Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Religion

Is she Anglican? And if not, will she convert before her wedding? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes she is. And if she weren't, she would either have to convert or William renounce his place in the succession. --03:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)193.60.91.16 (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)RosC

But what about the British Kings that had Catholic wives, such as King Charles I? She would not have to convert, I think, but do we know for a fact (with sources) that she is an Anglican? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, she is not, and no, she most certainly will not be converting. Refer to the above discussion which I have ended ended.121.214.14.109 (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating she is Jewish? She is not allowed to be Jewish and a member of the Royal family. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Succesion Act prohibiting a marriage with a catholic only came after the Glorious Revolution so Charles I, Charles II and James II were not bound by it. -- fdewaele, 18 November 2010, 12:01 CET.

There is not citation for her religion if any. Can someone please provide one. Thanks. Donama (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The only religion excluded by the Act of Settlement of 1701 is Roman Catholicism. She could be Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim and not prohibited from marrying the heir to the throne or someone near the throne. However, there is no reason to believe that she is not standard C of E. If she weren't, the media would have been trumpeting it years ago. People who are not familiar with the relevant law on this subject shouldn't be making claims about the religious issues.68.251.36.89 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to enlighten you about British constitutional law. It is only because of the Act of Settlement 1701 that heirs to the British throne are not allowed to marry Catholics, which explains why Charles I was not covered by it. More importantly, you are woefully wrong in your belief that Jews are not allowed to belong to the British royal family. There is absolutely no reason why a Jew could not be a member of the royal family, or even be the consort of the Sovereign. The only rules are that the Sovereign must defend the Protestant reformed faith of the Churches of England and Scotland and that he/she and his/her heirs may not be married to Catholics.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

She was confirmed in the Anglican church shortly (IE in the month before) her wedding, so yes, she's Anglican. Jcuk (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because she changed her religion does not make her non jewish. They are an ethnic group. Secular Jews are still Jews and Jewish. Her Mother is Goldsmith and she is not English. She has British Citizenship. Try looking up other Secular Jews on wikipedia, they are still represented as born into a secular Jewish Family. Lenin being a good example. You can not stop being a Jew just because you convert to Anglicanism. Wis (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where the "changed her religion" come in - most parts of the Christian community observe two stages in becoming a Christian - baptism where water is ritually poured over the person's head and personal acceptance of Christ as Saviour. In the Church of England it is normal for the ritual of baptism to be perfomed shortly after birth and the the ritual of acceptance (confirmation) once the person understands what they are doing - usually when they are in their teens (or older). Catherine Middleton was baptised when she was six months old and was confirmed a month or so before she was married. Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to get offensive. Lenin? Does anyone really think any of this belongs here? Since no one has presented any reliable (or unreliable) source saying that her family is Jewish, it appears only to be because of the sound of her mother's name that some are promoting this - and that is totally absurd. You cannot determine if a person is Jewish or anything else based on the sound of a name, any more than by their physical characteristics, or their occupation, or any other stereotype that small minds conjure up. We are here to discuss improvements to this article, based on reliable sources, not the imaginings of random editors - find some sources about her religion if you are interested in this. In fact, her genealogical chart, offered as a source for her ancestry in our article, shows Goldsmiths marrying in various churches for several generations, which would certainly suggest that they were Christian, wouldn't it. But can we please get back to the business of editing this article. Tvoz/talk 03:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Parents' details

Are the parents exact date of birth and location notable for this article, does it breach some sort of guideline as they are living and not the subject of the article? MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant, particularly the hospital. I don't even think the hospital where Kate was born is relevant. However, I've seen discussions of these sorts of things in other articles, and many editors take the (in my view, incorrect) position that facts are facts and the more the merrier. I haven't found any specific guideline or policy, though (maybe someone else can), and I usually find consensus on the issue hard to reach.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK I have removed the information about living people not the subject of the article as not really needed and probably breaks the WP:BLP rules. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I read somewhere that one of her parents was either a US Citizen or had dual citizenship. This seems to be relevant given the last time someone of American citizenship married a royal, there was an abdication... 75.69.183.33 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"I read somewhere" is not a usable citation. The last American to marry a Windsor's citizenship was irrelevant - her marital status was the issue. Roger (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What reason is there to remove the parents' birth years? I'm not saying the exact dates should be stated, but years of birth are standard biographical info. Jim Michael (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably as I said above that it is personal information on a living person who is not the subject of the article so goes against the spirit of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It may be standard biographical information but this is an encyclopedia not a geneaolgical site. It would be stupid not to give the names of her parents but any more personal information like the date of birth is not really relevant to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

I challenged the addition of an ancestry section by removing it as being non-notable, it has been added back by another user. We already have an external link to a bbc site on her ancestry and such the section is not needed and not notable or even has a reliable reference. The ancestry tables have a use but this one provides no links to other articles because she just had no ancestors of note. Propose that the table is not added. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The editor who feels that such a trivial piece of information should be part of the article is the one who needs to explain why. Surtsicna (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree in part, and agree in part. The ancestry of a woman who is likely to be the mother of future monarchs is notable and relevant. I think the first paragraph in the ancestry section is justified for inclusion, although it is far from complete, because there is no mention of Middleton's working class ancestry. However the second paragraph is wholly trivial and has no place anywhere in Wikipedia. To describe Ellen Degeneres (14th cousin twice removed!), George Washington, Guy Ritchie, etc, as Middleton's "cousins" is wrong and ridiculous. Every human being has roughly one million 10th cousins. This is an attempt to inject magazine-style gossip into a biography of a living person, is irrelevant to Middleton's ancestry, and should be deleted. Rubywine (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed that this same topic was raised and discussed earlier under Geneaology. I agree with the comments made by Nunh-huh on 10 February 2011, in particular, "what makes something 'notable' is the availability of a non-trivial reliable source, not an individual Wikipedian's opinion" and "really, pretty much all a (future) queen brings to the table is her genealogy anyway, whether it's deemed remarkable or unremarkable". Rubywine (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to take issue with "what makes something 'notable' is the availability of a non-trivial reliable source, not an individual Wikipedian's opinion" is clearly not right it wouldnt be hard to find all sorts of reliable sourced information about the subject, clearly most of it not notable to an encyclopedia. Non-trivial reliable sources is still a judgement call and subject to consensus no different to any consensus on notability. MilborneOne (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This should absolutely not be here, WP:NOTDIRECTORY should cover this. None of her ancestors are independently notable, please get rid of the ahnentafel! Lampman (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep the ahnentafel and add a bit to the section on ancestry to identify which of Catherine's ancestors were descended from the landed gentry - the two lines met with the marriage of Harriet Davies and Francis Lupton - Catherine's gg-grandparents. I would advocate removing all the references and using just the one - William Addams Reitwiesner (WARGS) from whom I suspect all the others gleaned their information anyway. Martinvl (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

First queen of non-Brit nobility?

Although citted in the article with two sources, it is false that "Middleton will be the first queen-in-waiting for more than 350 years to not be a member of the English nobility". Unless someone can explain to me how Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, and Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, just to name a few British queens consort within the last 350 years, were "members" of the English (or even "British") nobility? Unless changed, this is an example of how Wikipedia's editorial standard of "Verifiability, not truth" renders the encyclopedia vulnerable, silly -- and unreliable. FactStraight (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I wondered about that myself. There are also problems about how you define "queen-in-waiting". Kate could be the first queen of England since the Norman Conquest to have no significant royal or noble ancestry (the background of some pre-Conquest queens is hazy). PatGallacher (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically there's no such thing as "nobility" in England (the UK?) — you are the Sovereign, you are a peer or you are a commoner. DBD 21:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically, "nobility" does exist, it's just that nobility and peerage are the same thing in England and the UK. Whereas in the rest of Europe either there was never a peerage or there was/is a legal distinction between titled nobility and untitled nobility. What "England" and the UK lack is not nobility, but untitled nobility. FactStraight (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In Europe, the main distinction is between nobility and commoners. Whether one holds a title is immaterial, a lot of untitled noble families are considered to be higher nobility than families with titles, often based on how old the families in question are. Uradel is usually considered higher nobility than those ennobled by letters patent, even if the latter holds a title such as Baron. Garn Svend (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The law in Britain is completely different, Garn. As with your other posts on this page you REALLY need to understand this point. The system prevelant in Europe has no bearing whatosever on practices in the UK. The UK does not have a nobility (titles or untitled) as such, it has a Peerage. No significance is attached to how 'old' a family is. ALL titled families in the uk are titles by letters patent. There is no concept of 'higher' or 'lower' nobility. These copncep-ts may have some meaning in parts of the continent, but are totlally meaningless in the UK. You are either sovereign, Peer, or Commoner. Indisciplined (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cindynguyen1693, 29 April 2011

A suggestion: change Catherine's, Duchess of Cambridge photo to one in her wedding dress. Much suitable.

