Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Cull

This article is utter phish and an insult to wikipedia. Wikipedia should not replicate unsubstantiated media speculation or trivial gossip. Revert back to genuine facts with multiple sources, note worthy pieces of information (a newspapers speculation that she may or may not have been invited to Christmas dinner is not such nor ever will be) and generally clean up this page.

VFD

On 13 April 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kate Middleton for a record of the discussion. – ABCD 21:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am hopeful that Prince William has come to his senses and will marry Miss Middleton.

If no one objects, due to their breakup, I will be deleting this page as of later today. -Tom

Response to Tom (not so QUICK:):

Tom, I would not delete this page since they are possible not breaking up and she may be future Princess of Wales and Queen of England.

Considering the length of their relationship (4 years) it would seem premature to continue to vote this article for deletion until such times as she is no longer seriously involved with the Prince. Of course people are interested in her. She may well be the next Princess of Wales. I had never heard of her until a netscape article on Wiliam's upcoming Military training mentioned her and linked me here. While I am only casually interested in such things, I suspect there will be many others clicking on the link who follow this stuff passionately. Perhaps the person who keeps voting for delete is hoping the prince will marry them? Lisa Pollison 1/17/06

Totally agree. --Ross UK 21:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is Kate because she doesn't want any publicity? ANON, 8 June 2006

Probably. Well, to be honest, unless there is a ring on her finger and a wedding planned, I am not sure why everyone is making such a big deal about this girl. She could be the next Queen consort and maybe not. I mean, when Prince Charles was dating, the media thought every women he dated was going to be his future wife. We all see how that turned out. I think that people somewhat question William and Kate's relationship because it has been so strange. It is not exactly the romance going on between Prince Harry and Chesly Davy or a young couple in love. Every relationship is different, however, she is his grilfriend, there should be something more going on between them and oddly it does not seem to be there. Which is why some people seem confused. RosePlantagenet

Rose, please find some other place to post your personal opinions and musings about royal romances. They do not belong in a discussion of biographical, encyclopedic facts. There are many "royal website" forums in which you can do this and where you would be welcomed. Wikipedia is looking for firm, factual information.

Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_page#Basic_rules_for_all_talk_pages. Thank you. RosePlantagenet

This woman has her own article why?...

This woman is unimportant. What importance does she have in any circle besides that of her immediate friends/family and such? Being the mere girlfriend of a Prince is hardly worthy of an article in an Encyclopedia. Not only are there no plans to marry, but until so, she is nothing but a woman who got lucky by landing a monarch, who (btw) has no political power anyway. <-- HAHAHAHA She has way more importance than YOU I am sure!

There's a very good chance this woman will be Queen one day. Oh, and wikipedia is not a soapbox. 128.232.242.178 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems that many people on this site and Britian are hopeful that William and Kate will marry someday. I do not see much harm in having the article for the time she is with William. There is a very good chance they will marry and a very good chance that they will not. If not then they can delete this article or change it. There is no way to know if she will be the next Queen because they are so young now. RosePlantagenet 18:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, a very good chance implies, to me at least, greater than 50% probability. So according to you the total probablity of them getting married or not getting married is greater than 100%. 145.253.108.22 11:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears you missed my point. It simply means they will either marry or they will not. How people choose to percieve that is their own perspective. RosePlantagenet 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

She's all over the news -- that's why she has her own article. I just turned off the television where BBC News 24 is running a piece about her. I log on on the internet and AOL UK's top stories include her. Companies are creating memorabilia about her. The first in line to the throne is issuing statements about her. I have republican tendencies, yet that doesn't prevent me from seeing her obvious notability for an encyclopaedia. What a silly discussion. Artichoke84 17:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I nominated this article for deletion in Oct 05 when it was a reasonable question but she has become much more notable since then and I would oppose deletion now, SqueakBox 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue here isn't importance, it's notability. A lot of people would argue that many actors in Hollywood are simply unimportant but they still have national name-recognition. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This person is notable because she is going out with William Windsor who is the grandson of the current UK monarch. Until such time as we get rid of the whole scrounging lot of them, the Windsor family, and the people they have relationships with will remain notable. Her achievements are about as great as her boyfriends, he's famous for no good reason, and so is she. Even if they split up, or he retires into private life like the good little republican he is, they will both still remain notable. She'll always be notable for having been his biatch. Sad but true. Notability has got nothing to do with fame or achievement, see Wikipedia:Notability. Alun 13:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How much longer should this article stay here? It was nominated for deletion awhile ago because they were dating (not engaged or married) and now they've broken up. Maybe if he marries her or proposes (not likely, since they've broken up) the article could be put back, but for now it seems pointless. Especially since in it talks about relationships in William's article. Stephe1987 03:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Given how many very minor tabloid chasers are on Wiki, there's no harm in her having her own page. Marcus Tully 13:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How can I help?

Is there some reason why people object to including purely straightforward, factual information in this article? I really do not believe that PEOPLE magazine has any "inside information" concerning the Queen's opinions of Ms. Middleton or her relationship with Prince William. Why has this silly, poorly-written paragraph been added?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.102.130 (talk • contribs)

I don't know who wrote the above because it is unsigned. I want to offer my services to this page. If there is anything I can do to help, such as find citations, and verify anything, please let me know. I am one who freely admits to being captivated by the coverage of this possible future Princess of Wales, Queen, etc. It is silly, I know, but nevertheless, I would be lying if I didn't acknowledge it. I would love to assist with this article. What can I do?--Ashley Rovira 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion about People magazine is irrelevant to this article. Material in articles must be sourced, as is the relevant section about People and the queen. If you have a verifiable source which contradicts this sourced information, feel free to include it. Otherwise, it's perfectly relevant for the article as it's verifiable sourced information. The article isn't saying that the queen believes something; the article is saying, according to People magazine, the queen believes something.207.69.138.12 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. RosePlantagenet 18:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to say that a Palace spokesman said the queen believes it, which I don't believe for a second. A spokesman is someone authorised to speak on behalf of the person or organisation they represent - a "friend", "source" or "insider" is not a spokesman. Can anyone confirm that the People article even claims that a Palacespokesman said the Queen "would prefer to see Prince William take the relationship slowly and not rush into anything"? There is no direct quote in the Wikipedia article or citation. If People magazine was really told this by a Palace spokesman, it is a surprising there has not been more coverage as it would be a major story in the UK. Edit - forgot to sign Hobson 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can. I read the article to check to make sure the information was correct. I am sure if People Magazine instead said something like, "Spokemen for the palace said Kate and William are engaged to be married." Or something to that effect, you would never believe that either without hearing it from several other sources. I got you.

Anyway, as someone said above, this is pointless. The point of any article is to put in every bit of detail whether it is agreeable or not. When you start putting in details that only you want to believe, then it defeats the purpose of the article and it mine as well be deleted. RosePlantagenet 12:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's honestly not about what I *want* to believe. Please assume good faith:) The word spokesman is very important in this context. If a spokesman says something it is an official statement. If an "insider" says it, then it is a rumour. A Palace spokesman speaks on behalf of Buckingham Palace, which ultimately means the Queen. I have read quite a few stories about Kate Middleton and never once seen a paper or magazine claim to have a comment from a Palace spokesman about the Queen's personal feelings on the matter. I'm sure there's a lot of stuff I haven't read but would you mind awfully if I ask you to link to the story or, if it is not on the web, to reproduce the section with comments from a Palace spokesman here? I have found one story from People Magazine dealing with similar issues - this one, http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1564163,00.html - but it cites "friends" and "insiders" as its sources.

Also, there's no need for an encyclopedia article to include every bit of detail if by bit of detail you mean every newspaper or magazine article on the topic. There have been dozens of stories every day in the UK alone for many weeks now! We don't need to mention them all. What makes most sense is sticking to what we know, eg that Miss Middleton and Prince William are in a relationship, that she has appeared alongside the Queen at at least once again, that neither of them have made any public comment on the prospect of marriage, that they are the subject of intense media speculation (there have been lots of news reports about them) - I think all those things are facts, and there's plenty to say even by just sticking to the things that are strictly factual. Hobson 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I do not care enough to get upset, it is fun to have a good debate. This site is full of them too.

I still disagree. You say that you have read several articles about her. How do we know that the artciles you read are even reliable? If they do not suggest a palace spokemen said it, then where did they get their information from? Who did they get their information from? Unless these people have spent one on one time with Royal Family which is a tight circle of people, and the Royal Family is not exactly known for telling everyone their feelings, again where did these articles get their information? You could say Prince William's friends said it but how is that different from a palace spokemen? Furthermore, I doubt the couple would want their friends talking to the media. And, maybe that spokemen did not want to give out their name. In other words, no one knows how true any of these articles are, it is only opinions and guessing. The only ones who know the real story is Middleton, William and the Royal Family. Anything else is spectulation.

Also, the spokemen probably is telling the truth. The Royal Family has not had the best track record for good relationships. Three of Queen Elizabeth's children divorced, and they were messy divorces. It would be smart on the family's part to make sure the future generation does not make the same mistakes. If William and Kate rush into this it could turn out very bad. Also, inorder for her to be a princess, Middleton will have to be groomed and advised. She came from a normal family background, she has not been raised to deal with that kind of spotlight. It can be very stressful to have everyone watch your every move. And, her life will never be private if she continues to date and someday marry Prince William. This is no fairly tale and it is real life, she will have to be trained and groomed to handle it. When she said, "I did nothing to court publicity", that was telling. She can not expect to get William and somehow avoid the extreme baggage that comes with him, that is either native or extremely irrational thinking.

If you do not put details from reliable magazines and articles into this section then there really is no reason for her to have an article. Since, she is still living, not married to William and no biography's have been written about her; what else is there to write? The article mine as well be deleted. As someone said above, she is not that important yet. RosePlantagenet 14:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You make a very good point about the difficulty in knowing whether articles are reliable, and whether they got their information from anyone who really knows what they are talking about. This is why the use of the word "spokesman" in the Wikipedia entry is important. A spokesman is a person authorised to speak on behalf of the person they claim to represent, and what they have to say can be considered more reliable than comments made to journalists by "friends" or "sources", who as you say could be anyone! A Palace spokesman is someone who works in the Buckingham Palace press office - these people: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4163.asp I asked if anyone could confirm that People Magazine had reported that a Palace spokesman said the Queen felt a certain way. You said you can. So please will you do that? I have tried to find the article myself, but it doesn't seem to exist on the People website. Please will you give us the exact wording of the article? Hobson 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? I am surprised. Usually on their website they have archives of past articles. Here is the link http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1564163,00.html. This is the issue it came out of, and you will have to get the magazine for the full story.

Oh, and if you want, why not put up the information from the articles you have read? It certainly can only help the article. Like I said, until there is something like a biography written about her, articles are all we got. RosePlantagenet 16:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I do not consider PEOPLE Magazine to be a "reliable" source on any subject.68.72.109.240 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided leads to an article with comments from "a palace insider", "family friend" and someone writing a book about the couple. The magazine doesn't even claim to have got the comment from a spokesman in that article. Hobson 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you did not like the link to the actual article? I guess you do know what PEOPLE Magazine is, oh well. So all you have is the Sun? That is exteremly more reliable then a magazine. Nice of you to add it in. I thought you would have more but please continue to add what you have it is most helpful. RosePlantagenet 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the article partly because you deleted my edits without any discussion but mainly because the source you cite does not (as I have pointed out many times!) actually say what the Wikipedia entry currently claims it does. I linked way above to the article you are citing - http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1564163,00.html - and pointed out that it does not claim a Palace spokesman said anything. However you then linked to the same article as evidence that People magazine claimed a Palace spokesman had made the comments:) It is not evidence of that - it does not say that. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I am not certain how the arbitration system works, but rather than get into a revert war I am going to see if there is any way we can ask another experienced editor to take a look. Hobson 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete anything you wrote. I reverted it because the last person put in something strange. I did suggest you add in your own information so there was no reason to delete it. You, however, did delete my information. I understand you are new, but you can not go and delete people's information (especially if it sourced) simply because you disagree. Just because you can not get the magazine from which the article came from, to make sure the source is true, does not mean the information is not accurate. That will cause an edit war. Nor is it right to imply that the Sun tabloid or all magazines you have read are more reliable then every other magazine. I am sorry if you are so upset and if you need to read up on the rules this should help you. Please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Check_your_facts

If you would like to talk to someone else then please do. It might be a good idea to at some point protect this page, as well. I have been noticing a lot of non-registered users removing and deleting information.

