced preemptive scheduling. However, backwards software compatibility, the great bugbear of all Microsoft and Intel systems, meant that it had to support software using the cooperative method as well. Hence, in 95, and 98 and Me, you cannot really say that the kernel is in full control."

I will still have to do some proper fact-checking. I recall from my assembler class that Windows managed co-operative threads separately as stated above. However, this co-operative process management was in turn managed by the pre-emptive process management system thus implying that the kernel is in fact in full control. Brendan Hide (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 * In Windows 1.x, 2.x and 3.x no windows apps were directly pre-emptible, but whenever you made a call to a bit of the OS that yielded the CPU, other apps would get a look in. The ::Yield api call would do this, as would MessageBox, GetMessage and some others. Odd things would happen here, (memory could move around), so it was certainly not something you did lightly. However, Windows/386 added support for virtual dos windows, and I believe there may have been some pre-emptive scheduling at that level. In which case it was the windows apps that were co-operatively scheduling. In these versions of windows, all windows applications shared the same memory space, so you have to view them not so much as separate processes, as separate, co-operating threads in a single process. Regarding Windows 95-98, I think the issue may be which bits of the user interface were re-entrant. I have forgotten the details, thankfully. SteveLoughran (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

the above is correct, on a 386 processor, Windows 3.1x could run multiple DOS virtual machines in a preemptive manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.100.99 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism
The text under Scheduling Criteria is copied word-for-word from Operating System Concepts, Silberschatz, Galvin, and Gagne. Pages 187-188 of the 8th edition of the International edition. --Ultrarob (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Solaris: Does a high number mean high or low priority?
I am confused by the statement in Scheduling_(computing) of "0-59 are reserved for time-shared threads [...] and 160-169 for low priority interrupts". What are low priority interrupts in this context, anyway? Priority 169 is the upper most priority, 0 is the lowest priority, or am I mistaken here? Hacklschorsch (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

0.2 seconds to switch processes?
It says that Linux 2.4 uses 200 ms (0.2 seconds) to switch between real-time tasks. This sounds like a bit much to me, but I haven't taken a course in operating systems. How many times per second is this kind of switching expected to occur? The text has been here since 5 March 2009 and no one else seems to have reacted, so I guess I'm wrong here. I just don't understand it. --τις (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I believe what this paragraph is trying to say is that each active realtime task gets to run for 200 ms and each active nice task runs for 10 ms. Task switches are therefore 5 to 100 per second. That's just my reading. The material is uncited so I can't verify. I've requested a citation. --Kvng (talk)

Scheduling Processes vs. Threads
How does a scheduler deal with a multi-threaded process?

I run a low-priority non-interactive SMP process in Windows. Unfortunately for good throughput a certain group of threads must receive equal amounts of CPU time because it completes work at the rate of the slowest thread. If one thread is preempted, the Win7 scheduler will REDUCE the priority of that thread in an attempt to minimize thrashing, which is exactly what I don't want to happen, even though it's often the right thing to do.

Even lower priority processes may be dispatched when in my situation, they shouldn't be. If my process needs N balanced threads and the scheduler sees that both this process and a lower priority process can be dispatched by allocating me only (N-1) threads, it will do so. I conclude that the fixed priority settings are not being applied to threads, only to processes.

This is not simple, either in my case or in general, because some threads need priority and others do not and the scheduler doesn't have enough information to do what I want it to do.

Does any OS deal with this dilemma? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.178.29 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No definition of the term Quantum as relates to Scheduling?
The term "quantum" is used when discussing scheduling (e.g., see the discussion of Unisys elsewhere on this page), yet I don't see a definition in Wikipedia. Probably it doesn't need its own first class definition and could be done somehow on this Scheduling page. I've always perceived it as either a synonym for "time slice" or as the duration of a "time slice" (or both, since uses may differ). Is there some reason there's no entry in Quantum (disambiguation) that leads to apply to scheduling? The only computer science disambiguation of Quantum leads to Quantum computing. --Netsettler (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is a lot like the load balancing article
Just noticing. Feel free to delete this notice if it's improper. Sometree (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Scheduling (computing). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sriramk.com/schedulers.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cn.opensolaris.org/files/solaris_linux_bsd_cmp.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

partition scheduler
Other Wikipedia articles mention various types of "partition scheduler" -- real-time computing, QNX, ARINC 653, etc. My understanding from the brief description in those articles is that a "partition scheduler" is a category of scheduling algorithm.