Cindynguyen1693 (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Finding such a photo that is also public domain would be a bit of a mission. We can't use copyrighted official or press photos. Roger (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is this one, although the quality isn't the best. Tvoz/talk 18:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Escution for Coat of Arms section

Is the following now correct, as her arms are now her fathers arms impaled with her husbands arms? "Per pale Azure and Gules, a chevron Or, cotised Argent, between three acorns slipped and leaved Or." Should it not be quarterly whatever Williams arms are followed by the above? Jcuk (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Added the info, its technically her husband impaled with her father's arms. More information on the arms will (hopefully) be revealed when the Queen actually issue a warrant to confirm the details. Sodacan (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Sodacan, I wasn't 100% sure of the wording so I didn't want to mess around with it. Nice work on the graphic b.t.w. Jcuk (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No probs! hopefully the Queen will issue a warrant soon, confirming everything Sodacan (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"its technically her husband impaled with her father's arms" - wow! that sounds painful, father-in-law's revenge? I look forwards to seeing that as a pic!

The acorns look decidedly different from this version [1] (I know, its Hello but it does appear to be valid...) Chaosdruid (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, it's escutcheon, and pronounced as it looks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Chaosdruid: Yes it does sound painful, heraldry is after all originally an art form created for violence and warfare, but seriously: Impalement (heraldry). The acorns look the way they do because of this: blazon. Sodacan (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Some fixes please

 editsemiprotected Not entirely done, but almost everything has been, I'll post the one remaining thing on a new post as the talk page is getting really rather long. 76.93.52.155 (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Change the title of the Price William section

There is still a section titled "Price William" which makes no sense at all. It's followed by separate (not sub) sections title "breakup and reconciliation" "engagement and wedding" and she just married the man. Perhaps, considering that her relationship to him is what makes her notable, that she's married to the man, and that most of the article is about their relationship in some form or another, a section titled "Price William" should at the least be retitled.

2. Add order of precedence boxes and women's order of precedence temple for the UK

She's missing both the standard order of precedence boxes as well as the women's order of precedence template for the UK. I think she still needs to be added to the template, but I believe she's been added to all of the order of precedence articles. Also, she appears to not yet have a template of her own--I thought one was prepared and ready to go when the clock struck as it were. I'm also wondering about the order of the templates? The large princess template seems to either be at the very bottom or very top depending on the article and it seems more readable when placed on the bottom. The page already has a large template section and it's just going to grow, so unless there's a real reason for putting it ahead of everything else, readability seems important.

3. fix Countess of Strathearn mess-up

Also, slight problem. There is a Euphemia Stewart, Countess of Strathearn who inherited the title from her father, aside from any women who may have had the title through marriage, but someone created the page Countess of Strathearn with a little one liner about how it's a title Middleton will receive. It cannot just be redirected here, even though she is the current owner of the title, because something has to be done about Euphemia Stewart who is probably more notable for the specific title. It obviously can't redirect to the non-current title holder, and I hardly think a disambiguation page is necessary. I'm thinking a redirect here and disambig link at the top.

4. Mountbatten-Windsor if anything, not Middleton

Also, in the infobox her name had been changed to reflect that her last name is no longer Middleton and there was a reference note about Mountbatten-Windsor. Someone replaced this with her maiden name. Fix please.

Surnames, married or otherwise, do not need to be specifically attached to her name in the infobox since this is conveyed through her now being a member of the House of Windsor and is also clear in the introduction. See Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Diana, Princess of Wales :) OlliffeΦObscurity 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the 'Middleton' from her Full Name. Bescot42 (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do see the articles you referenced. They have the full name (no last name maiden or otherwise), and a footnote link. The footnote is identical on all of the royal pages for royals from the line of the Queen and Prince Philip. "As a titled royal, (insert first name here) holds no surname, but, when one is used, it is Mountbatten-Windsor". In fact, earlier today, someone had made this change and her full name was on one line instead of being on the next, but then someone came and changed it back to Middleton and put the name on the next line. Middleton is gone and that's all well and good, but for people who look at her full name and get confused, that footnote is important and is on the other articles. Diana and other divorced royals are obviously a whole different story. Their infoboxes generally contain a last name and a notation explaining what their last name and title was when and the practice in using the title and the last name. 76.93.52.155 (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

5. Additional Duchess of Cambridge

Caroline of Ansbach was also Duchess of Cambridge. The disambig link at the top of the page states that there was only one prior Duchess of Cambridge. Fix please. Either with an additional disambig link or a disambig page but at least make sure it doesn't say "the only previous" 76.93.52.155 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The word "duchesses" is used in the hatnote, which clearly shows that there have been more than one previous Duchesses of Cambridge. OlliffeΦObscurity 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This hatnote has been subsequently removed since disambiguation for "Duchess of Cambridge" was deemed not significant enough. OlliffeΦObscurity 17:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is not protectedHardy Heck (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The article page is. Which is why I use the template to let others who can edit the page know what edits I am requesting. That's the whole point of the various edit request templates. Please don't undo this again unless you're respoding to the template with a yes or a no, or if in fact the article has been unprotected and I can edit it myself. Which I do not foresee in the immediate future. Please also keep in mind that a state of semi-protection keeps me from editing the article. 76.93.52.155 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Her father's arms ?

The article states: "Catherine's coat of arms is based on those of her father Michael Middleton." I'm confused, can someone clarify this please; because it does not say in what way, or why it is [being a 'commoner'] that he even has any himself . --188.29.240.56 (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

UK arms are passed from father to child. Catherines arms, as a single woman were those of her father, displayed in a lozenge, hung from a ribbon. As a married woman, her arms are those of her husband combined with her fathers, displayed on a shield (in this case with various accountriments showing that her husband is a grandchild of the sovereign). Pretty much anyone nowadays can apply to be granted arms, and Catherine's father's arms were granted about a month before the wedding.Jcuk (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that [at least] your last point should be included in the article at that point {given that there is no article for her father} so that, in future, the article does not leave people [like me] wondering about the nobility (!) of her father.--188.28.177.79 (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarified the information concerned, hopefully it is clearer now. Sodacan (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor little thing

Where it says "also known as Kate" in the first line, can it be changed so it reads "Catherine "Kate" Middleton"? Wouldn't that make more sense?--Harmony944 (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

We've had the same problem with Prince Harry of Wales, mostly revolving around this policy. I expect much trouble might follow (although hopefully not as much as others), but I would hope that we could collectively let the dust settle for a while, and in particular, wait until Catherine herself announces how she would like to be referred to as. (Sorry, Winston). Hengist Pod (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I'm talking about "(born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton on 9 January 1982, also known as Kate)". I really think "(born Catherine Elizabeth "Kate" Middleton on 9 January 1982)" would be better (eg "Henry Louis "Hank" Aaron". I obviously have no problem beginning it with the royal name, in fact if I had the belief of starting it with the common, I'd be overwhelmed with opposition--Harmony944 (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

But she wasn't born "Kate" and it probably isn't on her birth certificate. The same is true for Prince "Harry", whose real name is Henry. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. You're not given a nickname in utero. Harry was born Henry, and Habnk was born Henry, but they still got their nicknames. Same with Thomas Cruise Mapother IV, better known as TOM Cruise--Harmony944 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; a nickname is not given in utero. Which is why "(born Catherine Elizabeth "Kate" Middleton on 9 January 1982)" would not be better. I have rewritten the first sentence more concisely to reflect that fact, and to be consistent with comparable articles. See Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Sarah, Duchess of York and Princess Michael of Kent. Rubywine (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to play devils advocate, I REALLY don't understand why articles like this are not titled, e.g. "The Duchess of Cambridge", as there can only ever be one living Duchess of Cambridge, so the title would be totally unambiguous. Previous holders could be titled "X, Duchess of Cambridge", to show they held the title while alive....simple really...oh well! Jcuk (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the naming conventions are sensible. Not including the titleholder's first name and thereby not identifying them uniquely would be unhelpful to people seeking out the article. Rubywine (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Titles

We've assumed on her page that she simply holds the feminine form of her husband's titles, but according to The Prince of Wales Website http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/thedukeandduchessofcambridge/theduchessofcambridge/biography/index.html she is Lady of Strathearn, and Countess of Carrickfergus. Is there some way we could verify her titles? Jcuk (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no way we could verify those titles. They are wrong — they've muddled up the degrees and territories of her actual titles! Unfortunately, the Royal sites sometimes seem to be run be complete amateurs... DBD 10:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I know it looks and sounds ugly, but why exactly the article isn't titled Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge?--89.76.224.253 (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Like all the other royal biographies, the title complies with Wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty, which happen to be rather sensible. Rubywine (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that looks wrong. If I understand it correctly, the wife of an Earl is a Countess and the wife of a Baron is a Baroness.--Mattmatt1987 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a possibility that the people who write content for royal web sites are not picked on the basis of being best qualified for the job. :) Rubywine (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

She is theoretically entitled to use any of the titles, but it would make for a very long title for the article, so only the most senior title is used. For the record one person who does not use the most senior title to which they are entitled in Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall - she could, and in theory should, style herself "Camilla, Princess of Wales", but due to the emotional luggage assocatiated with Diana, Princess of Wales, she has chosen to be known by the title "Duchess of Cornwall". Another example where a different title is used in in the islands of Jersey and Guernsey where toasts are always made to "The Duke [of Normandy]" who currently happens to be Queen Elizabeth II. If we were to include all the Queen's titles, we would have to include all sixteen realms of which she is Queen plus the fact that she is Duke of Normandy. Lets just stick to "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" Martinvl (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

She is NOT a Baroness - I know wiki isn't a RS but it clearly states on the Baron article what the conventional title for the wife of a Baron is. Also, the word "The" should be included prior to "Princess". 89.206.199.55 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course she is a baroness, her husband being a baron. What is she, if not a duchess, a countess and a baroness? The word "The" should not be included because she is the Sovereign's granddaughter-in-law, not her daughter-in-law. The Duchess of Cabridge's aunt-in-law, on the other hand, is "The Princess Edward..." Surtsicna (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

It isn't correct to title the article "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge". This is not her current title. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is what her title would become if she and William divorced (just like, post-divorce, Diana became "Diana, Princess of Wales" and Sarah became "Sarah, Duchess of York". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.123.206 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So all the media is wrong as they all use the title? Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP user is right. However, Wikipedia's manual of style dictates that nobility and royalty be named as such (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility no. 2). That's why there's a section in the article Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Titles, styles and arms which deals with her correct style and title.