RosePlantagenet 20:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted talk page content

The debate above is not about a specific article, it is about the importance of accuracy and sources. It's important it stays in the talk page for a while and not just an archive. Hobson 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-added in the How can I help? section. Just trying to clean up a bit. I would leave in the third opinion section, however, unless Jossi is planning to comment there does not seem to be much need for it. But if you want it there then go for it. Oh and never worry about it. Archiving is not deleting, people always can continue to comment on the subject on the regular discussion page so it is not gone forever. RosePlantagenet 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that back in. The article as it currently reads is correct, as far as I can see! It even cites the People article twice, one of them being a citation I put in on January 21, so hopefully we are both happy with the current wording:) The point I made about the distinction between a spokesman and an insider applies to any article, not just one in People. It could well come up again, as media reports about Kate Middleton are full of comments from friends, sources etc. This is why it is important for the debate to be visible for a while. Hobson 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish?

Kate Middleton has been added in to the category "British Jews". This seems to follow an edit on January 22 by 84.148.1.115 which stated the Middleton family was of Jewsih origin. Another editor has changed this to read "British and Jewish origin". This may be correct for all I know, but is it something that needs verifying? I am wondering: 1) Is there any verification that the Middleton family is of Jewish origin? 2) Does it make sense to use a phrase such as "British and Jewish origin", as Britain is a country while Jewish refers to either ethnicity or religion or both. A person cannot be "half British and half Jewish" for example. Equally, a person would not be described as of "British and Anglo-Saxon origin". 3) If her family does have some sort of "Jewish origin", does this make her an English Jew? Hobson 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to rephrase it. British is a nationality and Jewish is a religion. Although, people seem to think their religion is a form of nationality as well. I never quite figured that one out but then again I am not a very religious person. Kate Middleton's nationality is British as I am assuming both her parents are from Britian as is her many of her family members going back some generations. As for being Jewish, on her mother's side, her mother's family is Jewish. Their last name is Goldsmith. That is a Jewish last name. RosePlantagenet 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not true, and totally unfactual. First of all, the term nationality is not to be confused with the term ethnicity. Jewish people are a ETHNORELIGIOUS group - the term Jewish is used not only to refer to a religious view of an individual, it also refers to those who descent from the ancient Hebrews. That is ethnicity. Semetic race. They are a Semitic people of the Middle East, closely related to Arabs. The Jewish ethnicity and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the ethnic Jews. Nowadays, though, most of European Jews are Ashkenazi Jews, meaning they are of mixed ethnicity, but still have Semitic ancestry. This is due to intermarriage of ethnic Jews with individuals of other ethnicities who converted to Judaism, whose status within the Jewish ethnos has been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia. This means that a person who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion, but is born to a mother or father with a Jewish ancestor is still genetically a Jew, and that does not depend on their parents religious views. Religious views, or a lack of those views for that matter, cannot change the facts of a blood line. This means that the term Jewish can mean either only ethnicity or only religion, or both.Only facts1 (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she is of Jewish origin, then she can be at English Jews category, because it's not a category only for Judaism people, but from the Jewish nation! When some famous film director or Nobel Prize winner has a Jewish great-granmother or father she is Jewish! Why not now? Kowalmistrz 19:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A person with a single Jewish great-grandparent is not usually considered to be a Jew, especially if they do not define themselves as one, whoever they are. Possibly if there is un-interupted female descent they may be (if your mother's mother's mother was a Jew then you may be, even if you are the Pope, according to some definitions. See

Main article: Who is a Jew?

, although of course Wikipedia is not a sufficient source on which to base Wikipedia entries). It seems unlikely in Miss Middleton's case, as the name Goldsmith presumably came from a male ancestor. By the way, having the surname Goldsmith does not mean someone is a Jew, even if it is a surname some Jews have. I don't know if anyone has found any source at all to verify that she has any Jewish ancestors, beyond her mother's maiden name. Perhaps she does, but it seems to me like quite a leap to say that therefore "she is an English Jew" as Wikipedia currently does. I think Rose has improved the article, but question 1) above still stands - is there any verification that the Middleton family is of Jewish origin (or partly of Jewish origin)? Hobson 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rose, "Goldsmith" is not automatically a "Jewish" surname, it is merely an occupation-derived surname, like many others in many countries. It means only that the bearer has a goldsmith somewhere in his or her ancestry. You surely do not believe that all goldsmiths in the history of the world were Jewish? Perhaps you are familiar with Oliver Goldsmith, son of an Anglican curate and author of "The Vicar of Wakefield"?68.72.108.38 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, whoever wrote "Michael Middleton, who's family," and "Carole Goldsmith, who's family," I have corrected those egregious errors and changed them to "whose".68.72.108.38 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed your rude remarks and kept your statements. There is no need to be rude and talk down to people just because you disagree with what they say. If you feel that you are the most knowledgeable and want to help that is great. Otherwise, speaking down to people and deleting other editors comments is not helping this article or Wikipedia.

Anyway, I agree, Hobson. I think that we should start looking for a source that would help to reference it better. Sooner or later someone is going to write an article about it. We already found a source about her families coal mining roots. This way if someone should question it there will be some reference. I am glad to see a picked up interest in her ancestry. RosePlantagenet 12:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been a few days since I asked if anyone could verify that Kate Middleton was an English Jew, as Wikipedia currently says she is. One of the reasons this is important (aside from the need always to be accurate) is that if William did marry an Jewish woman, his children - direct heirs to the throne - would be considered by many to be Jews. This would be notable, and is not something Wikipedia should get wrong. Of course I know thet are not married, nor engaged, but the only reason Middleton has a Wikipedia entry at all is because she is in a long-term relationship with William. Hobson 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think someone just assumed based on the last name and added it, because I can't see a reliable source for it anywhere. It could be true - though there are certainly non-Jewish Goldsmiths in England. BTW, apparently the Princes may already be Jewish in the halachaic sense - I remember seeing some kind of weird and lengthy family tree of Princess Diana that went back to a direct female Jewish ancestor around 1700, though it may have been unverified. Mad Jack 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"I remember seeing some kind of weird and lengthy family tree of Princess Diana that went back to a direct female Jewish ancestor around 1700, though it may have been unverified". No, it's verifiably untrue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakewoomera (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sure, you can find all kinds of interesting things in people's family trees when you take the time and really research the material. Until someone can find a reference about Kate Middleton's Jewish ancestry it is probably best to leave it out for now. RosePlantagenet 14:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No probably about it, see WP:BLP, any un refenced addition to this affect will be deleted, SqueakBox 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This family tree definitely answers the question - [1] - she isn't Jewish at all. The "Goldsmith" lines tracks back to about 1850 England, and even that original Goldsmith ancestor was married in a church. Plenty of non-Jewish Goldsmiths, and I'm sure this great-great-etc.-grandparent was one of them. Mad Jack 08:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone has tried to reference that site already. Her Goldsmith ancestors were probably not Jewish, as no one has found evidence of it. However, I would not use that website to reference her ancestry. As the site states, the information was not researched extensively, therefore, it is not conculsive proof. Sites on the internet, even ancestry.com, are not always 100% accurate. You need to becareful when using a site like this as a reference and make sure there is other evidence to back it up. It is very easy to make connections that simply do not exist. RosePlantagenet 16:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

lol @ rose "Her Goldsmith ancestors were probably not Jewish, as no one has found evidence of it" it's not up to the people making the claim to find evidence, it's up to the wiki anti jewish conspiracy defence force (you ect) to find evidence against it, because you have the onus probandi So where is your proof instead of keep saying "as no one has found evidence of it"? at least give a link to a jewish website saying it's not true. Saintrotter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.145.99 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Pennell?

Seems someone has changed the names around in this article, changing Kate Middleton to Catherine "Hannah" Pennell? 125.238.32.121 04:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Ben

That's called vandalism. And pretty childish at that. I have restored the earlier "Kate" version. - fdewaele, 30 January 2007, 9:30.

Yes, there has been more vandalism to the article, lately. As Kate Middleton becomes more popular there will probably be more. If it continues, then I think we should ask that the article be protected from unregistered users, they seem to be the ones commiting most of the vandalism. RosePlantagenet 13:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Problems

It appears to me that some recent additions to this entry are veering away rather strongly from the NPOV standard. This is, necessarily, a personal impression, but I sense that these additions have been made by someone who feels hostility towards Middleton, such as can be found on many royal discussion sites and forums. Since some of the information added comes from U.K. tabloids, by no means the most reliable sources for anything, perhaps it should not be included unless independently verified and documented?68.72.82.70 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article as it stands seems to be saying that sections of the British media have started criticising her (as opposed to suggesting the claims in the media are true), which seems notable to me. However it really needs to cite an authorative source to state that the Daily Mail (which is certainly an important newspaper in the UK) has for the first time portrayed her in a forward and unflattering light. Reading the article cited, I agree with the opinion of the editor who characterised the article that way. But it is independent research. Hobson 21:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not add that last section. And, as I have said to you several times in the past, 68.72.82.70, if you feel you have all this knowledge on Kate Middleton then by all means put it in the article and source it. Otherwise, I sense you really do not know much and have nothing to contribute except to be rude to other editors.

There are no other reliable sources on Kate Middleton as her only claim to fame is being Prince William's girlfriend. There are no biographys, close hand accounts, she is not blue blooded (no royal or noble blood that can be traced) and so on. Therefore, the only sources out there are these magazines and papers. If editors do not approve of those then this article should be deleted as it does not belong on Wiki. My questions are, if the Daily Mail says great things about her that is reliable? However, if the Daily Mail says something bad or what other editors do not want to hear, that needs further research? That is not logical. How could putting in a few unflattering comments to balance the article out be any worse then only putting positive things in just because some people happen to like this girl? Again, the only options are, either editors put information from magazines, newspapers, tabloids and so on in her article as those are the only sources. If not, then either all the information except for her early life should be taken out or the article itself should be deleted.

Oh, Hobson, I fixed the wording from the "the paper" to "the article" it seemed to flow better. If that is okay. RosePlantagenet 15:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is this: if these claims have appeared in "The Daily Mail" and "The Sun," but not in mainstream papers, there is a reason: the claims have not been verified by journalistic staffs bound to ethical codes that insist on fact-checking before printing mere rumors and gossip. If, on the other hand, such papers have indeed printed this information, then it is fair game. My view is that precisely BECAUSE there are no biographies or fully-verified sources as yet, then the entry should avoid tabloid rumors and gossip and anything that appears in celebrity magazines and so-called "biographies." The entry should be confined to verified factual information only.

A reasonable option would be to include the gossip but with very careful caveats for readers. For example, one could say, "The Daily Mail published such-and-such, but the information has not been verified."

I'm also concerned about tone. As I mentioned earlier, the recent additions seem to have been added by someone who is hostile to Ms. Middleton. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.68.72.84.185 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point nor am I opposed to what you are saying about the sources. The article is starting to sound like a tabloid instead of an encyclopedia entry. The Daily Mail and the Sun are tabloids. Tabloids are known for not always being accurate. However, if you include caveats for readers, that makes sense, but you can not just add it for the negative gossip about Kate Middleton, you also have to add it in for the positive, as well. You can not assume that everything positive that is said about her is accurate and everything negative are rumors and lies. I am sure she is a nice girl, but she is human. Even the nicest person can do not so nice things and make mistakes.

The other issue that may come up is, if you type in caveats for readers then all the information becomes questionable. If it is questionable then everything written in this article by the magazines and tabloids would not be considered accurate and would have to be removed. I most certainly agree with you that this article should have nothing but factual information, however, a chunk of this article would have to go. The only parts that would be left is the introduction and her early life, with maybe a tiny piece of information about her relationship with William.

Maybe, it could help to clean up the article. And, any information put into the article further would have to be well researched. At least until one of the following two things happen she and William get married, which there will be hundreds of future books written about her or they break up, in which cause the article would be deleted. RosePlantagenet 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the information in this article is indeed questionable. The fact that there is a lack of verifiable info is not an argument to keep unverified stuff in just to increase the word count. I believe it is sensible to include some mention of unsourced tabloid gossip in this specific article because Ms Middleton's notability depends entirely on the widespread speculation that she might one day marry a direct heir to the throne, and therefore the attitude of the British media to her is significant (and perhaps the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand media). But the facts here are that popular British newspapers are saying certain things about her. The things they say may or may not be facts and cannot be taken as verified because they appear in a newspaper. The Daily Mail article which is cited appears to report Ms Middleton's attitude to the media - not just what she does but what she *thinks*. Eg "Kate Middleton completes a well-rehearsed drill; one that has become something of a joke among herself and her circle." The journalist has no idea what Kate Middleton considers to be a joke:)

It's a style of writing, very different to the style used when reporting, for example, a serious court case. Newspapers need to do it when they report on someone like Ms Middleton.