I came to this "scheduling" article hoping to find a few more details on what a "partition scheduler" is and how it compares and contrasts to other categories of scheduling algorithm. Alas, I am disappointed that this article fails to even mention the word "partition". --DavidCary (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scheduling (computing). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811094049/http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/aix/library/au-aix5_cpu/index.html to http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/aix/library/au-aix5_cpu/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scheduling (computing). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613130106/http://oreilly.com/catalog/linuxkernel/chapter/ch10.html to http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/linuxkernel/chapter/ch10.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811094049/http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/aix/library/au-aix5_cpu/index.html to http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/aix/library/au-aix5_cpu/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

FCFS program in C
I'm moving this recent anonymous contribution here for discussion. It strikes me as potential WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO. If it had some more explanation or had a source, we might want to use it. ~Kvng (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

void main { clrscr; int a[10][10],i,g[10],w[10],n,j; float avg=0, sum=0; printf("Enter the number of process(maximum ten)"); scanf("%d",&n); for(i=0;i
 * 2) include

int temp1=a[i][0]; int temp2=a[i][1]; a[i][0]=a[minimum][0]; a[i][1]=a[minimum][1]; a[minimum][0]=temp1; a[minimum][1]=temp2; } g[0]=a[0][0]; for(i=0;i<n;i++){ g[i+1]=g[i]+a[i][1]; } for(i=0;i<n;i++){ w[i]=g[i]-a[i][0]; } printf("\nWaiting time of each process is:"); for(i=0;i<n;i++){ printf("\n %d",w[i]); sum=sum+w[i]; } avg=sum/n; printf("\naverage waiting time is: %f", avg); getch; }

OUTPUT: Enter the number of process(maximum ten)3 Enter the arrival and burst time 0 1 1 1 2 1 waiting time for each process is: 0 0 0 average waiting time is: 0.000000

"mop"?
In section "Dispatcher" I suspect "mop" is a typo. If not, it needs to be defined. Arthur.Goldberg (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

learning
anything anyone need help with be free to msg me .. 10CHOSEN1111 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

2601:C5:180:3490:5CC:186F:B970:7809 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Scheduling (computing)


text:
Feet Up (Pat Him on the Po-Po)

"Feet Up (Pat Him on the Po-Po)" is a popular song written by Bob Merrill in 1952. Its best-known version was recorded by Guy Mitchell in 1952. The song reached number 18 on the Cashbox chart in August 1952. The song also reached number 2 on the UK Singles Chart in November 1952, becoming the first number two record in that chart.

The narrator of the song is a former lowlife who is reforming so he can set a good example for his newborn son, whom he loves. The title refers to the tradition of spanking a newborn baby just after birth, to ensure it draws breath.

title: Feet Up (Pat Him on the Po-Po)


text:
Nathalie Dechy

Nathalie Dechy (born 21 February 1979) is a former professional tennis player from France.

Dechy is a three-time doubles Grand Slam champion, winning the 2006 US Open women's doubles title with Vera Zvonareva, the 2007 French Open mixed doubles title with Andy Ram, and the 2007 US Open women's doubles title with Dinara Safina. Her biggest singles achievement is reaching the semifinals of the 2005 Australian Open.

At the 2008 Wimbledon Championships, she faced world No. 1 and reigning French Open champion, Ana Ivanovic. She had a match point during the second set, before losing in the super-tiebreak, 7–6, 6–7, 8–10.

Since 2015, Nathalie Dechy has been the director of the Biarritz Tennis Tournament, a women's tennis tournament organized every year by the Quarterback agency at Biarritz Olympic Tennis. This tournament is part of the ITF (International Tennis Federation) category and has $80,000 in prize money.

Personal life
Dechy was born to a father from continental France and a Canadian mother from the Eastern Townships of Quebec. She holds dual French-Canadian citizenship. On 25 January 2010 she gave birth to a son.

title: Nathalie Dechy