Similar articles include Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Sophie, Countess of Wessex and Sarah, Duchess of York (divorced, with correct styles mentioned in the titles section).

It's tough when users who don't usually edit or read other similar articles make good faith edits that ignore convention. However, it's our job as more seasoned users to inform them. - Yk (talk | contrib) 22:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Princess William?

You make me bazodee here. There was Princess Diana, not Princess Charles. There's Anne, the Princess Royal, not Princess Timothy. There was Princess Margaret, not Princess Antony.
So why loses Catherine her first name and get's called Princess William? Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Diana was never officially styled "Princess Diana". When she married Charles, she acquired the title "Princess of Wales", just like Prince Charles was called the "Prince of Wales" after being invested as such.

The Princess Royal was born a British princess, unlike Diana or Catherine, so her title is automatically greater than that of husband. This is the same with Princess Margaret. Jagislaqroo (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I found something: The official title is Princess William of Wales or HRH Duchess of Cambridge, that makes more sence to me. Publicly known she will be as Princess Kate or Catherine, just like Princess Diana. Who was to my knowledge never called Princess Charles of Wales. Could be that I never heard this title as I live in Europe not in the United Kingdom. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

See Princess Michael of Kent for another example of this happening. Hobson (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between "Charles, Prince of Wales" and "Prince Charles of Wales". The former means that Charles is the Prince of Wales; the latter implies that Charles is the son of the Prince of Wales.

The wife of "Charles, Prince of Wales" is therefore the "Princess of Wales", while the wife of a certain "Prince Charles of Wales" would be "Princess Charles of Wales". - Yk (talk | contrib) 23:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Torystevie, 1 May 2011

The title is incorrect, she is NOT Catherine, The Duchess of Cambridge, this implies that she is the EX-spouse of the Duke of Cambridge as per the 1995 order-in-council regulating titles. Her title is HRH Princess William, The Duchess of Cambridge or simply HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. Only females born INTO the the Royal House are titled with their first name such as HRH Princess Anne, The Princess Royal.

Torystevie (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right. However, Wikipedia's manual of style dictates that nobility and royalty be named as such (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility no. 2). That's why there's a section in the article Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Titles, styles and arms which deals with her correct style and title.

Similar articles include Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Sophie, Countess of Wessex and Sarah, Duchess of York (divorced, with correct styles mentioned in the titles section). - Yk (talk | contrib) 01:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Urgent naming/first line problem

We have a problem. We need to reach a definitive decision on how the first line of this article should read, based on sources, precedent, and - dare I say - WP:COMMONNAME and other Wikipedia policy. Right now there is a major edit war going on, and if it doesn't stop we will end up with a full-protect meaning only admins will be able to edit. Even if that is short term, it is not the way things should be done - that is what the talk page is for. I am not an expert on this so would editors please step up here and repeat the arguments for how this article's first line should read, and let us reach consensus on that and have somewhere to point well-meaning newcomers to. The duel has to stop. Tvoz/talk 07:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be protected. The problem is because of the Royal Wedding and increased celebrity is that editors who have no knowledge and no experience of editing Royal articles suddenly think that their misformed ideas of how they think it ought to be (rather than how it is) and demand that that is included in the article. Hopefully the celebrity will subside somewhat (though if babies occur it might come back again). Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DONTBITE! These editors are making changes in good faith. It up to us to inform them of the convention adopted here.

This is the third time I'm posting this on this page. To all editors unfamiliar with articles on royals and nobility:

Wikipedia's manual of style dictates that nobility and royalty be named as such (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility no. 2). In other words, we know that the name in the lead paragraph is technically not correct, but we need a way to name the person in question in a way that does not confuse her with previous Duchesses of Cambridge. That's why there's a section in the article Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Titles, styles and arms which deals with her correct style and title.

Similar articles include Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Sophie, Countess of Wessex and Sarah, Duchess of York (divorced, with correct styles mentioned in the titles section). - Yk (talk | contrib) 08:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, YK - I saw your posts, which is why I reverted to that wording and asked for discussion here - I thought it best if it be consolidated in one place. Tvoz/talk 08:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the first line... After "is the wife of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge", it also says "who is the second in line to the thrones of the sixteen Commonwealth realms (after his father Charles, Prince of Wales)". That's way too much detail for a lead sentence. (And there's not such detail in the comparable article Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall). I tried removing it and the same editor reverted it. Adpete (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC) (I mean the same editor as the one who originally inserted it).

I agree with you on this - I'd remove it too. Tvoz/talk 08:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not compromise and just make it two sentences? End the first one with "...is the wife of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge." Then start another with "William is second in line to the thrones of..." HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Which has been done, and I vote to keep the second sentence. William's place in the line of succession (concisely phrased, as it has been) is directly relevant to understanding Catherine's position in the monarchy. Rubywine (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Urgent? With respect to all, the argument that it is necessary to entitle the article, "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge", to prevent ambiguity, is idle: there has been only one other duchess who was duchess, alone, Augusta of Hesse-Kassel (1797 -1889), widow of the first duke of the last creation). The first duchess, Caroline of Ansbach (1683 - 1737) is known (by those who've heard of her, universally,) as George II's Queen. In any case, both of Miss Middleton's predecessors were born princesses. Equally, NOBODY refers to HRH The Duchess of Cornwall as "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" - with whom, prey, do those above think that she will be confused? With respect to the new Duchess of Cambridge's style and title, it is neither difficult nor mysterious.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2011/Announcementoftitles29April2011.aspx

Cato the Yr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cato the Younger (talk • contribs) 10:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse other editors of "ignorance" in your edit note you should learn to sign your posts (four tildes, 4 x ~). You probably mean "pray" rather than "prey" as well. Britmax (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Another contribution of substance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cato the Younger (talk • contribs) 12:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Cato the Younger, it is not merely a question of avoiding ambiguity between living persons. We are in line with Wikipedia's conventions on naming royalty, which require both first name and substantive title. It is a convention that is practical and helpful to a broad range of readers. Not identifying the individual uniquely in history, and not mentioning their popularly used first name in the article title, would be unhelpful to readers seeking out the article. I recognise that you disagree. But if you wish to dispute Wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty, then this is not the right place to pursue that discussion. And if you wish to disregard Wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty just in the case of this particular article, and single out Catherine's biography for special treatment, then you haven't said anything to support that argument. Rubywine (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Cato the Younger: Again, do not restrict yourself to the context of this article. The convention applies to all dukes & duchesses, including those with many previous holders. - Yk (talk | contrib) 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

+: If you think this manner of referring to holders of courtesy titles is incredibly ignorant, then this is not the place to air your grievances. Why not start a constructive conversation at the naming convention page (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility)? - Yk (talk | contrib) 16:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Pippa a spinster

In the section on Kate's previous coat of arms it refers to her previous state as unmarried, but Pippa is called a spinster. As far as I know, a woman is not a spinster until she is beyond reproductive age. Does spinster connote something different in the world of heraldry? If not, let's just call her unmarriedBusaccsb (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- "unmarried" conveys the point in a less archaic manner.Tvoz/talk 08:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A spinster is an unmarried woman, young or old. There is some social stigma against being an old unmarried woman - i.e. an old spinster, but it is the opposite for a fertile young spinster. Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't read the article spinster -- it's talking a load of nonsense. Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems 'unmarried' is ambiguous / disputed in scope. For most of my life I understood it to mean never married, but in recent years I have seen many people, dictionaries etc. (including Wiktionary) state that it means no current spouse, and therefore includes divorced and widowed people. 188.28.33.55 (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The distinction you make is pertinent one, and it is likely that the author of the Wiktionary source hasn't properly considered this. A spinster has never been married. A woman who has been widowed is a widow; one who has been divorced is a divorcee. Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Unmarried" does indeed convey the information in a less archaic manner. I support the edit to "unmarried daughter of Michael Middleton". The article spinster is not talking nonsense; it is talking a great deal of properly referenced sense. If you want to dispute that, this isn't the right place. Rubywine (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "spinster" is used in the context of heraldry where it applies specifically to any never married female regardless of age. The lozenge shaped escutcheon (shield) and ribbon is applicable to all females from the moment of their birth until their first marriage - actual legal "marriagability" or being "past childbearing age" is irrelevant. In this context the word is specifically heraldic jargon and should not be interpreted by it's everyday meaning(s). Roger (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but the article should not assume any knowledge of heraldic terminology. If you feel it is important to restore the term "spinster" then please italicise the word to indicate that it is heraldic jargon, and also provide a footnote with the explanation you've just given. Rubywine (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Within the United Kingdom, the word "spinster" means "unmarried". When the banns of marriage are published in the Church of England, the vicar announces the following to the congreation on three consecutive Sundays: "I publish the banns of marriage between M, batchelor/widowed of this parish/parish of X and N, spinster/widow of this parish/parish of Y". The Church's concession to women who are past child-bearing is that no reference is made in the wedding service to the couple "being blessed with children". Martinvl (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't see the relevance of the C of E's banns of marriage. Within the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, and possibly elsewhere, in normal conversation, the word "spinster" carries considerably more meaning than just "unmarried". This is discussed in spinster, an article with which I fully agree, although Bobble hobble dobble thinks that it is nonsense. Roger's proposal to treat the term as technical solves the problem. Using it without any comment does not. Rubywine (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Birth Weight?