What can be included in this article, quite sensibly I think, is something about the media's treatment of Ms Middleton. Even that needs to be interpreted by an authoritative source. Eg, who says the Daily Mail writing a vaguely critical article is "Trouble for Middleton"? Us? Hobson 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I would not say it is trouble for Middleton either, at least for the first two paragraphs, because it is the first time anything negative has been written about her since she started dating William. I think that she probably has used her new found fame to her advantage on occassion. Who would not in her place? However, it is uncertain if she actually did those particular things.

The last paragraph might be trouble for her because William was seen flirting and groping three women at night clubs, recently, and it is true because there were pictures of him doing it. I was happy to see the sentence stating she allows William to flirt with other women and does not care about it was taken out. Speaking as a woman, myself, no matter who the man is, there is no woman out there who would not be upset nor willing to tolerate it long term. And, the law of averages says that sooner or later William could meet another girl, it is possible. So, surprised it would not bother her in some way.

The Gladys section, Prince William has already stated in an interview he does not plan to marry till he is twenty-eight. Therefore, that is proof as to why he is continuing his military career rather than getting married. And, as the heir to the British throne, he is not going to be allowed to live with Middleton without the couple being married. This proves that history is now repeating itself because his father choose to do the same, and Camilla ended up marrying someone else. Therefore, the speculation is veriable that Middleton could become the next Camilla. RosePlantagenet 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes which I'll explain here. I made it clear that speculation about what the army had told Prince William came from an anonymous source. This is very different to William's comment that he doesn't want to marry until he is at least 28, which is a direct quote from the Prince. The idea that his comments about getting married has anything to do with what the "security source" quoted in the Daily Mail article supposedly said is original research, and I took it out. As for the Gladys stuff - to say Kate Middleton might become the next Camilla could mean all sorts of things (I would take it to mean she might become his mistress while William marries someone else). The article referenced is a piece comparing some clothes Kate wore on one occasion to the type of clothes Camilla wears. It does not suggest she might become "the next Camilla". I don't see how a journalists opinion about some of Middleton's clothes is in any way notable, and took it out. Hobson 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it meant that people figured that Kate would marry someone else and then be William's mistress while he marries someone else too. That is why I was not sure if it should come out. I removed the Gladys section and moved the paragraph to the Recent section. I also added in the professional obligations that William will be doing along with his military service that were discussed in the article. RosePlantagenet 15:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect information

This is the first time I am attempting to use the Talk page, and I'm not familiar with the protocol yet. I am utilising this method because in reading the encyclopedic entry for Kate Middleton I discovered some incorrect information.

Kate's Father Michael Middleton is not in any way related to a coal-mining family. He is in fact related to the wealthy and well-known Lupton family, who mainly reside in Leeds, Yorkshire, where Michael Middelton was born. Kate's mother Carole Middleton (nee' Goldsmith) is the person whose ancestors were, in fact, coal miners. I have links to information that substantiates both Michael Middleton's lineage and Carole Middleton's lineage, but the links I have are available to anyone; I'm wondering why the incorrect information has not been corrected yet? I actually see several blocks of incorrect information, and I was wondering why it has not as yet been corrected? Also, what is the purpose of the "Gladys" section? Kate Middleton has not been referred to as Gladys more than one time, how is it logical to name an entire section in an encyclopedia entry with a nickname that has actually been applied to the Duchess of Cornwall, but not to Kate Middleton herself more than one time? Can that be corrected as well? Lastly, the current entry does not seem to have a Neutral Point Of View, like a person would expect an encyclopedia entry to have. This entry seemed to be be more normal in appearance last year, but in recent months it has changed to look more like personal blog entries rather than a neutral encyclopedia entry. How can that be corrected? I would like to make some corrections and adjustments, but I did not want to do so without finding out who the editors were, and what things I am allowed to adjust. Thank you for assisting me with this.Mapleleaf07 09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)mapleleaf07

Be bold. Click on the link for more information:) Hobson 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess the person who put that in never checked it out. I will fix the part about her family's roots. I have only seen one website which discusses her family tree, however, many editors have been careful not to use that site. The reason for this is because many sites that discuss people's ancestry are not always accurate and it can be easy to make connections that simply are not there. That site in particular already states at the top that the research was not "extensive", therefore, it should not be in the article. If an editor wants to put her lineage in the article, they have to use more reliable sources then those found on the internet to back it up. So far editors seem to be happy with the Daily Mail because it is as close to reliable as anyone can get about Middleton's family history.

The Gladys section, Prince William has already stated in an interview he does not plan to marry till he is twenty-eight. Therefore, that is proof as to why he is continuing his military career rather than getting married. And, as the heir to the British throne, he is not going to be allowed to live with Middleton without the couple being married. This proves that history is now repeating itself because his father choose to do the same, and Camilla ended up marrying someone else. Therefore, the speculation is veriable that Middleton could become the next Camilla. I think the editor simply titled it that because of those reasons.

If you check out the section above that says "NPOV Problems", we are currently discussing how to make the article better. I would like to note that you did the right thing by discussing first and not editing it is always more helpful when people do that to avoid edit wars and wrong information begin added. If you would like to discuss with us some ideas that you have that would be great. RosePlantagenet 12:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

In reference to my edit earlier today, please see WP:EL for info on what should go in external links. Hobson 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

Now that she's no longer the future Queen of England, does she still merit inclusion on Wikipedia?--220.238.175.38 10:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there some hidden limit on the number of wikipedia articles that means anything not 100% current needs to be removed? 81.178.100.244 13:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The only parts that are notable are those relating to her relationship with Prince William. The section on her early life has no place here (are her exam results really notable?) She is now just any other random person. As her only claim to any notability flows from William, this article should be merged into the Prince William article. Rafy 13:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone isn't notable enough to have their own article on the day(s) that person is the top story in national newspaper / news outlet is probably going a little bit too far don't you think? Maybe in the (near) future when/if not many people is interested in her anymore, sure, but not right now. -- KTC 14:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with KTC's point. And, just because they've broken up does not mean they won't get back together or that she'll never be Queen. Remember Camilla? She came back years later. Many people break up and then get back together.71.65.202.41 18:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is very possible they could get back together someday. However, as of now they are not together and rumors of a reunion are speculation. Kate is not Queen and there is no way to know that she ever will be one day. RosePlantagenet 11:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that she is on again with the prince and it is in the news and in pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.59.55 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 June 2007.

Actually, I did see the news, and the news never said they were on again and off again. The news said it was simply speculation. Again, this is an encyclopedic article and not a fansite. RosePlantagenet 11:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If she merits an article of her own, every pokemon and Final Fantasy character does too. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.73.251 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge

This article should now be merged into William, SqueakBox 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging would be ridiculous, she is certainly deserved of her own page. Just because she and Will have split up, she is still a high-profile person in the media. Tphi 16:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a shock to read. Anyway, no, the article should not be merged. Kate was high-profile because she was William's girlfriend, however, that is not the case anymore. She and William have broken up and if they stay that way then there is no reason to keep the entire article. Middleton should be mentioned in Prince William's article as a past girlfriend, but I can not see the point in keeping the rest of the information about her now that it is certain she will not be the next Queen. RosePlantagenet 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't she going to continue to be notable on the grounds that she was a long-term associate of Teh Royalz and heavily covered in the press in her own right? Mistresses of royals (and that would have to include girlfriends) tend to be remembered at least as minor historical footnotes - there's even an entire category for them. I think it would be a mistake to delete this article just yet. Vashti 13:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted in a month after the breakup news dies down replaced with a mention of her in Prince Willy's 'past girlfriends' section. Is no seperate article for all of Prince Chucks and Prince Andy's ex-girlfriends. Until she ever becomes notable again, this article should go RingoStarburst 03:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's worth keeping for a while, as she is still very much in the news and a public figure for better or worse, but the time will soon come when it ought to be merged. Hobson 18:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, that's a bit ridiculous. She's a major news story at this point, but yes, it's possible she'll fade into history. Does anyone not realize that in a free society, people can get back together with people they've broken up with? It happens quite often, actually. They could easily get back together like Camilla and Charles did. She does not have an article simply because she was PRince William's girlfriend-- she has an article because she's been a major media figure for years because of that, and people are going to be interested in her for a while. People hear about her and will want to know more about her. When the prince has a new long-term girlfriend or gets married in a few years, there will be more perspective on deletion. For now, that's simply too soon. She's quite famous, especially in the UK. 71.65.202.41 18:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Kate Middleton is sufficiently famous that people will search an enyclopaedia for an entry about her. She doesn't stop being famous just because of a broken engagement. ElinorD (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no engagement! They were never engaged. I think this article should soon be merged into Prince William's article under Former girlfriends, she hasn't done anything in her own right to have an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.207.184 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 April 2007.

Sorry, you're right. I know they weren't engaged, and just wrote that without realising that it was what I had written. A broken relationship is what I meant. The rest of my comment stands. ElinorD (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(ETA: sorry this is unsigned, I have to gget the hang of the ~~ s, thought I did it Meanwhile..the comment that I was referring to as silly has been deleted! It doesn't refer to what ElinorD said) That last point is a little silly. William hasn't done anything in his own right to have an article, either. He's only notable because of whose son he is. Kate Middleton's claim is just as much to do with relationships, even if it is a former one. For as long as she's in the news, she's notable. And I suspect we will hear about her for a while yet. ~~Kelli~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.131.150 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 April 2007.

No it is not silly at all. William's birthright and future positon as King is what makes him notable. Kate has no outstanding birth or relations, or future role that is certain. So saying Kate Middleton's claim is just as much to do with relationships is gravely wrong, and very silly. Soon people will be saying "Kate Who?" and it will be obvious this needs to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.131.150 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 April 2007.

Edit - My comment begins here. As the above comment was not signed, it might have looked like part of my response. Hobson 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC) There seems to be a consensus not to do anything right now. Maybe it makes sense to put this debate on hold for a month or two at least, when it might be clearer whether or not it makes sense to merge the article. Hobson 00:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Primary criterion for Notability of people :

A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,^[2] and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable.

