Talk:Princess of Wales

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance).

Wales High‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Royalty Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cheshire Low‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Titles, when to capitalise & not to

We go lowercase, if there's the prefix "the". Otherwise, we capitalise.

Example A - "William, is the prince of Wales" & "Catherine, is the princess of Wales"
Example B - "William, is Prince of Wales" & "Catherine, is Princess of Wales"

GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant policy is MOS:OFFICE. The Prince of Wales is an office, so it would be 'William is the Prince of Wales'. However if we speak of various princes of Wales, then I think that is lower case because it is being used generically. More importantly, sources are pretty consistent in treating this as a title, and capitalising as "Prince of Wales", and captialisation should be consistent with sources where they are consistent. However I will await consensus here, because the same applies to the "Prince of Wales" page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you cite makes it clear that office-denoting titles preceded by a definite or indefinite article should be lower case. Sources are not consistent; academic publications prefer lower case, e.g. ODNB's biographies of the princes and princesses of Wales.[1] Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference. I had not seen any sources use prince with a lower case before, but this is off my expertise, so I stand corrected. How common is that style? Yet I still don't think MOS:OFFICE says that exactly. The line before the one you mention says When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II). This has a definite article but is capitalised because it meets the definition: where the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself, and that, to my mind, is normal English usage. I am not going to worry too much about what consensus decides here, but I note that as we have it, there is a glaring inconsistency:

Since 1301, the prince of Wales has been the heir apparent of the King or Queen Regnant of England

If prince is lower case, so should be king and presumably queen regnant. If the latter capitalisation is correct then Prince would be correct (specific unique person). The existence of a definite article appears to be a misdirection here. The question is whether the term "Prince of Wales" is being used to describe a singular person (William currently) or whether it is being used generically (princes of Wales). I venture to say that text could well be interpreted as generic, and is thus correctly "prince" but it then applies to "king" and "queen" too.

This is merely a matter of consensus. I know what the style guides I use in work would say, but if we agree Wikipedia style is different, that is fine. That is what the guides are for. However the consensus needs to be clear and carried out consistently. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead expansion proposal

Would this addition to the lead be agreeable?

The last native Princess of Wales was Eleanor de Montfort, following the killing of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd by English soldiers.^[1] The first English Prince of Wales was then appointed heir apparent of the English crown was appointed after Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was killed.^[2] The title has also been retroactively used for the spouse of native Prince of Wales Owain Glyndwr, who later led the Welsh Revolt against English rule in Wales.^[3]^[4] The current title-holder is Catherine, wife of William, Prince of Wales, heir apparent of the British monarchy.^[1]

ThanksTitus Gold (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. First, it suggests that there were multiple native princesses of Wales, for which we have no evidence. Second, it suggests that Eleanor was a Welshwoman herself; she was not. The focus on invasion, killing, and revolt is unwarranted. The sources discussing the title barely (and here I am being generous) mention any of that. And if that is supposed to be the lead sentence, it is entirely unacceptable. Surtsicna (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Would this be agreeable then?

Princess of Wales (Welsh: Tywysoges Cymru) was a title that was used at least once by the spouse of the native Prince of Wales before its use as the spouse of the heir apparent to the English and then British throne.

The current holder... Titus Gold (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I cannot agree with defining the subject by what it was 740 years ago rather than what it is today (and has been for 740 years). A single pre-conquest use should not be given more prominence than the use by a dozen women throughout the subsequent seven centuries, present day included. Surtsicna (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not defining, it's simply describing history and fact. A lead is meant to reflect a summary of the whole article. The native use must be at least mentioned. Do you want to propose an alternate lead that at least mentions the Welsh use of title? Titus Gold (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest leaving the lead alone for now and concentrating on some other issues with this page. Leads write themselves when they can summarise the page, and when it is necessary to throw citations into the lead, they are not a summary (and they should be).

Some problems with this page:

The information is largely presented as a list. Beyond the lead there is no introduction or background to the subject.
The citation style is inconsistent. I removed the shortened footnote added today as the page has no bibliography, so it was broken. However there are both citation templates and references without templates. What should be the correct citation style here?

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some background. Thanks for this good suggestion. I don't personally think the citation style being consistent is essential as long as the citations are reliable. My personal preference is that citations include URLs because these make the info easily accessible. Titus Gold (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that text a WP:COPYWITHIN? It should be marked as such. I presume the edit that introduced the shortened footnote was also a COPYWITHIN. I was not really proposing to edit this page, but I note that what you have put there is still not really a background for the subject of the rincess of Wales, but is about princes of Wales. I would have thought background would be along the lines of "The Princess of Wales is a title given to the spouse of the Prince of Wales, first used in..." etc. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did provide a link to the page of origin. I agree that the background could do with improvement and is mostly about the Prince of Wales. The title of Princess was essentially secondary and dependent upon the title Prince of Wales at the time. Titus Gold (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "King Charles III pays tribute to his 'darling mama' in first address". BBC.com. 9 September 2022.
^ Camden, William (1607). Britannia. pp. Glamorganshire.
^ Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "BBC Wales - History - Themes - Chapter 10: The revolt of Owain Glyndwr". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2022-10-08.

The title is more recognised as being associated with the wife of the Prince of Wales (i.e. post-1301). I see no reason why, we should over-emphasise the pre-1301 history. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have made an edit today to the background that reintroduces some text that had been dislocated from the front of the article. Thinking about the reader of the article, it belongs there. Also thinking about the reader of the article, it is important that we do not emphasise native princesses of Wales unduly. Most readers will want to know information about what the title means now. The history is important, but it is equally important to maintain WP:NPOV and consider what is WP:DUE for this article. This article is off my expertise so I don't intend to write anything more detailed, but it is important that any writer do take those policies into consideration.

Also to add: the heading "Native Princesses of Wales" bothers me a little in that my understanding is they were not all native. However I will leave it to a subject expert to find a better way of presenting that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could change it to "title used in Wales" or something similar. Titus Gold (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Native princesses of Wales

Even after heavy editing, the section seems unnecessarily detailed. The page's main focus should be the present use of the title, not its brief use some 700 years ago as certain biased editors seem to think. Only two of the women mentioned are definitely shown to have been called 'princess of Wales', but the section contains short summaries about other four other women who are proposed by modern historians to have been princesses of Wales with little to no proof. Hanna.paml (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant three*, but my point still stands. The article is quite biased with a big focus on what the title might have been more than half a millenium ago, while what it has been for the past 700 years seems like an afterthought. Hanna.paml (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are important for the validation and clarification of the historical accuracy of title use within the table. Please don't remove without consensus. History is history, the whole history of the title is relevant and a balanced approach is essential. The content included in the native section is well cited. Be my guest to add cited summaries to the English and British use of the title which I'd be happy to help with. Titus Gold (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be any consensus against a mention of the native Princesses of Wales in the lead. Surely a brief mention of the native use is essential in the lead somewhere. Titus Gold (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Diana, Princess of Wales 1997 (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title used by

should the intro be reworded as is sounds like the wife of the heir apparent is always Princess of Wales when in reality is only such when her husband is appointed Prince of Wales? Jord656 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[:2-1] "King Charles III pays tribute to his 'darling mama' in first address". BBC.com. 9 September 2022.

[2] Camden, William (1607). Britannia. pp. Glamorganshire.

[:3-3] Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[4] "BBC Wales - History - Themes - Chapter 10: The revolt of Owain Glyndwr". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2022-10-08.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]