Does anyone have Catherine's birth weight? BW appears in other royal articles such as the daughters of Andrew and Fergie. Thanks in advance. MyTrainStation (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I learnt long ago that "We always do it that way" is one of the worst justifications for doing anything. Can anyone actually explain why we would include birth weight? HiLo48 (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's directly relevant to her titles. In the seminal tome, Royal Birth Weights and Titles by His and Her Royal Weightiness, Duke and Duchess of Scales, the author gives the history of birth weights of royals and royals-by-marriage, as well as an extensive analysis of the correlation between the weights and the titles conferred on them, by statute, decree, and by Wikipedians.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to concede that your argument holds a lot of weight. Rubywine (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A heavy dilemma to consider indeed. Pounds, stones or kilos? Sodacan (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Shame on you for making light of thisHobson (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it was only included in Princess Beatrice of York because it was available in the press release, it has zero value and is not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is important to me. Maybe I can find the answer some place else. MyTrainStation (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things are important to me that I know rationally most of the world, quite justifiably, doesn't care a fig about. Can you put your desire to know in perspective? Are you willing to try to explain why it's important? HiLo48 (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

YOu could allways try asking at one of the reference desks like (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities) MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The birth weight was recorded at the Royal Berks where she was born and communicated to her parents and probably family doctor. Unless her parents published it as part of a birth announcement or it was released as part of an official biography, you are unlikely to find it out.Martinvl (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Title and Style

The article currently reads "Catherine's full title and style is: Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus." I do not think "Princess" is correct. I am not expert in this and so I'm unwilling to change the article but I've not seen the title of princess conferred on her in any reliable source. She is certainly married to a prince and she is expected to be queen one day. Can anyone provide a reliable source that she is a princess? RonCram (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Princess William" comes from being the wife of "Prince William" just as "Baroness Carrickfergus" comes from her husband being "Baron Carrickfergus". This comes automatically per, if I recall correctly, the Letters Patent of 1917 which set out who automatically is a Prince/ss and "HRH". Timrollpickering (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I found this quote "As well as a duchess, his new bride may also be known as HRH Princess William of Wales. She does not have the title Princess Catherine, as she is not a princess in her own right."[[2]] If I read this correctly, the title of princess is something yet to be conferred on her. Comments?RonCram (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the titles of Countess and Baroness are not conferred on her in this seemingly authoritative announcement.RonCram (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[[3]]

I find the phrase "his new bride may also be known as HRH Princess William of Wales" confusing. I first read it to mean that the Duchess may receive the title of HRH Princess William" in the future but I suppose it can also be read as a current alternative title for her. Timrollpickering is probably correct. Thank you for answering.RonCram (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Princess Husband'sFirstName of Place" is rarely seen because normally the husband has a peerage and that takes precedence in determining the title and style. However when the husband doesn't have a peerage it does emerge - e.g. HRH Princess Michael of Kent because her husband (the younger son of a Duke of Kent) has no peerage. Note that Princess Pushy herself has never actually had HRH or Princess conferred on her, rather she gets it automatically by virtue of her marriage (and her husband in turn got HRH & Prince automatically by virtue of the Letters Patent and has never had them conferred specifically). It's not dissimilar to the way married women used to be referred to as "Mrs Husband'sFirstName Husband'sSurname" - e.g. Mrs Patrick Campbell - but this is a very old fashioned practice and rarely seen nowadays.

However the Royals (and for that matter Palace aides) are not known for being All New All Modern All With It and these styles do endure in formal titles. But because William as made Duke of Cambridge on the morning of the wedding, "Princess William of Wales" is now not going to be seen at all. It was only speculated on in advance because at the time William had no peerage and there was a possibility he might not receive one (since the 1970s there has been a notable cutting down on Royal peerages, with the younger Gloucester and Kent princes not receiving them).

The "short form" title for Catherine is "HRH The Duchess of Cambridge" - no "Princess" or first name in there at all. The problem is that the modern media is more familiar (and also stories get handled by journalists & editors less familiar with the titles) and wants to use royal sounding first names. So you get things like "Princess Diana" which are simply wrong (and which Diana did try to correct). In previous eras it just wasn't necessary - I doubt the-then future Queen Mother was ever referred to in write-ups in the 1920s & 1930s as "Princess Albert" (which she was) or even "Princess Elizabeth" (which she wasn't) but rather was always referred to as "the Duchess of York".

There is a potential solution in that the Queen could either issue additional Letters Patent to provide princes' wives with modern media friendly titles or just agree to allow them to use a special style. The late "HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester" was never a princess in her own right but was allowed to use that style in widowhood as a more modern way of distinguishing her from her daughter-in-law than "HRH the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester". It was also similar to her sister-in-law, "HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent", who again adopted that style to distinguish herself from her daughter-in-law, but Marina was a Princess of Greece & Denmark in her own right and was combining her British, Greek & Danish styles. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Tim, thank you very much. That was very informative. As an American, I am not familiar with these practices at all and that is why I had the question. I expect that here in America the Duchess of Cambridge will come to be called Princess Catherine or, more likely, Princess Kate.RonCram (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Countess of Strathearn disambig link required

I'm requesting a disambig link to Euphemia Stewart, Countess of Strathearn at the top of the page as the page Countess of Strathearn redirects here.

I'm not entirely sure it shouldn't be the other way around, (redirect to Euphemia Stewart and disambig link here) for various reasons, but the redirects go to the current title holder, so I won't stir that pot. Please note, I do not know if there are other Countesses of Strathearn which may require a disambig page. Euphemia Stewart was easy to find because she did not get the title by marriage but inherited it from her father. I'm requesting a disambig link at the top of the page unless and until the title requires a disambig page. Please and thank you. 76.93.52.155 (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have turned Countess of Stathearn into a disambiguation page, there have probably been several holders of the title over the years, although these may be the only 2 with their own articles. PatGallacher (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But there's no disambig link at the top of the page. Should there be one or is the ability to navigate to it from the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge template enough? Speaking of which, changed that so that the link there points to the Duchess of Cambridge disambiguation page --kind of pointless to have it link to the same page that the title of the navigation box links to. 76.93.52.155 (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The title links in the navbox are content, not navigation aids, so they should be removed. Since Countess of Strathearn no longer redirects to this article, I don't see why it needs a dab link anymore. Everything is resolved here? — Bility (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

LH or RH?

Is Catherine left handed or right handed? William I believe is left handed. MyTrainStation (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

First birth weight, now what hand does she write with? Seriously - we are not a compendium of all information about the subjects of our articles. We are supposed to be writing an article based on reliable sources, only including material that is considered notable to the subject's life and/or career. So your best bet would be to watch videos and see what you can figure out if you want to know her handedness, or google for her weight at birth 29 years ago if you have a burning need to know that. Even with reliable sourcing you would have to demonstrate why such tidbits are notable enough to include here, if you were to find them. Tvoz/talk 20:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Must say that I agree with Tvoz on this one. Unless it becomes relevant to her life or a particular incident in her life I see little use in this info. For the record I've Googled it quickly and can't find out Cls14 (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

The ahnentafel should not be included in the article. It is even more silly than birth weight! Why on Earth would any reader want to know the name of her maternal grandfather's paternal grandmother? There is nothing significant about any of her grandparents, great-grandparents or great-great-grandparents. Anything that deserves to be said can be said without the ahnentafel. When I removed it, it was restored with the explanation that "royalty deserve to have it" which makes no sense at all. She did not deserve an ahnentafel a month ago and now she suddenly does? Her marriage has not affected her ancestry in any single way! It is just as much irrelevant and insignificant as it was before. Again, who really cares about the name of her maternal grandfather's paternal grandmother? Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