The subject of this article certainly meets these criteria, so is therefore notable. This article shouldn't therefore be merged into another. Davidprior 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Kate Middleton only became famous because of Prince William. If she had never dated him, no one would know who she is or care. As soon as, William meets his next girlfriend, the media will focus on her. Middleton will simply go down in history as Prince William's first love and nothing more. The only people who care about Middleton are her fans. It is possible that someday she and William could get together but that is speculation. Speculation does not belong in an encyclopedic article, especially since the ones who are still hoping on that are her fans. Wikipedia is not a fansite. If within a given period of time she and William do not get back together this article should be deleted. The only place Middleton should be referenced is in Prince William's article. As I have stated before, there were only magazine and tabloid sources that kept this article going. And, while that rule seems to apply, at some point there will no longer be substantial sources on Kate Middleton. If those sources no longer exist this article will remain inactive and if it does then there is no point in keeping it up. RosePlantagenet 21:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A person with "fans", as you say, clearly also is a person noteworthy enough for her own article. - Nunh-huh 22:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

True, however, her only claim to fame is being the girlfriend of Prince William. She is not anymore. She will always be just a former girlfriend. What else has she done? Or what else will she do? Typically, notable people do more notable things. Unless she does something more important than just being Prince William's former girlfriend, having fans will make no difference. That is just my two cents. RosePlantagenet 22:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

By "notability", Wikipedia only means that there are sufficient sources for an attributed article to be written. It has nothing to do with whether any particular Wikipedian feels that the person in question has "earned" an article. Clearly, there are sufficent sources for Kate Middleton. She doesn't have to do anything else, or to have done anything else. - Nunh-huh 23:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, and I disagree strongly that there are "only magazine and tabloid sources" for her - a brief search turned up articles from the Observer, the Independent, the Guardian, the Times and the New York Times, none of which are traditionally described as either magazines or tabloids. I am astonished by this attitude that media sources somehow expire over time - this would make many articles about past events and people extremely hard to source. Vashti 17:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you check out past discussions that topic on sources has been faught over for sometime. I have never had a problem with magazines, newspapers, or tabloids because those were the major sources about her. While those sources should be used, at some point the media may stop reporting about her. At that point there will not be a sufficient amount of information and when that time comes, and it will, the article should be merged. RosePlantagenet 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, that simply isn't the case. Media sources don't disappear - they are archived and continue to be accessible forever. They are major historical sources. This means that even if Kate Middleton is somehow wiped from everyone's memory tomorrow, the past sources make her notable. In fact, I'd argue against any merger on the grounds that she is very likely to be irrelevant to William's article, except as part of a list of past girlfriends - all of whom should have their own articles if sources are available to create them. Vashti 10:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wants to create articles for all the future girlfriends for the Princes then so be it. As long as this article does not become a shrine for fans of Middleton, who still believe she will be Queen someday. RosePlantagenet 17:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, this page shouldn't be allowed to become a fansite. Vashti 16:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

End of the relationship

There's been quite a few edits to this section, particularly about the reasons for the split. I have made some changes, i) to ensure it is made clearer that the many reasons given for the couple splitting have all been ascribed to anonymous sources and ii) to ensure that the possible reasons mentioned in this article are indeed referred to in the newspaper articles cited. It may well be possible to improve my edits but can I ask that any other reasons mentioned are cited. As the whole thing is speculation anyway, it needs to be speculation from a leading and established news source at least. Hobson 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I wrote, and the newspaper reports in brackets: The original report in The Sun quoted a "close friend of the couple" as saying that Middleton felt William had not been paying her enough attention (The Sun wrote: One close friend of the couple said: “As far as Kate is concerned, William simply hasn’t been paying her enough attention). The paper highlighted reports that William had been spending time with other young women (Saucy Wills slipped his hand around Brazilian student Ana Ferreira . . . and on the same night the Prince was snapped with leggy blonde Lisa Agar, 19), and said the Prince, aged 24 at the time of the split, felt he was too young to marry(And at 24, the Prince is said to feel he is too young to marry). A report in the Daily Mail blamed a desire by royal courtiers not to "hurry along" a marriage announcement (the Mail wrote: Two things did for the relationship. First, Royal protocol - courtiers saw no reason to hurry along with a marriage announcement), and William's desire to enjoy his bachelor status within his Army career (But, second, because of this enforced breathing space, Prince William decided to enjoy his bachelor status within his Army career). The Mail also suggested that William's friend Guy Pelly encouraged the Prince to take a "careless approach" to relationships (Some critics of this careless approach to human relationships are pointing the finger at the Princes' friend Guy Pelly). The same article suggested that Middleton had "expected too much" in wanting William to demonstrate his commitment to her (She had given him her commitment, at some expense to herself, but was he giving her his? In the end, it looks like she expected too much). Hobson 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

As of the moment, the reunion is speculation. There is no proof they are back together. It has been stressed in earlier discussion that speculation is no longer allowed. This article is not a shrine for Kate Middleton. If you are a fan of her that is fine but please do not use this article to press your point of view or it will be removed. Wikipedia is not a fansite. RosePlantagenet 12:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Are there any non speculating sources, that they were official together, and if yes, split? --Spacey 12:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, who knows? It all has been bizzare. RosePlantagenet 11:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh. [3] says former gilfriend, two stories, but not for an encyclopedia. --Spacey 19:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Mail had an article today about their getting back together. Since essentially everything in this article comes from these newspapers, I thought it might be relevant. Thanks!

Can anyone reduce all based only on Daily Mail like sources, please. --Spacey 09:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What you suggested has been discussed before, however, if you take out those sources then there is not a lot to add to the article. While I do not have a problem with cleaning the article up because it is starting to read like a tabloid, some editors have argued against it.

I would like to point out to editors that the Daily Mail and Sun have been reporting that William has only been thinking of getting back together with Kate. Until their relationship is made public she is still his former girlfriend. I would also like to point out that so far only tabloids have been reporting a possible reunion. No major and more reliable source such as the BBC has mentioned anything about William and Kate. RosePlantagenet 15:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above, they are not 'officially' reunited (as the Daily Mail admits). Therefore I have changed 'is the girlfriend of...' to 'is the former girlfriend of...' Twistme 23:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

and even that is pure speculation based on Daily Mail like sources. The "girlfriend", the "former" and the "reunion", are there any official sources? --Spacey 00:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that more reliable sources like the BBC and many major news stations reported their relationship and then reported that it has ended. It is pretty clear that she was his girlfriend, and they did split up. However, no other sources out there have claimed anything about Kate and William getting back together. Furthermore, while it is possible William and Kate are thinking about getting back together, thinking about it and it actually happening are two different things. Until it is made public again, she is still his former girlfriend. RosePlantagenet 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Being a girlfriend isn't an official position, and there's no 'going public' with it as there would be if it was an official relationship, like an engagement, for instance. Of course they aren't 'officially' back together, in other words; they were never 'officially' together because being a girlfriend is not an official relationship. The royal sources quoted by The Daily Mail newspaper about them reconciling are the same cited when they split up. You can't accept one report and not the other, according to some random criteria like whether the BBC decided to run with the story or not. That's why I believe the time is right to move the word 'former'.

Well, is that not what you are kinda doing? You choose to believe they were not together at all, therefore, you refuse to accept one source from another? An if you believe that Middleton was simply an acquaintance then shouldn't this article be removed? True, you can never ignore one source from another. However, when the couple split there were a number of outlets that reported it around the world. So far, only tabloids have reported hints of a reunion. Those reports are only hints and hints are speculation. You could put the rumors in the article but every single rumored report would have to be added in. If you add the rumors in the article they then verfy that William and Kate were a couple and for the moment she remains a former girlfriend. RosePlantagenet 13:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I see 'former' has been removed again, I think I'll give up on this one... Twistme 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the claim that "officials continue to deny reports of a reunion," followed by superscript [16]. In the first place, "officials" haven't confirmed or denied anything, since it is not the practice of royal staffers to comment on Prince William's personal life. In every article I've read, the "officials" reiterate that they have no comment (which is what they've ALWAYS said), so why is anyone trying to attribute to them something they did not say? And the article referenced in [16] gives us nothing at all on the matter -- no official is quoted as saying "yes" or "no." In fact, the article in question said "Officials bluntly refuse to discuss William's private life." Why, then, it is offered as a supposed reference for the supposed "official" denials? I don't care whether these two people get back together or not. I do care about accurate information.68.72.84.163 02:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That are the levels from pretty clear speculation or BBC reported speculation and pure speculation. The "official" denials should be out, cause there's nothing official at all. --Spacey 09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed that piece. That is true. If you want to add in the speculation then you can. But, you have to be real careful on which speculation seems "pretty clear". The only issue is, everyone will have a different opinion, and some people will base that on what they want to believe. It could turn into an edit war. Which is why I have wanted to keep a lot of the speculation out of the article. RosePlantagenet 12:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to indicate the fact and the speculating parts --Spacey 08:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems they are back together

Recent media reports have said that she and Prince William are on a romantic holiday on Desroches Island in Seychelles. See google news. I am assuming the article has to be modifed accordingly. --RajivShah 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Until there's a picture of them together again, it would probably best be phrased as speculation. The problem is how to write that in an encyclopedic way. Ariadne55 16:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that they are in Desroches island in Seychelles (it has been confirmed by the Seychelles authorities and http://justjared.buzznet.com/2007/08/20/kate-middleton-prince-william-vacation/#comment-1804651 here there are picture of Kate at the Seychelles airport). Generally when a two persons of the opposite gender take a room at a hotel for 1 week they do not do so because they are "just friends". --RajivShah 19:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That is your point of view. And, actually, that picture is an old picture of Kate Middleton from July, I believe. At this time, there are no pictures currently of the couple vacationing together. Speculation is not aloud in an encyclopedic article and it will be removed accordingly. Nothing has been confirmed on the status of their relationship and until such time as that happens all speculation has to remain out. Otherwise this article will read like a tabloid because people will pick and choose what they want to believe. Point of view is not allowed either. No worries, when and if it is confirmed that they are truly back together a section will be created. RosePlantagenet 12:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The pictures have been taken at the Seychelles airport. See the comment I added in the link above. Anyone who went to Seychelles airport can confirm that these pictures have been taken at the Seychelles airport. 2 or 3 days ago the Seychelles TV (the SBC) said that they were in Seychelles. The TV called Desroches island to ask for an interview and they were told that Prince William did not want to talk to the press. That's a confirmation that he is in Seychelles. Furthermore on the 21stof August the SBC made a report in which they said that Paparazzi had been intercepted near Desroches Island. They interviewed the manager of the Island Development Company (which manges all the outer islands of Seychelles) who said that they had placed some security on the Island to prevent any Paparazzi from approaching to take pictures of William and Kate (once again confirming that they are on holiday in Seychelles). The news bulletin for that day can be found here (it is in Creole though). So the fact that they are on this Island on holiday is just plain verifiable facts. If you have any problems accessing the video just go to the parent directory and select the one for 21st of August 2007. --RajivShah 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The report starts at 16 min and 24 sec. At 19:54 the journalist says : "He [Mr Savy, the CEO of the Island Development company] had asked the coast guards to help them during the stay of Prince William here...". Later on he confirms the presence of both Prince William and Kate on the island. --RajivShah 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And, I repeat to you again. Speculation and media gossip is not allowed in an encyclopedic article. This article is not a tabloid nor a fansite. As soon as it is confirmed that they are a couple again, all information regarding the events will be posted in the article. Until then, any gossip and speculation will be removed accordingly. RosePlantagenet 17:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a point for the relationship and I did not deny that in my previous post. I am simply saying that it is a verifiable fact (not coming from the likes of The Sun but from the authorities of Seychelles) that they are on holiday in Seychelles at the moment (something which you seemed not to believe). What about including at the end of the article "they spent a one week holiday in Seychelles together." and that's all. When either of them confirm that they are together then we will say it in the article. --RajivShah 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That would not work either because no one knows why they went on vacation, if they did. Until they come back and something is confirmed, everything else is speculation. There is no point in adding that sentence to the article until you add the confirmed reason for the vacation and the outcome. What is the rush? Whether you believe they are back together or not, all will be revealed in due time. Prince William and Kate Middleton are public figures, they can not hide what is really going on forever. RosePlantagenet 12:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It was more the fact that they are together on vacation. That would be similar to saying that Kate attended the concert for diana. But anyway I see your point. --RajivShah 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you all are forgetting that this vacation was planned a long time ago. It's not like they just randomly decided to take a vacation together (like the press want us to think). This is the August vacation that they planned before they broke up - and decided to take anyway - even though they had broken up. This was announced in April, along with Kate attending the Diana concert and William and Kate going to Kate's cousin's wedding (which was on the same weekend as Camilla's 60th birthday party). This doesn't prove they're back together! Besides, there are no pictures. There are pictures of Kate with luggage, but there is no proof that this vacation even happened (although it probably did). Kate has been going on vacation all the time. In fact, she is on vacation a lot more than she works! I hate to admit it, but I think this is another scam by the media to get people to buy magazines and to make bets on an engagement for a marriage, that if happens, will end in disaster. They've broken up at least four times! Stephe1987 05:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The vacation did happen. It has been confirmed by the Seychelles govt (read above).--RajivShah 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Where are the photos? All the photos they give are old! 2) Of course the Seychelles govt confirmed the trip. They want the media attention and the business of future clients. If people think Prince William was there with his girlfriend, they'll have heard of the place and think of possibly going there themselves. They could in theory be back together, but all these stories with no real backup are not proof. I also read somewhere that he was on the island and had friends there too. They can't even get their story straight. 24.10.61.104 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, when couples break up, they do not go ahead and take a vacation together just because they planned it some months earlier. A break-up in April gives plenty of time to cancel arrangements made for August. A group vacation might proceed in those circumstances, but not one involving only the now-supposedly-kaput couple at a particularly romantic destination. However, since we're waiting (rightly, in my view) on "confirmation," and since there will be no official statement unless and until they become engaged, the article should remain as is. I guarantee you that Prince William and Ms. Middleton could be snogging in front of Buckingham Palace during the Changing of the Guard, and the royal spokespeople still wouldn't have anything "official" to say about the relationship until William had proposed, Kate had accepted, and a ring was on her finger. In the meantime, none of us should be speculating either, and that includes speculation on "media plots." (This is also not the place to express one's personal opinion of Ms. Middleton.) Of course, should Ms. Middleton do something noteworthy that doesn't involve her putative relationship with Prince William, then an addition to the article can be made.68.72.107.211 22:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation does not belong in an Encyclopedic article. RosePlantagenet 18:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We are way past the speculation phase here. The evidence that the travelled together is beyond dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyorunner (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That is your POV and that is not allowed in this article either. There is no point in adding in speculation from tabloids until it is confirmed they are back together. There is no point in adding the vacation to the article until you add the confirmed reason for the vacation and the outcome. This is not a fansite. So far no tabloid or source has been able to prove they are back together. When and if it can be confirmed then anything related to how they got back together will be added in the article. Until then, it is all speculation and that has to remain out of the article. If you allow in speculation then all of it has to be added in and that allows people to pick and choose based on their POV causing a possible edit war. Tabloid information is hardly concrete evidence.