While as an American I don't feel obliged to follow this sort of thing, I acknowledge and appreciate the fact that nobility and royalty are a fact of life in other parts of the world. In parts of the world where royalty exists, knowing a member's bloodline is a matter of extreme importance and has been for quite literally thousands of years. This is an article about a British woman who has become royal because of her marriage, and therefore this information does, in fact, become relevent and important . I've re-added it. SeanNovack (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The text is useful as it tells you something about the interesting bits of her ancestry and notable ancestors, but I agree with Surtsicna about the ahnentafel it’s completely meaningless, if her ancestors in there were royal or even notable I could see its purpose but as they are not notable I don’t see the point of it, it doesn’t really tell you anything it’s just a bunch of people that are of no interest or relevance. - dwc lr (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SeanNovack. Catherine is likely to be the mother of future British monarchs; therefore her ancestry is of potential interest to readers. The identity of Catherine's forebears is of no less interest because they are coalminers and solicitors rather than "noble" or "royal". It is neither irrelevant nor insignificant that Prince William has married a woman of middle class and working class descent. Almost all of the discussion on this page against including Catherine's ancestors (describing them as "nobodies", etc) has been offensively snobbish drivel. Rubywine (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the ahnentafel preceived as notable? I believe that it is. In real life I am reading "The Kings Speach" - the story of George VI's stutter (which was recently a block-buster film). In the book it describes how George V (who was quite liberally minded) gave serious thought to his seond son marrying a member of the British nobility (the Queen Mother) rather than a foreign royal. The inclusion of the Duchess of Cambridge's ahnentafel is significant in that it shows how things have changed in the last over the last 85 years. Martinvl (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The ahnentafel should be supplemented with a factual paragraph explaining the identities of Catherine's ancestors, thereby making her social background clear and explicit. Rubywine (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Every element in the article does not have to be notable in itself, otherwise we could have a separate article on each fact. However it should be verifiable. It is of interest as it becomes the ancestry of the next generation of royals. Various people will be interested to find out if they are related or not. I think the table should be there. Naturally prose on the ancestors is good too, as long as there is verifiable source for it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a geneaology directory! The names of the Duchess of Cambridge's ancestors cannot have been made relevant by her marriage. Her marriage did not change her ancestors. The point of the ahnentafel is to link the reader to the article about the subject's notable ancestor. Why don't we have an ahnentafel in the article about Bill Gates or in the article about Lady Thatcher? The latter is a peer now, doesn't she "deserve" an ahnentafel as much as the Duchess of Cambridge? When Catherine becomes mother to the heir of the throne, put an ahnentafel into the article about the child. Her marriage and motherhood do not/will not make her great-great-grandparents notable or worth mentioning. Of course the identity of Catherine's ancestors is less notable than William's and that's precisely because her ancestors were coalminers and his were monarchs. That's how it is, like it or not - that's how the entire system of monarchy functions. This discussion is as "snobbish" as the monarchy itself - and this woman married into the family who runs it.

Martinvl, I agree that it is neccessary to point out that, by birth, Catherine belongs to neither royalty nor nobility. However, that information easily fits into one sentence. We do not need to list the names of her 16 great-great-grandparents, eight great-grandparents and four grandparents to illustrate that. "Unlike the majority of royal brides, and in contrast to most previous consorts-in-waiting for over 350 years, Catherine does not come from a royal or aristocratic background." Isn't that quite enough? If not, why don't we put in a bigger ahnentafel to include her equally unnotable and irrelevant great-great-great-grandparents?

A reader would be interested to read about Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, William's father's father's mother's mother. On the other hand, how many readers would say: "The name of Catherine's father's father's mother's mother was Harriet Albina Davis! Wow! I'll Google her immediately or think about her for a while." How many would care at all?

As User:Tvoz put it while explaining why her supposed left-handedness is irrelevant: "Even with reliable sourcing you would have to demonstrate why such tidbits are notable enough to include here, if you were to find them." So why is the name of Harriet Albina Davis notable enough to be included here? Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

While I am proud of my family heritage and I do in fact keep detailed records of my geneology, Wikipedia is not the place for me to store that information. This is well established and entirely proper. Your error is in your assumption that the Duchess of Cambridge's heritage is not notable and did not become notable upon her marriage. Once she became a Royal, her lineage becomes part of the Royal records and will be listed as ancestors of future monarchs. While you may not personally care, having these people listed is both helpful for research purposes and appropriate in an encyclopedia. If you want to continue this, I'd suggest formal RfC for content debate. SeanNovack (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree with SeanNovack. Formal RfC would be the way to proceed with this debate. Surtsicna, you're mistaken in the assumption that your viewpoint is self-evidently correct and shared by all. Rubywine (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Surtsicna wrote '..."The name of Catherine's father's father's mother's mother was Harriet Albina Davis! Wow! I'll Google her immediately or think about her for a while."'. The writer unwittingly (or maybe it was deliberate) picked the one ancestor whose background is likely to be probed more carefully - her ancestry has a dubious link which, if proven, would make the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall 12th cousins, not 15th cousins. The Duchess' background might also be of interest to those who fear for lurking genetic defect that she might be carrying - the 19th century censuses required householders to list lunatics etc.

Fuinally, may I point out that by default the Ahentafel is not displayed so its presence has very little impact on the article unless the reader wishes to open it. Martinvl (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that you are both hilariously wrong to imagine that Catherine's humble ancestry is of no interest to anybody. A Google search on ("Kate Middleton" coal miners) comes up with 376,000 results. That beats "Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine" by a factor of 10. No doubt Hollywood is commissioning film scripts already. What everybody needs to remember is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for the entire world, not just monarchists and patrilinealists. Rubywine (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A Google search on ("Prince William" kings) comes up with 32.200.000 results. That beats ("Kate Middleton" coal miners) by a factor of 10.

Anyway, I do not question the notability of the Duchess's heritage. Of course it is notable. A reader should be informed that she comes from a family of commercial and municipal workers, labourers and miners. What I question is the relevance of the names of her great-great-grandparents, people who she never met and who played no role in her life or history. Once again, do you seriously believe that someone will read the article to learn the names of her great-great-grandparents? Do you seriously believe that readers will be happy to find out that Constance Robison was one of her great-grandmothers? Of course Wikipedia is written for everybody - not just for geneaologists and monarchists, the only people who would be interested in this trivial information. Saying that it needs not be removed because it's collapsed is like saying that any sort of trivia and rubbish can be inserted as long as it's collapsed.

"The Duchess' background might also be of interest to those who fear for lurking genetic defect that she might be carrying - the 19th century censuses required householders to list lunatics etc." Are you serious? We should keep the ahnentafel because a reader might decide to come here, look for the name of her great-great-grandfather and then run through 19th century censuses to check if he was insane out of fear that Catherine's child might be insane? Seriously?! Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

My point was that 376,000 results is very far from zero, which was what you seemed to be suggesting. Yes, I seriously do think that some readers will visit this article to find out the names of Catherine's ancestors, for research purposes, and out of general interest. And I am not alone in thinking that. Hard as it is for you to grasp, the names of Catherine's great-grandparents will be of interest to people studying British social history, and the monarchy. This has already been made clear several times; this discussion is becoming unduly repetitive. So we find each other's views hard to understand and rather silly, and we're not going to reach a consensus. Not a problem. The question is whether you are going to drop the current issue, or take it to a formal RfC. By the way I am reasonably sure that the comment about lurking lunatic genes was intended humorously. If it wasn't, it should have been. Rubywine (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Related to Prince William

According to this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1299794/How-Prince-William-Kate-Middleton-related-thanks-Tudor-tyrant.html they are 12th cousins, and there is details on the connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.251.208 (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Their distant relationship is already mentioned under Ancestry. It's no biggie. Most of us have around 1.7 million 12th cousins. Rubywine (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you took the trouble to read the section enttiled "Ancestry", you will see that the Daily Mail, to use their own wording, "airbrushed" the word "possibly" from their report. I suggest that in future you treat reports form the Daily Mail with extreme caution, unless they are complemented by other sources. Martinvl (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dogs...

"According to some reports, the Duchess has a dog called Otto."

Does anyone believe this is encyclopedic information?? --93.44.215.42 (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Middleton. Fences&Windows 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Under "Honours" Commission as a Kentucky Colonel January 25, 2011

I nominated her in December to Gov Beshear of Kentucky. One of Trey Grayson's last acts as Sec of State was to sign her commission. Col. Allan Escher May 6, 2011 Escherare (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/prince-williams-new-wife-now-outranks-him-8212-in-kentucky/1168050 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escherare (talk • contribs) 12:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really notable enough in my opinion to merit adding in this article (otherwise her honours list would soon be too long if all honours were to be added), but you could always add her name in the list of notable colonels in the article about Kentucky colonels. -- fdewaele, 6 May 2011, 15:10 (CET).

Kate Middleton?

I was under the impression that the idea of the titles of article is that you use the name a person is most commonly known as and I don't see whay that should be any different when it comes to royalty. To all but those within the royal family and hardcore royalists she is still most well known as Kate Middleton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.72.173 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it depends on what you mean by 'commonly known'. If you're talking about coverage in the media (and not just tabloids), she's "The Duchess of Cambridge" now in the UK. I don't think that's the case with ordinary people in the streets when they speak about her in private conversations. But then again, Wikipedia is more inclined to follow the name that is actually published on reliable sources. - Yk³ talk · contrib 22:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That may be the general rule, but see Talk:Cathy Warwick where it seemed to be agreed that when women get married we can move the article to their new married name immediately. PatGallacher (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not general rule to move it is only if the woman is notable or better known as the married name not just because they got married. Dont think you would list Agatha Christie (her first married name) as Agatha Mallowan when she re-married or Agatha Miller her birth name. So a move on marriage is not automatic but as Yk3 says she is now refered to as the Duchess of Cambridge in reliable (non-tabloid) sources. MilborneOne (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

When a prominent person's name changes, and they're not still using their old name publicly (which excludes most authors), it's common sense that many of the references will be out of date. Joseph Ratzinger was fairly prominent under that name before he became Pope but we didn't keep him there after his election. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said a move on marriage, of course there is an exception with women who carry on using their previous name professionally or seem likely to do so after marriage (e.g. most writers). Kate is notable precisely because she got married. PatGallacher (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Her name did change, but I think Kate Middleton is still the more well-known name. --AW (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Surname

Regarding the Kate's surname, the explanation in this article is consistent with every other royal family member's articles in Wikipedia. Please refer to the article Mountbatten-Windsor, which cites the royal family website. The royal family website says (quoted verbatim):

“ For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. ” — British Royal Family

So that's that. - Yk³ talk · contrib 01:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about usability of official gov't photos

If UK copyright law is anything like US law, then official government documents are in the public domain. The British Monarchy's Flickr has numerous shots, including the official portraits. Also, these official shots are being used on many news sites, so I assume they're safe to use for Wikipedia.--Mattmatt1987 (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If we could get a reading on this it would be helpful - the current photograph of the Middletons, for example, is really awful and should be replaced with something else, or removed pending receipt of something acceptable. Tvoz/talk

Neither the UK government nor the UK monarchy releases its photographs into the public domain or under free licenses automatically, though the laws surrounding them do differ slightly- see crown copyright. For our purposes, however, they are non-free, and so may not be used. J Milburn (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All the images in the Flikr photostream refered to by Mattmatt1987 are tagged with "(C) All rights reserved" so they are not available for us. Other publications that have used them most probably pay a fee to do so. Roger (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All three of the official portraits (this one,this one, and this one) and possibly others--I do not know--are marked

The photos are for editorial use only, and they are must not be re-sold or commercially exploited in any way. For requests other than editorial use, please put your requests in writing to Press Office, St James’s Palace, London, SW1A 1BS.

I do not know what is meant by "editorial use," but Wikipedia seems to fit the bill.--Mattmatt1987 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Editorial use I believe allows newspapers to use them for related news stories but these official images are not free enough for wikipedia they are not in the public domain. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is the case, perhaps someone could write to the address given and get permission.--Mattmatt1987 (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Mattmatt1987 _ You have just volunteered yourself; and good luck too; {for all of us}.--188.29.235.90 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all about where you look. The majority of the work of the British government is Crown copyright, which is an entirely closed license. Much of that is licensed in something approximating CC-BY-NC, which (by virtue of being non-commercial-only) is unacceptable as free content here. But the government is trying to be more open, and publishes some of its work under the Open Government License, which is CC-BY-SA compatible. http://www.number10.gov.uk is such a site, which makes the image on http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2010/11/pm-welcomes-announcement-of-date-for-royal-wedding-57456, for instance, perfectly valid free content. Happy‑melon 14:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

House is Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg!

The correct house name is House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Her husband is a patrilineal member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, which is the royal house of Denmark, Norway and formerly Greece, and which is a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg, one of the oldest royal houses of Europe which has ruled Denmark since 1448. Garn Svend (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The House of Windsor which is a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, takes precedence over the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg which is only of secondary significance. Roger (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Her husband is not a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or any cadet branch of it -- not from a genealogical point of view and not by the historical house law of that house which is based on Salic law. The patrilineal house takes presedence over non-patrilineal ancestors (after all, the patrilineal royal descent is the sole reason for her husband being a royal in the first place -- we all descend from royality, but not patrilineally). Her husband's actual, patrilineal family[4] is not of "secondary significance" and needs to be included of course. The relationship to the royal families of Denmark and Norway is also a very interesting fact to note. The House of Glücksburg/Oldenburg is one of the world's most prominent families after all, having ruled as kings of numerous European countries continuously since the 15th century and being one of a very limited number of families still ruling as kings of several countries. Marrying into that family is certainly notable. Garn Svend (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

William is a royal because his grandmother is queen - her husband's lineage is irrelevant. Roger (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, his family wouldn't find itself in such a position without royal patrilineal descent. He is royal because his patrilineal family has been royal since the 15th century when they became Kings of Denmark. His family is not "irrelevant". (Zara Phillips' grandmother is a queen too, but she is neither royal nor noble because her father is a commoner) Garn Svend (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No. What you are saying and pressing is complete nonsense. She is a member of the House of Windsor and as has been rightly pointed out, this takes presidency. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying and pressing is complete nonsense. She has married into the House of Glücksburg[5]. Final stop. If "House of Windsor" is a cadet branch of House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, she is not a member of it. The family she has married into takes presedence. Garn Svend (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Garn. First of all, Prince Philip officially gave up all foreign titles and names prior to his marraiages to the then Pricness Elizabeth, becoming Mr Philip Mountbatten (taking his uncles surname). He married her as a Mountbatten, not as a Glucksberg. Secondly, in Britian, the name of the ruling house is determined by letters patent, not ancestry. The Royal house is legally whatever the monarch says it is, until such tiome as the Monarch says that it is something else. That is the law. In 1917, therefore, the family legally ceased to be Sazxe-Coburg Gotha, and became Windsor. The Queen has laid down that Charles, William, and the line that inherit the throne are Windsors, and lesser descendants can use the double-barrelled Mountbatten-Windsor. This has the force of law. There is extensive material on Wikipedia and online in gerneral if you would like to read up on the process. Indisciplined (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "title", not even a "name". You cannot decide by "law" that you are not a member of a family (well, if you did, it wouldn't have any effect, it would be like deciding by law that your parents are no longer your parents, they would still be your actual biological parents). This is purely a matter of genealogy. There is extensive material on Wikipedia and online in general if you would like to read up on the family of Prince Philip and his agnatic descendants[6]. Membership in the House of Glücksburg is governed only by Salic law. Garn Svend (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Garn, as with all your posts on this pae, you need to understandd one thing very cleatrly: Practices in the UK are completely different from practices in other parts of Europe. These things are decioded BY LAW AND BY LAW ALONE. That's simply how it is in this country. That may be different to how things are handled in your country, but that is how it is done here. Indisciplined (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Except this woman has married into a family which is not British but rather of German origin. This is an international encyclopedia. In Denmark she is considered married into a branch of the House of Glücksburg, which is incidentally also the royal house of Denmark. Garn Svend (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Garn, Wikipedia is based on evidence and sources. If you can present a source sufficient to be accepted by Wikipedia for what you say, couched within the terms that it has absolutely no legal force in the UK as the law works differently here, you can make your point in the appropriate article. Which would not be this one. I would suggest one of the articles on the Royal family name conventions. Indisciplined (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How Utterly...silly. If Garn continues this silly argument I will close this discussion for being non-constructive. So silly! --24.27.21.34 (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Edit: Oops, that was my American IP Address. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have anything constructive to say, then don't. I'm not the one using 35 exclamation marks in my edit summaries, btw. Garn Svend (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely "House of (Mountbatten-)Windsor" is a valid name for a cadet branch of the House of S-H-S-G in just the same way as "House of S-H-S-G" is a valid name for a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg? Opera hat (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

William isn't German. so Salic Law is irrelevant. He is a member of the House of Windsor because that is what the British monarchy and government consider to be the case. To take any other position is an attack on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Alex Middleton (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. William is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, a German family and cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg, the membership of which is determined by Salic Law and nothing else. "House of Windsor" is a new alternate name for a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, an entirely different house. You can only belong to one house patrilineally. If anything, William himself uses "Mountbatten-Windsor", not "Windsor", as a name. Mountbatten-Windsor really means Glücksburg and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in terms of overall royal houses. Thank you for illustrating the nationalist sentiment behind historical revisionism in terms of family membership and historical-genealogical house names (which is of course totally independent of political borders or "sovereignty", which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of genealogy). Garn Svend (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Garn. For instance in genealogies listing the members of the House of Oldenburg (House of S-H-S-G is a branch of that house) you will find the British royals in including Prince William. L'Allemagne dynastique, Volume 7 - Oldenburg [7] - dwc lr (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an argument that is not being made here. Many of the arguments Garn Svend made concerning the issue are valid, however you need to be able to make a distinction between: de facto genealogy and de jure in law. The Queen and the British Royal Family can decided what name they want to be called, does this change their ethnicity and heritage? NO of course not. The same way everyone knows the Spanish Royal Family and the Swedish Royal Family are descendent from French families. When George V legally changed the family name, a lot of people thought it was nonsense, not least his cousin, the Kaiser. These concerns are valid, because the name changed meant nothing. It was only a propagandistic exercise- so what? Everybody (in most countries around the world) can change their surname to whatever name they like, and every country have their own process of doing this.The laws of genealogy exists in genealogy, not necessarily in the real world. Try arguing using Salic Law in German courts today see where that takes you, yep that's right: The European Court of Human Rights! The British Royal Family can choose whatever name they want, just like everybody else and they have chosen Windsor. Wikipedia reports the facts as they come, not as they should be. After all most people respect Norma Jeane Baker's wish to be known as Marilyn Monroe, she is STILL Norma Jeane Baker we just don't call her that. Sodacan (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