I simply can not understand why this bothers editors so much. Kate and William are two very public figures and sooner or later we are all going to know the real story. Until then, what is the rush? RosePlantagenet 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And, as predicted, the current status of their relationship did come out. RosePlantagenet 17:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

current/former

Rather than keep seeing the first line changed back and forth in a slow moving edit war I have tried from something that does not say if she is or isn't. If she is or isn't is speculation and with out a source it can't be there. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That is fine. There is no confirmation either way at this point, and the tabloids have gone so crazy with the stories about their relationship that it is difficult to know what is fact and what is fiction. Although, I doubt that it will stop people from editing it, hopefully it will. I removed the part about her occupation because it already states her job in the info box. Thanks! RosePlantagenet 11:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that it will either but saying that she is or she is the former without a source can be removed at any time. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deep wisdom has spoken and we thank you for that. There is no real source of this relationsship, but that Kate is famous for it. --Spacey 21:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Titles?

If Kate was eventually to marry William, under his current title of Prince William of Wales, what would her title be? Would she be Princess William of Wales, Princess Kate, nothing, or what? Anyone know? --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If William and Kate were to marry, then yes, she would be styled and titled HRH Princess William of Wales as wives of British princes take their husbands names, as do all married women (for example: Princess Michael of Kent). If, they were to marry, and the Queen gave William a title (The Duke of X), then Kate's title would be HRH The Duchess of X. Kate would never officially be "Princess Kate" as that form is used only for the daughters/granddaughters of the monarch. For more info, you can check the articles on British prince and British princess. Hope that helps. Prsgoddess187 11:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

All married women? I think you'd find some people outside the Western world beg to differ... Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And not a few inside the Western world as well. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Our anonymous Jew-labeler

An anonymous contributor has repeatedly added the category Category:English Jews to this page (apparently on the theory that her mother's maiden name "sounds Jewish", and that Judaism being matrilineal, Kate Middleton is therefore Jewish). The logical flaws are, I think, obvious. In the absence of an actual reference for this purported "fact", the category doesn't belong here. In fact, Kate Middleton's maternal line is quite well-known. She descends from Elizabeth Dunn, b. abt. 1660, d. Oct. 1719 (Dunn ☞ Proud ☞ Douglas ☞ Atkinson ☞ Peacock ☞ Swailes ☞ Myers ☞ Temple ☞ Harrison ☞ Goldsmith ☞ Middleton). None Jewish. - Nunh-huh 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It was already decided by other editors that unless an accurate source can be found to prove Kate Middleton's ancestry then it should be left out. There are no accurate sources at this time that states Kate Middleton's mother's family as being Jewish. Should that arise then it will be added and sourced, accordingly. Also, any site that makes a claim about Kate's ancestry, that states the information was not researched extensively will be removed. Internet sites are not always accurate when displaying one's ancestry and that sort of research can take many years, therefore, all editors should be careful when trying to source a site. As of now, Kate's ancestry can only be traced back two hundred years and to the Lupton family. RosePlantagenet 17:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the site, which is reliable, despite your misinterpretation of their caveats. - Nunh-huh 18:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from being rude. The site clearly states that the information may not be 100% accurate. How can that be a misinterpretation? Just because you happen to agree with it does not make it an accurate source. I study family history for a living and it can take years of research. If you can find a more accurate source to back this internet site up then the link can stay. Otherwise, it has to be removed. One internet site about Kate's ancestry does not make it creditable. Especially, when that site states the information was not researched extensively. RosePlantagenet 01:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that you have no clue as to which genealogic sites are reliable. William Addams Reitwiesner is the author of American Ancestors and Cousins of The Princess of Wales and of The Lesbian Ancestors of Prince Rainier of Monaco, Dr. Otto von Habsburg, Brooke Shields, and the Marquis de Sade. His website has been the source for numerous newspaper stories (most recently about the slave-owning ancestors of Barak Obama), and is regularly used as a source on WIkipedia. He is honest enough to indicate that his site may contain errors - a warning that applies to any source whatsoever - but does not mean that his site should not be used. If we didn't use sources that might contain errors, we would use no sources. The site is in fact researched extensively; that it is open to emendation and characterizes itself as a draft is no disqualifier. Kindly do not remove this until you achieve some sort of agreement that it should not be used. - Nunh-huh 01:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So, if you have knowledge of all those books, why are you not sourcing them? And, going out of your way to be insulting? Why could you not simply have explained to me your thoughts? If you took the time to read other discussions we all managed to come to some agreement about her family history without it turning into an edit war. I have seen you edit this article several times and never once did you bother to put it up. If you guys have no problem with sourcing errored information that is fine. Kindly, remove yourself from your high horse and discuss things in a mature fashion in the future. I am simply trying to make sure the source was accurate. RosePlantagenet 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, you began the process by summarily removing a source you were unfamiliar with rather than discussing it on the talk page. And no "errored information" is being sourced. - Nunh-huh 19:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I feel as though I should kindly inform you that if you go back and check the edit logs, I was the one who orginally added the two statements about Kate's parents. So you are giving me a hard time and defending information that I already added. Thank you! ^_~ Oh, if I were you and had your revert warnings, I would be real careful when lecturing people about removing information before discussing it first. Thank you again for your input! You have a lovely day now. RosePlantagenet 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

When your removal of a perfectly good source is repeatedly reverted, it's time to stop reverting and start talking, because it's a clear indication that there's a disagreement to be settled. That's why I brought it to the talk page. - Nunh-huh 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Only after reverting it yourself and making sure it would stay there. There is a difference between discussing it in a friendly manner and being insulting. And, I am sure that had I continued to disagree my talk page would have had a three revert warning from you by now. So let us not kid ourselves, I know how the game can be played on this site. Anyway, I was hesitant about adding that site because a "first draft" is not enough proof but if it considered enough by other editors or helps remove the worry that people might say Kate is of Jewish ancestry or any other ancestry other than what has been reported. Then that is fine. RosePlantagenet 14:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not that you were "hesitant about adding that site": you were actively removing it. It's good that you agree, now, that it should stay. - Nunh-huh 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I really have to laugh. "Lesbian Ancestors of Prince Ranier of Monaco"? Surely, this is a joke? In fact, we have been through this before. "Goldsmith" is an ordinary occupational surname, like "Taylor" or "Cooper" and thousands of others throughout the U.K. and Europe. The view that it is "Jewish" is ignorant, since the population of the Jews on the face of the planet has always been so small. Anyone who thinks that all "Goldsmiths" must be of Jewish ancestry makes the bizarre error of assuming that all goldsmiths in the history of Europe have been Jewish. Only an ignoramus regarding history and literature, particularly British history and literature, in this case, could possibly be so foolish. Didn't I mention Oliver Goldsmith and "The Vicar of Wakefield" somewhere on this discussion site?68.72.105.244 23:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the Lesbian ancestors title was meant to amuse (particularly as it was written when lesbian rumors were floating about one of the persons mentioned in the title). But though the title is amusing, it's a serious work - "Lesbian" meaning "pertaining to the island of Lesbos in the northern part of the Grecian archipelago". You can read it online here. Albert II, Prince of Monaco is a 23nd generation descendant of Francesco I Gattilusio, founder of the Lesbian Gattilusii dynasty. - Nunh-huh 00:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Leeds, Luptons

Having checked the source which details her father's background - it is http://www.leedstoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=102&ArticleID=1760281, source 3 in the footnotes - it seems Kate's grandfather's father married a Lupton. I think mentioning the connection to this family in the article would give it undue weight, as it's not much of a connection. Perhaps there is scope for a little more about her father's family background, as there's a bit about her mother's. For now, I've just put in that he is from Leeds.Hobson 00:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand the point of this. Is the idea that the Luptons are some kind of blue bloods and establishing a connection between them and Kate Middleton somehow makes her more worthy to be Queen? Really, its the 21st century, who gives a f***? Chump Manbear 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Too much like a fansite?

This article bothers me. I understand Kate Middleton is the accepted steady girlfriend of Prince William. I also understand that the media desperately wants to push her as his future wife because they have invested a lot into the relationship, and they want their financial return. So I think that she has an article is appropriate. What bothers me is the way the whole article is presented. It strikes me as something you might find on a fansite, in the biography section. It just does not strike me as appropriately written for an The Free Encyclopedia. Kate Middleton is a person of some note now, having a world reputation and household name, a permanent celebrity no matter if she does not become Princess William. So she should have an article. But there is far too much IF and CLAIMS made in this page, with only at best The Daily Mail to back it up. I think the speculation should all just be erased. Even that story of the "breakup" from The Sun. A simple statement could be made to explain the on/off nature of the relationship, and the development of her media profile. --Ashley Rovira 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Stephe1987 07:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has changed very little in quite some time, precisely because some people have been working to fight the inclusion of speculative information drawn from tabloids and other less-than-reliable media. I'm surprised that you think it reads like a "fansite," since it has contained for quite a while some unverified negative information (i.e., that Middleton supposedly no longer has contact with her university friends) that I'd like to see removed. A case can be made, however, for simply leaving the article alone, until there is something serious to say. One concern is that making significant edits now might merely open the door to future speculative additions.68.72.108.206 21:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The tabloid speculations should not be on here, good or bad. This includes all the breakup press. They broke up, but we don't need a list of reasons that are made up by the same tabs that, just days/weeks earlier, had Kate and Prince William ready to get engaged. It also includes the speculation about Kate being invited to spend Christmas with the Royal Family despite the "no-girlfriends" rule (is there a real source for this, or just tabloids again? Did BH or CH release any statements about this?) Another thing, Kate finally did quit her 3 days/week job with Jigsaw. There were some articles published about her going-away luncheon that Jigsaw does for the employees that leave. Her next job is said to be a photographer, but what kind is speculation, as well as if she'll go through with it or not. Maybe we'll get the pleasure of seeing a gallery soon (it would be nice to see Kate's work, since she was an art history student after all) or maybe it's just an idea of hers that she's considering but won't get the chance to go through with (like the children's clothing line). You never know... ;) Stephe1987 07:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

'Call me Catherine', says Kate Middleton as proposal rumours hit fever pitch

Should Wikipedia? Tiddly pop (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not without consensus, so I reverted you. Once people and the media start calling her Catherine we can also change but as an encyclopedia we do not anticipate this kind of thing. But by all means pout in the article that this is what she has sad, using the Mail article as a ref

Info to include, if possible

(1) What religion is she, if any? (This is significant because, if memory serves, if she married William, she would have to convert to Church of England if she wasn't already, or in any case not be Catholic.)

(2) What information is known about her previous boyfriends? (This is significant because in previous generations, including Charles, royal men were expected to marry women who could at least pretend to be virgins.)