They surely can use whatever name they want, as royals always have (names/titles change frequently). We need to make a distinction between names/titles, and house names which are used by genealogists and historians to systematize information; many royal houses have centuries of history and have ruled in numerous states, they don't become new families for each state. Although Prince Philip is a member of the House of S-H-S-G, he has never at any time used that as a name, it's simply a mere fact, similar to him being human. The house names are interesting mostly in specific contexts, such as that of writing genealogy and history, or categorizing people in Wikipedia. In the case of Prince Philip, he is a member of an established royal house who has settled in Britain as an immigrant. As such, he and his agnatic descendants are considered to be members of that house from the genealogical point of view. Garn Svend (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All of it is already there, the Duchess is categorised in 'Mountbatten-Windsor family', which is in turn in 'House of Glücksburg (Greece)'. The facts that you are arguing for is there, no one disputes it. It is up to the readers of Wikipedia, if they are interested, to click on them and read for themselves. Sodacan (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's fine, but the House of Glücksburg should also be mentioned somewhere in the main text. The infobox says only "House of Windsor", which is misleading. Garn Svend (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't produced any evidence that the House of Glücksburg has any relevance to Catherine's biography. In relation to Wikipedia's coverage of the British royal family, I dispute that the House of Glücksburg warrants anything more than a footnote on Prince Philip's biography. Other than to historians of European royal families, Philip himself is only notable due to his marriage to Elizabeth II. Rubywine (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the information is where it is supposed to be, namely Mountbatten-Windsor. It is of no interest on this page, especially because she only married into the family as opposed to being an actual descended member. Furthermore you have not provided any verifiable reference to supports this. Sodacan (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

To put it more bluntly, there is no reason why Wikipedia should note relationships of patrilineal descent, unless they are recognised in law or carry some demonstrable social, political or cultural significance. You have repeatedly referred to 'genealogical law' and Salic law but these are not laws; Prince Philip's male-line ancestry carries no legal weight; and none of his ancestry is directly relevant to Catherine's biography. Her biography is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia due to the Windsors' relationship with the British monarchy, the United Kingdom and Commonwealth; none of which depend upon Philip's ancestry, patrilineal or otherwise. Rubywine (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't archive this section yet: it is currently referenced in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty and may be referenced in a formal RfC. Rubywine (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What if William becomes king?

There's no mention of Kate as a commoner or what happens if he becomes king, I think this should be explained. --AW (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Catherine is no longer a commoner; she married royalty. When William becomes King, she will be his queen consort. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically he may not become king due to something happening, but ok. I'll put that in the article. --AW (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We definitely need a link to queen consort - she won't be queen in the same way the current queen is. This may be obvious to some readers, but won't be to others. StAnselm (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone deleted this saying it was obvious, but then another person deleted it saying it was speculation. It obviously can't be both, so what's the situation? Is there some official order on this? --AW (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I just found an article in Time magazine saying she would become queen consort. I will add that now. --AW (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Yk Yk Yk just deleted it all saying it's so obvious it doesn't need to be sourced. It's not obvious what will happen, especially to people not familiar with the royal family, and especially as there is a difference between Queen regnant and Queen consort, as User:StAnselm mentioned above. Let's discuss this please. --AW (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I didn't remove the line you added, but just moved it to the 'Titles and styles' section, with the reference intact. It was a little hard to notice in the diff page. The reasons:

1. I don't think that piece of information is so important that it should be in the lead.
2. It's pretty obvious that the wife of a king is his queen consort. It's only when there's an exception that we have to make a note about it (e.g. Camilla to become princess consort). See Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway, Letizia, Princess of Asturias, Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark, Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant. Do the articles painstakingly explain that they will become queens consort if their husbands become kings? Do they have to?
3. I know you think this is an exception because the current monarch in the UK is a female, and that the sort of queen Kate Middleton will become will be different then Queen Elizabeth II. I don't think this is exceptional enough. Denmark has a queen regnant too. People may not know what "queen regnant" and "queen consort" mean, but I'm pretty sure they can tell that Elizabeth is the monarch, and her successors will be Charles and William, not their wives.

Again, I did not remove the line, because I agree that it is useful & well-sourced information, and it's not in my nature to delete good faith edits unless they're complete nonsense. I just disagree with you on how important you think it is. - Yk³ talk · contrib 19:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't notice the move. It's back in the lead now but either place is fine with me, as long as it's in there somewhere. --AW (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Protection to the Royal family and designated persons comes from Specialist Operations (http://www.met.police.uk/so/) not the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Department referenced. 87.113.182.212 (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected, the link went to the correct article Protection Command but I have corrected the name. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

Perhaps this has already been discussed, but I don't like the way the first sentence reads. Currently, it says:

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, 9 January 1982), popularly known as "Kate", is the wife of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge.

The Duchess of Cambridge is indeed "popularly known as 'Kate,'" but she was (and presumably still is) referred to as "Kate" by family and friends as well. The sentence would be more accurate, as well as more succinct, if it were changed to "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (born Catherine 'Kate' Elizabeth Middleton, 9 January 1982), popularly known as "Kate", is the wife of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge."

Thus, it would read:

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (born Catherine "Kate" Elizabeth Middleton, 9 January 1982) is the wife of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge.

I'm going to go ahead and make the change.--Mattmatt1987 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hideous format, not typically used in Britain. in any case Catherines all over rhe world are called Kate, juat as millions of Williams are called Bill, and Roberts are called Bob IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And false. Family and friends know her as Catherine [8]. Opera hat (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether they do or not, she is most widely known as Kate. To use a flawed but quick measure, there are 2.6 million Google hits for "Catherine Middleton" and 85.6 million for "Kate Middleton." If you add William in there the results are similar.--AW (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the first line here: Judi Dench? - Yk³ talk · contrib 03:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that - not someone whose page I have looked at, looks like one slipped through, on the other hand Tony Blair. If you can find a source that refers to the Duchess as "Catherine Elizabeth "Kate" Middleton" please provide it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a source is needed for that. It's just a format adopted by some to show that "Kate" is the name she goes by. I also think the Judi Dench article can be held to a different convention because she's a film actress. I don't really care what format is used, but some out-of-the-blue user is gonna change it back one day and I won't be sure how to convince them why not. - Yk³ talk · contrib 18:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just getting old but whenever I see that sort of construction all I see is an eight-year old trying to gain street-cred in the playground - my name is John "call me Knife" Blade: and can't take seriously anyone still calling themself John "Knife" Blade years after they have left school. In an encyclopedia it defies all logic. If we think it correct to use someone's given name, then we should use their given name. If we want to mention a nick name, then we can do that too, but to call someone Given "Nick" Name is to invent a new name, not found outside our pages, and therefore goes against the main Wikipedia principles regarding reliable sources and OR/Synthesis. Personally I still have too much respect, both for the people concerned, and also for my language, to sink to such depths. If anyone feels it adds to this project's creditability to make things up feel free - I wont revert agin. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you there. Given "Nick" Name can be used to mean that Given Name is called Given "Nick" Name but it is also a common style indicating that Given Name is called Nick Name. To call her Catherine Elizabeth "Kate" Middleton is not to invent the name Catherine Elizabeth "Kate" Middleton for her, but to say that Catherine Elizabeth Middleton is also called Kate Middleton.--Mattmatt1987 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems there are a lot of strong opinions on this issue. Lets discuss it here and come to an agreement before anyone makes any more changes. I still stand by Catherine Elizabeth "Kate" Middleton as the most accurate and concise way of giving her name. (I do concede User:HJ Mitchell was right in that "Kate" should follow Elizabeth, not Catherine, although I believe it is trivial whether quotation marks are in bold.)--Mattmatt1987 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mattmatt1987. That looks fine. --AW (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with IdreamofJeanie above. The format Name "Name" Surname seems to me to indicate that a person has a commonly used nickname which is not their real name. Eg, John Henry "Doc" Holliday or John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy. This doesn't seem appropriate for Catherine and Kate, when one is simply a short form of the other and when it seems, if I've understood the sources correctly, that she's not actually called Kate by anyone that knows her. Stating right at the top that she's "popularly known as 'Kate'", as we do now, seems to work?Hobson (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems OK, but should be revisited in three to six months to check that this is still the case. Martinvl (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Catherine can also be shorten to Cate. or Cathy. So many versions.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

True, but "Kate" is what this particular Catherine is best known by. --AW (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Using her surname

I believe the guidance at WP:SURNAME indicates that we should refer to the Duchess as "Middleton" when referring to events prior to her wedding, and only use "Catherine" or "the Duchess" when referring to events after the wedding. Currently, "Catherine" is used throughout. Powers ^T 20:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Link to Elizabeth Knollys DISPROVEN

There is no definitive evidence that Kate Middleton is the descendant of Elizabeth Knollys. The Daily Mail cites NO sources and is not a genuine source that is allowed on Wikipedia. Even the Reitwiesner's page just posted that is has been DISPROVEN.
"In Hobbs (full citation below), on p. 13, F. M. Lupton cites a pamphlet William Davenport, of Reading, and his descendants, by Rev. James Davenport, which claims that this William Davenport of Reading (number 636, above) was the same person as the William Davenport born at Worfield, Shropshire, on 24 Feb. 1679, a younger son of Henry Davenport of Hollon, Shropshire, by his wife Elizabeth Talbot.

Rev. James Davenport appears to have written several different works on William Davenport of Reading, as a correspondent refers to a publication by Rev. James Davenport, Rector of Harvington in Worcestershire, titled The Davenport Family of Reading and Welford on Avon, and printed in 1923 (long after Hobbs was printed). About the identification of William Davenport of Reading with the William Davenport baptized at Worfield, the correspondent states that the author "concludes that insufficient evidence exists to establish such a connection beyond a reasonable doubt." This identification has been DISPROVEN." -- meaning it's NOT true! -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Finally! Thank you! Now, if only the Daily Mail would retrack their article, since they and Reitwiesner started all this mess. Virgosky (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reitwiesner did no such thing. - Nunh-huh 00:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reitwiesner used the word might and worded his word page carefully suggestign that although the same name appeared in a christening record and in a marriage record, he was open-minded as to whether they were the same person. The Daily Mail on the other hand were more interested in a quick story than they were in truth so that ignored the word "might", ignored Reitwiesner's concerns and rushed into print.

BTW, it appears that once this connection was disproven, the Reitwiesner's page was modified by the trustees of his estate. Martinvl (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Reitwiesner did exactly what professional genealogists are supposed to do; label speculations as unproven when unproven, and disproven when disproven. That amateur genealogists did not read him carefully can hardly be laid at his feet. - Nunh-huh 08:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources for claim that Catherine is Countess and Baroness

I notice there has been some questioning about sources for stating the Catherine is Countess of Strathearn and Baroness Carrickfergus as well as the (unchallenged) Duchess of Cambridge. This was an issue on the day of the wedding, and I said here that I had just found a BBC article which gave all three titles to her. I've just checked, and unfortunately that article no longer seems to say it. BBC articles are often modified, while retaining their original URL.

However, the Daily Mail states here that "William also became the Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus, which means Kate will become the Countess of Strathearn and Baroness Carrickfergus."

UTV News website said here that "William also became the Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus, with his wife now known as the Countess of Strathearn and Baroness Carrickfergus."

Sky News states here that "William has also become the Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus, meaning Kate has become the Countess of Strathearn and Baroness Carrickfergus."

There are other sources, but that should be enough. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for those sources. I just want to make sure we steer away from WP:OR and can clearly cite her formal title, especially since so many people want to call her "Princess Catherine." I actually came here looking for a source because the wedding article simply refers to her as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, so I wanted to make sure what her official title is before making any changes.

Some questions I still have though:

• Is there any source that indicates she takes on her husband's full name after "Princess" (i.e. Princess William Arthur Phillip Louis) as opposed to simply "Princess William"? Because the Daily Mail source says "Instead she adopts her husband's first name, in the same way as Princess Michael of Kent, who married the Queen's cousin Prince Michael of Kent." (emphasis added) So wouldn't that mean that she becomes simply HRH Princess William, Duchess of...etc.? (And is there a better source for this because I know there's some questions about the credibility of the Daily Mail, but I do recall having seen her simply referred to as Princess William as opposed to taking on the full name in other sources.)

• • ETA: The only sources I could find showing that she took on his full name were: [9] and [10] and I can't say either one strikes me as especially reliable. So if someone has something that shows her full title to include his full name, that would be greatly appreciated.

• Is there any source that talks about the order of her titles? For instance, would it be equally valid to call her Princess William... Baroness Carrickfergus, Countess of Stratheran, and Duchess of Camrbdige? Because if there is an order of precedence involved I think it would be useful to have a source for that as well.

As I said, I am looking to beef up other articles with this information and want to make sure I am going off of the best information possible. Thank you for your help. --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the answer to either of those questions. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you visit Debretts for the rules that are used. The Daily Telegraph has published their interpretation of the rules. In my view, the rules as explained in Debrett's are sufficiently clear that it is not WP:OR to follow them. Martinvl (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the links about the precedence of titles. I think I'm going to go ahead and add the Telegraph link to both her and William's pages (simply because the Debretts page involves a lot more quickly around and is not as easily clear the Telegraph one, which mentions which title is first, second, third) in the spirit of WP:V and WP:NOR. I'm still wondering if anyone has a source regarding her taking upon his middle names as well or whether she is simply Princess William not Princess William Arthur Philip Louis formally? If not I think we are safest in removing the middle names, once again in the spirit of WP:V and WP:NOR. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry notes - 7 June 2011

I have made a few changes as follows:

• I removed the "née" in from of Lady Margaret Percy's name.
• I merged the Edward III connection into the sentence that first mentioned Lady Margaret Percy.
• I removed the section about the Middleton Link and the Queen Mother. If yo ufollow the links of the Earl of Middleton in Wikipedia, you will see that the only grandson who bore his name died unmarried. Also, if you read the BBC article you will see that it never mentioned a connection - only that somebody was looking for a connection. I checked the name "Middleton" in our local phone book. About one subscriber in 1500 has that surname. Assuming that the distribution of that name is consistent across the UK, that the population of the UK at the time of the 1st Earl was 5 million, that the average lifespan was 50 years and that on average men would father children during a 10 year window, there would be 35 potential Middletons who could be the Duchess' ancestor at the time of the 1st Earl. In the absence of any further information, the most likely candidates would have lived in the area where the last confirmed ancestor lived and be of the same social class as him. The Duchess' earliest confirmed Middleton ancestor was a tradesman living in Yorkshire, not a Scottish lord. I therefore suggest that this "maybe" is not notable.

Martinvl (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I noticed that edit and checked out the referenced BBC article too. Please do not independently establish a connection between the Earl of Middleton & the Duchess's family unless a source explicitly implies it. - Yk³ talk · contrib 23:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not because William's a descendant of the 1st Earl of Middleton, that Kate is one as well. The BBC aricle never actually says she is. I have thus removed that reference which was - once again - included in the article today. -- fdewaele, 8 June 2011, 15:17 (CET).

The Knollys Connection

It appears that the Knollys connection has raised its head again. Reiswiesner was guarded when he first suggested the connection - he surrounded it with the qualifier "If it can be proven that X who was born in one part of England is the same person as the person who was married twenty-five years later in another part of England, then .....". An edit reappeared in this article, dredging this up again. The only way to stop this happening time and time again is to take control of the connection as I have done and to write "This has been disproven". OK, I slammed "The Sun" but they probably know better than to try and defend themselves against the indefensible. Martinvl (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the long winded wording about Kate's ancestry. The Elizabeth Knollys connection has been disproven, therefore, there is no longer a need to discuss it any further. The section was to simply point out their most recent common ancestor. Virgosky (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted - see my reasoning above. (BTW, I moved User:Virgosky's statement into this section as I believe that it belongs here). Martinvl (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have simply made the Elizabeth Knollys connection a separate paragraph. I believe it should be retained. Trahelliven (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2011

If you want to leave it up for a time so that people understand that it has been disproven that it fine but at some point it still should be removed. Believe me, the connection being disproven disappoints me a little too. I was hoping, as a direct descendent of Anne Knollys, that if Kate's connection to Elizabeth Knollys could be proven perhaps maybe it would force people to try and re-evaulate if Henry VIII was the father of Catherine Carey. Oh well... Virgosky (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Title of page

The article on Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is titled Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons and the one on Queen Mary titled Mary of Teck etc. so shouldn't this page still be titled Catherine Middleton to be consistent.

Jwasanders (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand we have articles Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York. Six of and half a dozen of the other. Martinvl (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The general convention is living royals are titled according to their currents styles, while dead ones revert to their maiden names (with exceptions pertaining to WP:COMMONNAME). - Yk³ talk · contrib 15:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor note Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons article is actually at Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that ITV news coverage of the trooping of the colour have just referred to her as the title of this article. PatGallacher (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, we could get into a minefield if we start deciding the titles of British royals based on their likelihood of obtaining the crown. It is probable that Catherine will become queen, but this is by no means guaranteed. The chance of Sophie Wessex becoming queen is pretty low but not quite insignificant. Going by how we name most current queens consort, if she becomes queen we will probably call her something like Queen Catherine of the United Kingdom. What do we call here after she dies? I suggest we cross that bridge when we come to it. The issue of what we call deceased queens consort has proved particularly awkward on Wikipedia and it has proved impossible to come up with a consistent guideline. PatGallacher (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)