218.167.170.71 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that she's church of england, but I can't think of an article right now to verify it. If you can find one, feel free to add the fact in with a reference. If she were catholic, I'd assume it would have been mentioned and extensively discussed in the press. As far as previous boyfriends, again, I can't find a reliable source on the matter, but if you have one you're encouraged to add it in. Vickser (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The notion that brides of royals must be virgins has long gone by the wayside. (It was even questioned when Prince William's mother married his father, 27 years ago.) No one really cares, these days. That being the case, Ms. Middleton's brief dating history before she began seeing the prince isn't particularly relevant. As for religion, Middleton clearly isn't a Catholic, or we would have heard about it eons ago.Lolliapaulina51 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:William_and_Kate.jpg listed for deletion

This is just the official notice that Image:William_and_Kate.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Vickser (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Socialite

I saw someone added socialite to the introduction, and then someone else took it out, so I figured it might be worth starting an actual discussion on the matter. While I agree that the introduction could be improved by having a term more descriptive than "English woman", I honestly can't think of anything more appropriate. I don't think socialite is good because it's not generally a term that's used to describe her in the press, and really, she doesn't quite do the socialite thing of attending many parties and being known for it. She doesn't seem to have a career though, since as far as I can tell the photographer thing hasn't resulted in any actual commissions. Does anyone have any better suggestions for how we could phrase the introduction? What are opinions on using socialite vs. woman in the intro? Vickser (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above, "English woman" could do with improving but socialite is not the right word [I was the one who removed it]. As Vickser says, she is not really a socialite. But what else to describe her bar woman - there isn't really. Work wise she is currently working for her family's company, so that doesn't really work. I think our only option is to leave it was "woman" and just hope they get engaged soon so we can put something better!--UpDown (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, what would people think of "... is the English girlfriend of Prince William of Wales." Although, that seems a little little off, since describing her as the English girlfriend seems almost to imply that he might have another of a different nationality. We could do just "... is the long-term girlfriend of Prince William of Wales." Any thoughts on that? Vickser (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and go ahead and change it myself, along with making some additions since a single sentence is really too short for a lead. People are encouraged to change it around as they see fit. Vickser (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Think your changes are great, and certainly the best possible way to describe Middleton at the moment. As you say the lead did need to be longer. I mean to tidy this page generally soon, so if there is an engagement its in a far better state.--UpDown (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully agreed that it's desperately in need of a clean up. The chronology issues between the relationship and recent events sections are truly ridiculous. It's been on my list of thing that I need to WP:SOFIXIT for a while, but I haven't yet found the time/motivation. If you do get a chance to do some clean up, it would be excellent and highly necessary. Vickser (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I've started. It's going to take some time, as the refs aren't that good (one ref that was meant to back up two things, back up neither!).--UpDown (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Virtually ALL of the possible references are poor, since they come from tabloids and other underinformed media sources. Every week, new and utterly contradictory reports appear in the world media. The truth is that the media don't know what's going on in this relationship, and they make up tales, outof sheer desperation. Even their editors admit it. We're better off leaving the article alone until there is something substantive and confirmed to report.Lolliapaulina51 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lupton?

Why is the provenance of one of her great grandparents mentioned in the article? In my humble opinion to put one of her EIGHT great grandparents out as being worthy of mention due to her last name reeks of classism and snobbishness. The very fact that a person would be ashamed to be descended from working class people or that one of her great grandparents is worthy of mention over any other is not what wikipedia is about. Her Lupton origins are irrelevant, perhaps a more relevant discussion would examine the snobbery with which some in the media and those dependent on their surname or titles regard her, a fact that puts to shame those doing the put downs. Please consider this, and consider removing the reference to her great grandmother, or provide an extensive family history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.242.49 (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lupton family is mentioned because they are notable in the area, and the whole section is clearly referenced. I really think you are imagining any "classism and snobbishness". The section gives a short summary of her family's history, including her mother's working-class ancestors.--UpDown (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Religious heritage

With her mother's surname being Goldsmith, is there a possibility that Kate Middleton is Jewish?? Has this been researched?Barmispain (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a handful of Goldsmiths living in or descended from Britain who are not Jewish. Yes, this has been researched and discussed on the talk page previously to my recollection. That said, Middleton has no known Jewish ancestry. --ArmsHeldOut (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite many Jewish names beginning Gold, "Goldsmith" isn't one of them, its an old English surname. Dainamo (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

More ancestry issues

It is now being claimed that, as I speculated elsewhere, Middleton does have royal ancestry. She is apparently a descendant of King Edward III and his wife Philippa through the Lupton line mentioned above. This wouldn't be too surprising, since this royal couple had a number of children who reached adulthood; their son John of Gaunt alone had four legitimate and at least four illegitimate children. I suspect that thousands of people in the U.K. and elsewhere are descended from Edward without being aware of it. Most of us can probably claim some royal ancestry in one way or another. However, interesting as this information may be, it should not be added to the article until and unless it can be authoritatively verified. I'm mentioning it only because people may want to keep an eye out for a solid reference. This one isn't sufficiently authoritative, in my view:http://people.monstersandcritics.com/royalwatch/news/article_1371596.php/Kate_Middletons_royal_bloodline.68.72.111.148 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC) [b]Disco Diva[/b]

Actually, only about 25% of the British population is directly descended from the Plantagenets. Yes, most people can claim a "relation" to royalty, however, the number gets extremely lower for "direct descent". There is a strong difference between the two. I do agree with you, many websites, magazines and fans of Miss Middleton have attempted to connect her to royalty, however, as of now there is no solid evidence to prove the claim. Also, the claim remains very speculative because it surfaced some years after she began dating William. So, it begs the question as to whether or not the claim is real, or are people simply trying in a desperate attempt to make her royal? For now, until strong evidence can back the claims up it is the latter. Virgosky (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The ancestry was added to the article and it SHOULD not be there as it states on the source page about the Fairfax link and Edward III ancestry -- "The following material on the immediate ancestry of Kate Middleton should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft."

Also this most recent news about her being connected to royalty is and may be rubbish as it was put out by newspapers and magazines. There is no official source for it. This is the only source which shows the direct lineage, an article from the Daily Mail [4]. Those who use the official books which were written over a decade ago such as Burke's Peerage know that her supposed ancestor William Davenport and Grace Alloway are NOT listed anywhere except for those newspapers, etc just put out. Also the question to ask is why would this information just come out AFTER the engagement when for 8 or 9 years people have had access to every possible source and information about the family? The first source from an amateur genealogist states that William Fairfax was son of Sir Thomas Fairfax and Anne Gascoigne. The two did not have a child named William -- that is according to Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 1372. Their children were Margaret Fairfax who married Richard Maunsell and Sir Nicholas Fairfax who married Jane Palmes. There is NO mention of a William.

As to the latest news it claims that William Davenport was a son of Elizabeth Talbot and Henry Davenport. In the article from the Dail Mail it states the Kate is a descendant of Elizabeth Knollys by Sir Thomas Leighton, their daughter Elizabeth Leighton married a Sherrington Talbot; their son Sherrington Talbot married a Jane Lyttelton -- this is ALL correct up to this point.. then it goes off with some undocumented names that don't seem to add up as they are not mentioned in both of the sources below and others. In the Daily Mail article it then goes on to state that their supposed daughter Elizabeth Talbot marries a William Davenport. Crofts Peerage's Sherrington Talbot who married Jane Lyttelton doesn't even mention an Elizabeth Talbot who married a William Davenport. The same goes for the book Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 838. But then if you go over to Burke's Peerage here Burke's Peerage there is a mention of an Elizabeth Talbot, daughter of a Sharington Talbot, but there is NO mother and NO mention of that Elizabeth Talbot who married Henry Davenport ever having a William Davenport that went on to marry a Grace Alloway and it only states "Henry Davenport Esq who m 22 Oct 1665 Elizabeth dau of Sharington Talbot Esq of Lacock co Wilts." This is what the facts state and until otherwise proved by genealogical and historic records there is no proof of any of this nonsense and the information should be taken down. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly take your point, Lady Meg, and have removed the section. If anyone is displeased by this please have a look at WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:OR, noting the extra threshhold for reliability and verifiability that is required for biographies of living persons, like this one. Donama (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Latest view is actually that about 80% of people with English ancestry are descended from E III but most people can't prove it. Jwasanders (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

According to whom? Another person interviewed for the Daily Mail? Bottom line..there is and was no connection before or after she became involved with William and unless they have historical papers and ancestors that actually genealogically make sense, they should really stop trying to string up these fake lines which are now being published on Mary Boleyn and Elizabeth Knollys page. Sophie and Edward are 11th cousins, Lady Diana and Fergie were also cousins of their husbands -- closer than 11th cousins. So why was it considered such a shock and 'skeletons in the closet' -- to sell papers. Now the rumor is being spread around with no stopping it except on here. -- Lady Meg (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The link which has been discussed above has been added back into the article which I deleted -- Middleton Ancestry CLEARLY states The following material on the immediate ancestry of Kate Middleton should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A caution that should be added to all references. That a source acknowledges it is subject to correction is no fault in that source. Reitweisner was a recognized expert in the field of genealogy; his first draft is worth ten finished works by others. There is no misinformation on that page; tentative links or links lacking optimal documentation are clearly so marked. - Nunh-huh 16:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where you are getting this information that this guy is an expert. A caution should be added to all references? The Peerage books which discredit all of this are used by professional genealogists and have been since the recording of nobility started. I'm talking about the books written and researched by Mosley, Sir John Burke, G.E. Cokayne, and sites like Croft's Peerage. If you clearly look at the statements above, there is no connection to these people within these references -- the Talbot, Davenport, or Gascoigne family. You should try looking up these books and actually going to the links provided which show no link to those people listed on that page. Since you did not even look at what was posted above, I will post part of it again -- The first source from an amateur genealogist (the page you keep putting back up) states that William Fairfax was son of Sir Thomas Fairfax and Anne Gascoigne. The two did not have a child named William -- that is according to Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 1372. Their children were Margaret Fairfax who married Richard Maunsell and Sir Nicholas Fairfax who married Jane Palmes. There is NO mention of a William. As for the second connection trying to link the family to the Talbot's through the Davenport's, I have already written a long enough paragraph with plenty of sources. The only sources that Reitweisner uses are books written by a person with the surname of Davenport. If you don't understand what I am talking about -- I am talking about these connections trying to link her to royalty when it is not correct. Other information on the page may be correct but that part of the page is NOT correct and is therefore spreading incorrect information. Also, while we are at it, do you even research genealogy, because you sound like you've never picked up a genealogical book on nobility. -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as long as you've decided to be personally insulting, it's your misuse of genealogy books that's the problem here. The non-appearance of someone in Burke's is not (as you seem to believe) proof that they didn't exist, since Burke's is non-exhaustive, tracing only such ancestors as are needed to document the passage of a peerage or baronetage title. It does not list all the children of couples, and is especially lacking in such information before 1800. You have failed to note that Burke's alerts you to the fact that there are other children of Sir Thomas Fairfax and Anne Gascoigne by explicitly stating that they are tracing only their eldest son. "Croft's Peerage" is, of course, correctly "Cracroft's Peerage", which has a nice title and is every bit as self-published as Reitweisner's page. Reitweisner is a well-known genealogical expert; his most widely disseminated work is probably The American Ancestors and Cousins of The Princess of Wales. You can also look up his obituary in the Washington Post (November 2010). As for your assertion that Reitweisner's page makes connections without evidence, it's simply not true. It quite correctly points out which connections are proven and adds caveats where previously published information is unproven. That's the very essence of genealogy. Reitweisner himself raises a question on the Davenport connection, which is why it's ludicrous to object to the page on the basis that you question the Davenport information: the page itself questions it, and details what sources include it! We don't need "Lady Meg" to tell us that; rather we have an expert genealogist doing so, and being objected to by you! - Nunh-huh 06:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC) (P.S.: If you consult Douglas Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry, Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore, 2004, p. 302, you will discover that Sir Thomas Fairfax and Anne Gascoigne had six sons (Nicholas, William, Thomas, Miles, Guy, and Robert), and seven daughters (Anne, Margaret, Isabel, Elizabeth, Dorothy, Katherine, and a 7th daughter who married a Mr. Dawny). Several sources are detailed there including various pedigrees and visitations. - Nunh-huh 06:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly sure why you are posting this here. I talked to Darryl Lundy (peerage.com) about this issue and if you go to Stirnet it clearly says that none of this lineage has been confirmed -- meaning the Fairfax link which you are so adamant about proving. We don't need an expert genealogist to tell us what we find in a book which proved who the Davenport's children are. I see that Richardson's 'Plantagenet Ancestry' says he has another son named William, who is supposedly the twin of Nicholas -- but there is nothing else on him, nothing about a marriage or a child named William who married a Lucy Goodman. Here is what Darryl Lundy had to say "I have William Fairfax as a son of Nicholas Fairfax, son of Sir Thomas Fairfax and Anne Gascoigne. Which doesn’t quite match William Reitwiesner’s site, who is normally quite reliable. So I’m wondering if I should simply delete the connection between William and Nicholas and let the line stop at William. Regards, Darryl." As for what TransporterMan was trying to say "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources....Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Do you have anything beyond just the name of William Fairfax saying that he had a son named William who married Lucy Goodman from an actual source other than this Reitweisner page? His source for the Fairfax connection is Edgar Taylor, The Suffolk Bartholomeans [1840] which is a family history, journal, or biography on The Suffolk Bartholomeans: a memoir of the ministerial and domestic history of John Meadows, is this a reputable source TransporterMan? -- Lady Meg (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's even less clear why you are intent on using your original research as a basis for a Wikipedia article, and using Lundy - who is a nice amateur genealogist running a nice, accessible website - or "Stirnet" (!) to "overrule" Douglas Richardson, who is professional genealogist published by an actual publishing house. Our task in Wikipedia is to recite the attributed opinions of experts, and not our own. - Nunh-huh 12:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can call my input 'original research' when you brought up the Richardson book which was not even listed as a source on the Reitweisner page. So I think there is a bit of 'original research' going on on both sides here. Since you would not accept the sources that were listed above which listed no William -- I was simply citing more. The thing is that both Richardson and Reitweisner only list a William. There is no birth date, no death date, and no wife listed. I'm not overruling Douglas Richardson, if you read what I wrote I acknowledge that the name William is in there, but that is it.. there is nothing else on him. Just his name in parenthesis and the book goes on to his elder brother's line, Nicholas. Richardson. How exactly is Reitweisner an expert? He's just another person doing exactly what we are doing which is considered 'original research'. Well the research is being done because everyone wants to believe that this is true about her ancestry when it has not been completely confirmed by anyone other than newspaper articles and this Reitweisner site which again states at the top and bottom "The following material on the immediate ancestry of Kate Middleton should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft." What I was doing is simply looking into this Reitweisner's claims, since you insist on making him an expert in your eyes, which came from his page which is 'original research'. I am calling it as I see it. I'm simply saying that there is no other source linking the William of Thomas and Anne (which I might ad has no birth or death date or even a wife's name on his page) to the next William who again has no birth date, no death date, and no wife -- who supposedly had a son named William as of right now. Until you can find something that is not written by an 'original researcher' that proves otherwise, let it go. I would also like to add that the Thomas Fairfax pages which were added to wiki were added right after this news came out -- and at the bottom under references for Reitweisner, it states within the link 'A guess, but most likely'. I am not the only one who has investigated this and said that it may not be entirely correct, you can see that within this page. If you are calling Lundy an amateur genealogist (who is generally accepted on here as a source because he actually cites reputable sources and books), how is Reitweisner any different with his 'original research'? This is ridiculous -- you have proved nothing other than the fact that William was listed in the Richardson book and that's where it ends for now. Unless you can find more on this confirming the lineage down to Kate with legit sources I'm done trying to talk about this. I have better things to do then argue over a commoner who's genealogy is being stated by newspapers and a site of 'original research' which "should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft" and "was built as an experiment." If you wish to discuss this more write me on my page, I think we have taken up enough room here. Thank you. -----END OF DISCUSSION----- Lady Meg (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It would appear to me that the biggest problem with the link in question is not whether it is true or false, but that it is self-published by a person other than Ms. Middleton and thus violates the BLP policy against use of third-party self-published exterior links in biographies of living persons. Wikipedia:BLP#Further_reading_and_external_links says, specifically, "self-published sources should not be included in the 'Further reading' or 'External links' sections of BLPs," save and except for very limited use of material published by the person the article is about. (Third party self-published sources cannot be used anywhere, whether as text sources, EL's or whatever, in regard to BLP's, see WP:BLPSPS.)

(3O Disclaimer: Though I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, the foregoing is not a Third Opinion in response to the Third Opinion request made in response to this dispute, as I have had prior dealings with one or more of the editors involved in this dispute.) Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no requirement that genealogy information come only from the person themselves! The requirement for being a reliable source on Wikipedia is that "self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Which is certainly true for Reitweisner. - Nunh-huh 06:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. While there is such an exception for self-published sources for most articles, that exception does not apply to biographies of living persons. The only exception to the ban on self-published sources for BLP's is for simple information published by the person the article is about. That's because of the BLP requirement that such information only come from high-quality sources. See WP:BLPSPS, which clearly says, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." (Emphasis added.) Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The same page would rule out self-published lists of ancestors written or published by the subject proper, as they contain claims about third persons. Of course, now the Reitweisner pages are published by a literary trust, so they're no longer self-published. - Nunh-huh 19:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean the William Addams Reitweisner Trust @ gmail.com?

Yes, it would, and so it does, indeed. (Though in the BLP context, I'm not sure whether or not the third persons referred to in the rule are limited or not to other living persons, but that's neither here nor there for the nonce.) If the BLP policy — the currently-standing community consensus on BLP issues — is to be disregarded, either a change of that policy ought to be proposed at WP:BLP (especially if it's going to be some kind of general exception for genealogy) or a WP:IAR local exception ought to be proposed here for discussion. But WP:BLP currently says what it says and it is difficult to argue for a different "spirit of the rule" with both "Never ... unless" and the need for high-quality sources plainly stated in that policy. As for the literary trust, I have not examined his pages and have no immediate opinion but would note that legally there's often little difference between a person himself and a trust that he creates and/or of which he is the trustee. Even if if it is considered to be a entity different from the settlor (creator) / trustee of the trust, then it has to be established as a reliable third-party source with a reputation for fact checking, especially when a BLP is concerned. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course, the entire purpose of BLP policy is to avoid libel and slander, and if policy needs to be adjusted, that's fine. As for genealogy and publication by others, Burkes itself is essentially self-published, it just established a company to do it, and uses trees instead of electrons. So there probably should be some reevaluation and clarification of BLP policy with regard to genealogical publishing, if there are enough knowledgable people with an interest in both BLP and genealogy. - Nunh-huh 12:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you purposing to be used for genealogy then? And if there are enough 'knowledgable' people with an interest in BLP and genealogy? Don't you mean knowledgeable? Are you talking about using Mathematical Genealogy instead? From the Mathematics Genealogy Project: "We depend on information from our visitors for most of our data. We also enter the information published annually in the Notices of the AMS. In cases of partial information, we search Dissertation Abstracts International in an effort to find complete information. We have also entered a considerable amount of data found on lists of graduates maintained by individual departments. If you have data to provide, we will take it in whatever form you can provide it." This form of genealogy is not based on 'original research' or 'self-published' student dissertations? Just wondering..done arguing, thanks! -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo question

I note that Kate Middleton was in the crowd watching Andy Murray's match at Wimbledon today, without Prince William. (Her attendance is mentioned on the BBC Sport live update page.) Would that appearance be enough to invalidate the fair-use justification on the photo used here at the moment, given that it would seem to negate the "doesn't do public appearances" section of the justifying text? I have no opinion either way, but thought it worth asking the question. Loganberry (Talk) 17:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC):

Thinking it over, as much as it pains me (since we probably won't get a replacement photo for a while), I'm pretty sure this is no longer justified under WP image policy. Since it's the right thing to do, I'm going to go ahead and nominate it for deletion, even though I'll do so with a heavy heart. Vickser (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any better picture available? There is only one on this article and her face is obscured by a big floppy hat! 64.88.170.40 (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely the official engagement photos are for public use... . Jwasanders (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted back to the other picture for a few reasons. I was putting them in the edit summary, and my finger slipped committing the change. Clumsy. Anyway, first, this is an article about Middleton, not about William. Therefore, it gives too much weight to the engagement and marriage. Second, if you look at the licensing information, it has some issues, and it's not clear that we should use it at all. Finally, there were some formatting issues inadvertently introduced, but those I could have fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Woolworths

Is the blatant Woolworths advertising on this page necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.238.125 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not "Woolworths advertising", especially since Woolworths is now defunt, so there is nothing to advertise. 79.78.38.160 (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Title

There is the serious possibility that she will marry William before very long. If so, what will her title be? The most recent case of the wife of the oldest son of the oldest son of a British monarch was Queen Mary, who was fairly briefly Duchess of York. By strict naming conventions she might be "Princess William of Wales" but I think people would baulk at that, as they baulked at "Princess Charles" for Diana. She might be entitled to the courtesy titles of Countess of Chester and Carrick. They will probably get round it by giving William a Dukedom (or an Earldom) before he marries, but are there any titles going spare? PatGallacher (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

She certainly won't be Countess of Chester or Countess of Carrick, just like William isn't Earl of Chester or Earl of Carrick. British princes never use their father's subsidary titles as courtesy titles. She will be "HRH Princess William of Wales" and will be formally styled as such unless William is granted a peerage title. Diana was always entitled to use "HRH The Princess of Wales" so she never really had to use "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales [etc]". It's been suggested that William will receive the Dukedom of Clarence. Surtsicna (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So will William’s RAF colleagues be able to say “Clearance, Clarence”? Awesome! Matthau (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

it has been speculated in the british press with will become Princess Catherine (of Wales) Legalways (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

BBC says they're getting married

According to BBC World (TV,) the couple has announced their engagement and will be married in summer, 2011. Update, please! 114.167.136.246 (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Spam

William's course is said to be "tough". This is spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC) The spamming seems to have been eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Kate Middleton´s Jewish connections

The well known actress Anna Middleton who was a star of the Royal Shakespeare Company in the 70´s 88.2.237.248 (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)and whose present whereabouts are unknown, was also well known for her performance in "Crossroads" a British serial of some importance. She was Jewish by self admission but although her mother was known as Polly and had a shop in Denbigh Street in Pimlico, I am not sure whether the Jewish factor comes from her or her father.

So what's your point? Even assuming that a Jewish ancestor would be relevant to this article, none of the Princess-to-be's relatives mentioned in the article seem to be named Anna, unless I missed one. Middleton sounds like a fairly common name to me. Neutron (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Her mothers maiden name is Goldsmith; a very common jewish name. I think it is relevant to add this information of Kate infact being Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.14.109 (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If she does not practice judaism then she is not jewish, simple as that for judaism is a religon, NOT a race.

You can't judge everything from surnames, not all names with "Gold" in it somewhere are Jewish e.g. the Scottish surname "Goldie". The article does not say anything about Kate's maternal grandfather, which is where the name comes from, so I suppose a Jewish connection cannot be ruled out. However it also says that her maternal grandmother was called Harrison (not a wery Jewish-sounding name) and came from a working-class family of labourers and miners in Co. Durham, so I don't think she's Jewish according to religious law. PatGallacher (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's very true. Surnames don't necessarily mean about a person's ancestry. We once had a guest speaker at our church, a rabbi name Percy Johnson. How Jewish sounding is that? Colour names are usually Scottish anyway.

No mate I'm afraid your wrong Goldsmith is an English surname, originating from Norfolk.109.154.2.55 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I was curious about this after reading the following in an editorial in the Independent:

So for the sake of this beautiful young woman with her whole life before her (and who, with her chav blood and her Jewish blood, I just can't help believing is essentially marrying beneath her by throwing in her lot with the weirdest clan this side of the Addams Family), let us hope that her Prince has more of his mother than his father in him. [5]

On the other hand, JWeekly tells us that she is almost certainly not Jewish.[6]. If we had a reliable source that indicated she had some Jewish ancestry it might be worth including since I'm sure it would generate some commentary but since it seems to be an unfounded rumor it doesn't seem worth addressing. GabrielF (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The ancestry of Kate Middleton is documented here (and indeed, this link and reference is used in this wiki article). She has no traceable Jewish ancestry, and her "Goldsmith" line goes back to an English carpenter named John Goldsmith who was born in the late 1700s in Kent. "Goldsmith" can just as easily be a non-Jewish English name as it can be a Jewish one (it's a simple occupational name in England), as can many other names that start with "Gold" (and Middleton herself has another ancestor on that tree surnamed "Golden"). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No I think you are all missing the point that she is IN FACT Jewish and GOLDSMITH IS A JEWISH NAME! How would I know this? Oh gee um let's see maybe because perhaps it's a Jewish last name!!! It is a common last name because Jews hundreds of years ago in Europe AND ENGLAND worked regularly in jewelry smithing; hence GOLDSMITH. I know many 'puritans' would have a problem with the next born heir to the throne of the UK being Jewish, much as you try to keep a breed of dog seperate from another, or a pig seperate from a mustang; but you must relinquish and add this important information to the article121.214.14.109 (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Try using some logic here - not all goldsmiths were Jewish. That would be like stating, using your analogy, all spotted black and white dogs are Dalmations, which clearly they're not. Scrapbkn (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the question can be closed no evidence that it is true (or relevant) and does not appear to be particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have consulted Black's "Surnames of Scotland", an important and well-researched work. It has Goldsmith, and some other surnames beginning with Gold, with no mention that these are Jewish names. PatGallacher (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Goldsmith is an ancient Jewish name, and a very famous one. It was only used by practicing jews who, here's the complicated bit - where workers of gold or jewlers. I now this is an extremely uncomfortable situation for all the Royal admirers, indeed a very strange clan of humans, but the Goldsmith name is as Jewish as they get, just as Solomon and Jewison are. HOWEVER, this does not mean Kate or her immediate family are Jewish or practicing Jews. All it means is that her ancestors were Jewish jewlers. It really doesn't matter, however if the article is going to crawl on its knees to appease the royals by talking about her ancient Hugenot ancestry, the least it can do in the Wiki ideals of honesty and facts is mention her jewish roots which are obvious. I doubt however it will be a popular choice for the lovers of the Royal family editors and what they believe they stand for and I am sure they will attempt to cover it up and it will slowly leak like an old russian nuclear plant. All I am saying is in this day and age, it would be a lot more logical and mature to simply acknowledge all her ancestry, Royal compliant or not and thus describe and represent honestly the mixed society we inhabit in the UK. Anything else is just really sinister.Reaper7 (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Assertion is not argument. Give some evidence of Jewish ancestry besides the surname, which is obviously inconclusive. john k (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Although heavily practiced by Jews in Europe at various points in history, it is ridiculous to assume the profession of goldsmith was not and could not be undertaken by others who were not Jewish themselves. Here is an excerpt from The Banker's magazine, which further explicates my point:

"The bank of Stockholm, which commenced in 1668, was the first bank in Europe to issue bank notes, which until that time were totally unknown in the west, although as we have seen, they had long been in use in China. Our early English bankers seem to have all been goldsmiths as well as bankers, and it is, perhaps just worth mentioning, that in my own firm as in several others, we still use certain books which are specially known as the "Goldsmiths." Sir Walter Bowes, a goldsmith of the 16th century, is recorded by Herbert in the history of the Goldsmiths' Company as having lent Henry VIII 300 pounds. Another great goldsmith of this period was Sir T. Gresham, the founder of Gresham College and of the Royal Exchange, which was opened by Queen Elizabeth on January 23, 1570." [[7]] --ArmsHeldOut (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As an aside to my aforementioned post, here is a link to a thorough account of the history of goldsmiths and plateworkers in England, most of who were not Jewish:

Gilda Aurifabrorum: A History of English Goldsmiths and Plateworkers and Their Marks Stamped on Plate

A quote from the book: "The ancient Britons also fashioned personal ornaments out of gold and silver, many of which have been exhumed in England, Scotland, and Ireland, notably the broad crescent-shaped "mind" or head ornament.." --ArmsHeldOut (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Goldsmith

The article talks about Kate's ancient descent including the Scottish and Huguenot lines. But surely if her mother's maiden name was Goldsmith - this is a famous name of Jewish descent, no matter how uncomfortable that may be for the Royals and their admirers. I understand Kate's mother is not a practicing jew or her immediate descendents (grandparents etc), but if we are going as far back for the pride of the royal family to the Hugenots, I am sure the Goldsmith connection is as strong, if not stronger. Could it be included? Or is only the ancient Hugenot and Scottish ancestors that must be mentioned and remembered? Reaper7 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

All a bit original research and even if true is not really notable, then either is the mention of the scottish and hugenot lines. Not sure why anybody would be uncomfortable with jewish or any ancestors which is a bit of a presumption but as has been said not really notable to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Reaper, "Goldsmith" is not an exclusively Jewish name. It's a name that can simply be of English (non-Jewish) background (consider Oliver Goldsmith). Middleton's last traceable "Goldsmith" ancestor was John Goldsmith, a carpenter who was born in Kent around 1783. At the time, though, most British Jews were Sephardic, and Sephardic Jews don't usually have names like "Goldsmith", making it unlikely that John Goldsmith was Jewish (frankly, even his first name, "John" - at the time - would have been an unlikely name for a Jewish man - unlike today). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely no one assumes that all goldsmiths in the history of Europe have been Jewish? This is an occupational surname, and given that Jews were excluded from so many professions in Europe for so many centuries, we may be sure that quite a few people carrying the name "Goldsmith" in this world are not of Jewish ancestry.68.251.36.89. (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually money exchange/lending and presious metal working were at various times exclusively jewish trades and one of the few they were restricted to in Europe. As for all Jews having to possess a Sephardic Jewish name in the 18 Century Britain, I believe that is unsourced nonsence. Here is an interesting article on Jewish names, Goldsmith is mentioned in context: Goldsmith. Reaper7 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe we are still having this discussion. It doesn't matter how many Jews have had the surname of Goldsmith. It doesn't matter what articles say about the history of Jewish names, both surnames and given names, including, by the way, not surprisingly, articles at Wikipedia itself. What matters is whether there is any reliable source that indicates that a relatively recent (too remote won't cut it) ancestor of Middleton is Jewish AND whether that assertion is sufficiently notable to include in the article. I've resisted making comments to this topic because I don't want to encourage continued discussion, but I agree with MilborneOne's comment in the section above: "I think the question can be closed no evidence that it is true (or relevant) and does not appear to be particularly notable."--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

She isn't alone. William has Jewish blood himself being a descendant of Yahia Ben Rabbi through his ancestor Ferdinand II of Aragon and probably Madragana (if she wasn't a Moor) through his ancestress Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, there is no valid evidence that Middleton has Jewish roots, only an uneducated assertion that Goldsmith is an exclusively Jewish name, which it clearly is not. Having said that, it obviously serves no purpose bringing William's roots into the discussion since his immediate bloodline diverges from that of his fiance. I thus defer to the shared opinions of Bbb23 and MilborneOne that all further argument should cease at this time unless, of course, there is some fairly substantial revelation made on the subject in the near future. --ArmsHeldOut (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey! at least she isn't Catholic - that would really put the cat among the pigeons! Such biggotry really doesn't do Wikipedians justice, but really, what does it matter if she has, several generations back, some small amount of Jewish ancestry? If we all go back far enough, we are all related to each other. (see Mitochondrial Eve or Y-Chromosomal Adam for example). Lynbarn (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you implying that any suggestion or edit should be accepted without question regardless of supporting evidence to back it up? Since when does seeking accuracy in light of baseless assertion equate to bigotry? All people are really saying here is that a surname having more than one ethnic derivation isn't enough to go on. --ArmsHeldOut (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, far from it, I didn't put my point very well. What I was trying to say was that whether she has or doesn't have jewish ancestry is not particularly notable or relevent to the article and the "Goldsmith" link is at best very tenuous. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 114.76.138.248, 16 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} delete "were working class labourers and miners" we know there is a class system , dont rub our noses in it

114.76.138.248 (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Not a valid reason to remove information. -Atmoz (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Schooling

In addition to St Andrew's Pangbourne and Marlborough College, Kate also attended Downe House. See this article in the Guardian for details: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/18/monarchy.features 94.195.173.79 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)RosC

Photo

Can't we get a photo of Kate with her future husband, rather than her future brother-in-law? I mean, if there were several photos in the article, it might make sense to keep the one with Harry, but as the only photo in the article, it looks kind of odd. I notice on this talk page that one pic of the happy couple was deleted, but with the amount of attention being paid to them now, it seems like we should be able to get a photo that we can use. I would volunteer, but their home is an inconveniently long swim away from mine. Neutron (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this about wrong photo. 86.28.240.54 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC) 86.28.240.54

Nice picture of a hat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.140.233 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, in Japan, we don't get pictures of her, why is she obscured by the UFO? Does she look weird on that one side?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Here, we're stuck with copyright-free images of living people. Unless there are any on Flickr (which I will now check), we must wait. Rodhullandemu 00:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Harry from the photo for now. Otherwise readers have to pay close attention to realize that that is not her prospective husband.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Good job on references

When I added the "refimprove" template earlier today, there were a total of 33 references. Since then, there has been an increase in references of 33%. Great job, everyone! This shows what can happen when we act collaboratively. We are all Wikipedians, and everyone deserves a pat on the back. AlaskaMike (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The next Duchess of Cornwall?

On the Queen's death, will she inherite Camilla's titles of Duchess of Cornwall and then Princess Consort if William becomes king? Perhaps Diana will be the last Princess of Wales, and Elizabeth II will be the last Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.4.208 (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WP is not a crystal ball. But let me say this: The wife of The Prince of Wales has always been The Princess of Wales, an exception being made only in Camilla's case, for well-known reasons. There's no reason I can think of that the usual practice would not be resumed once Camilla is no longer the Duchess of Cornwall. That is, Catherine would become The Princess of Wales. Assuming, that is, that William is created The Prince of Wales. It's usual for the heir apparent to receive this honour, but it's not mandatory and it would not necessarily happen immediately Charles becomes king. In the meantime, Catherine would be entitled to be known as Duchess of Cornwall, because William would become Duke of Cornwalll immediately the Queen dies. That assumes he's not given some other dukedom on marriage next year, which he probably will be. But when and if Catherine becomes Queen - in about 30 years time - there's no reason why she wouldn't be known as Queen Catherine. The Princess Consort thing is unique to Camilla. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if William is given a dukedom next year, he would still be known as Duke of Cornwall from the time of his grandmother's death. George V, for instance, was already Duke of York, but for the ten months between Victoria's death and his own creation as Prince of Wales, he was generally known as the Duke of Cornwall, not the Duke of York (Although sometimes the Duke of Cornwall and York). john k (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If William becomes king, Middleton will be "Queen", not "Princess Consort", the wife of a King in the UK is styled Queen, while the husband of a Queen Regent is stiled "Prince Consort" --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The husband of an English/British queen regnant is indeed a prince-consort but with two historical exeptions: Mary I Tudor had her husband (Philip II of Spain) proclamied King-Consort and Mary II's husband became king in his own right alongside his wife (William III). Queen Victoria wanted to make her husband Albert a King-Consort but for the objection of her government. -- fdewaele, 18 January 2010, 12:00 CET.

18 January??? Where does that date come from? Anyway, it's far more accurate to say that no English/UK spouse of a Queen Regnant has been a Prince Consort, with the sole exception of Prince Albert. As 121 says below, Prince Phillip does not hold such a title. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If my memory serves me correctly The Duke of Edinburgh does not hold the title of Prince Consort. Also, i'd imagine that Duke & Duchess of Cornwall would become William and Kate's official title upon the queen's death. Any ducal title they are given at marriage would have lower precedence than the Duchy of Cornwall and would become a subsidiary title. Becoming Prince of Wales isn't immediate, as the title Duke of Cornwall probably is, it has to be bequeathed by the monarch. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

When the Prince of Wales becomes King, he will not automatically 'lose' or pass on any of his current titles. He will remain both Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall until or unless he chooses to bestow the titles on William. I imagine William will be made a Duke upon his marriage and that Kate will thus take the title Duchess. But I think it very unlikely that they will be Duke and Duchess of Cornwall until after Charles's death. And in any case, this is all speculation. There is no set pattern which must be followed and so I don't see any need for it to be mentioned on the wiki page until it happens. 94.195.173.79 (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Rosc

See Duke of Cornwall. The title is only ever held by the eldest son of the sovereign (or eldest surviving son if any dead older brothers died without issue). If Charles predeceases Elizabeth, William would become heir apparent but he would not become Duke of Cornwall because he'd be the grandson of the sovereign. Only if Charles acceded to the throne could William, the son of the then sovereign, become Duke of Cornwall. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Charles dies before Queen Elizabeth, won't the heir be one of Elizabeth's other living children - not William? 98.209.116.7 (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you're wrong, so I'm correcting you.  :) Seriously, all of Charles's descendants would have to be killed off before Andrew would get a look in. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Happy‑melon 00:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@IP 94.195.173.79: quote "When the Prince of Wales becomes King, he will not automatically 'lose' or pass on any of his current titles. He will remain both Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall until or unless he chooses to bestow the titles on William." Incorrect, the monarch (fount of honour) cannot hold an honour from himself or herself. HansNZL (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right. Between the time Charles becomes king and William is created Prince of Wales, there will be NO Prince of Wales. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)