Jump to content

Talk:Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Jumping the gun

Isn't the creation of this article a tad soon? They've only annouced their engagement 'today'. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is a future event. I suppose we could rename it "the engagement of", but as details of the wedding are announced over the next weeks we'd only get this article recreated. We've got articles on lots of future events.--Scott Mac 16:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I suppose, we can always delete it, if the engagement is called off. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It's like a game to see who can be first. My question is: why the comma in the title? 138.40.149.194 (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer#Article title. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not relevant. A comma should follow "Wales" in that case as there's one after "Charles". There should be no comma in the article title here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I moved it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget Chuck's & Camila's wedding article. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
"A TAD TOO SOON?" Wikipedia has gone from an American-founded-and-invented source of information to just another member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It is genuinely astonishing how many articles (and I do not refer to ones like this, which are directly about British events) have had their center of focus shifted (especially regarding matters in dispute; see Bloodhound) to a distinctly English perspective. What can one say? You Brits probably work harder than we do, especially considering your smaller poopulation. Let's go USA! Time to reclaim our position and viewpoint in this worldwide project! (All in jest). 66.108.94.216 (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Allen Roth
It might be "American-founded-and-invented" but Wikipedia claims to be an international encyclopaedia with content from all over the Anglophone world, not just the US. And the amount of UK-related info in the Bloodhound article seems fair enough, given we bred them and have had them for much longer than you have, so they have more of a history with us: the "centre of focus" is rightly with us. The US is notorious for not looking beyond its borders ('the world is the US and the US is the world', in its worldview: just look at your comments about "reclaiming our position"), so we're doing you all a favour educating you about things which you otherwise wouldn't learn. So just be grateful.81.129.133.227 (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. We don't look past our own borders...ya know, until we get involved in something international, then we're to blame for everything. Also, this article is seriously jumping the gun. How is this not WP:CRYSTAL? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 15:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
From the point of view of those people in the UK who are planning school examination timetables, this is not WP:CRYSTAL, it is solid advice when not to have the examinations. Similarly for those planning UK sports tournaments. Similarly for those planning UK business conferences. Similarly for those in the UK who might be planning their own weddings. Martinvl (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving this article

Please don't.

It may seem like a good idea, and you may be right. But this article has been moved, retitled and moved back eight times since its creation. It is getting very annoying. If you want to move it, state why and to what here and please wait until there is clear consensus. (Waiting a day or two won't matter. Let people have their say.)--Scott Mac 08:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Can we get an admin to move-protect it, just for good measure? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd be very happy for that to happen, but I think I'd take stick for being "involved". BTW I'm not saying renames should not be considered, just that they should be discussed first. "Bold, revert, discuss" is normally fine, but after the sixth move in 24 hours, a little less boldness wouldn't go amiss.--Scott Mac 10:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it was rather naughty of you, as an Admin, to be moving this page, knowing it would be contentious. The article clearly doesn't belong in the namespace 'Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton' – that would be too much of WP:CRYSTAL. In any event, I have applied for move protection at WP:RFP— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohconfucius (talk • contribs)
    • Well we can discuss what namespace it should be in. But I just point to 2028 Summer Olympics and United States presidential election, 2012, and ask should these not be moved also?--Scott Mac 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • 2028 Summer Olympics and United States presidential election, 2012 are bad examples, for convention dictates those namespaces. Moreover, there is a near 100% certainty these will take place, unlike the impending royal wedding... therefore, the current namespace is speculative and inappropriate. Notwithstanding, I don't really care so much if it stays here until the event actually takes place, but I do care that it doesn't continually get moved again. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I think we can agree that it should not be moved again without consensus. I'd suggest that there's a element of doubt as to whether an Olympic games will happen in 18 years time. I think what makes those articles appropriate is that there are current verifiable acts which relate to them. Bids are in place, candidates are making statements about running. The same is true here. The announcement is a verifiable fact, and there's already verifiable comment and reaction to it, over the coming weeks there will be plans announced and controversies will doubtless occur. We could call it an "engagement" for now, I suppose, but you'd only have a problem next week when more details are announced since that don't really relate to the engagement. Under that argument you'd insist in speaking of The dissolution of the United Kingdom Parliament, 2010 and not creating an article on the election for parliament until it had actually occurred.--Scott Mac 14:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • There seems to be some clutching of straws. Bad examples/arguments again. Short of another world war, or the end of the world before then, the 2028 Olympic Games are sure to take place; the chances of the US Presidential election in 2012 not happening is even less remote. The only certainty about the next UK parliamentary election, however, is that it will take place before a given date... as the PM of the day has the prerogative of calling a snap election at any time. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Olympic games have been cancelled before. I know of no royal wedding that has been. Indeed the 2010 the cancellation of the Commonwealth games of 2010 was seriously mooted this summer, yet we've still got articles running all the way up to 2022 Commonwealth Games. It is entirely possible that those will not happen, or that the Commonwealth will not exist by then. It is also quite conceivable that, at 84, there won't be a Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II.--Scott Mac 15:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a precedent for a royal wedding not taking place, in 1892. Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, likely future king as oldest son of oldest son of Queen Victoria (like Prince William) and aged 28 (ahem) was engaged and a date for the wedding had been set, but he died suddenly 6 weeks before the wedding. So it could happen. Having said that, I think we should exercise a degree of common sense, the bulk of publicity so far has been about the engagemnt but we are likely to get more details about the wedding in the next few weeks. PatGallacher (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering the ages and extra year, it seems more likely that there won't be a Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II then there won't be a wedding for reasons of death even considering either of two different deaths would prevent the wedding. Considering how far away, I think it's difficult to say it's less likely the 2028 Olympics will be cancelled then the wedding. Of course for good measure, if someone nukes London on Christmas day, we probably won't be having any of the jubilee, wedding or 2012 Olympics. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Herewith two observations: first, an objection to the article's title, which indeed is not merely presumptuous but inaccurate. There is no "wedding", there is an engagement. That is how it is clearly referred to in Wikipedia's "In the News" entry, as follows:
Prince William (pictured), second in line to the thrones of the 16 Commonwealth realms, and Kate Middleton announce their engagement to be married next year.
(My italics and bolding)
How unreasonable is it to move the article to a page with an appropriate title? Not unreasonable at all. The integrity of Wikipedia demands it.
Second, I object to the seemingly territorial covetousness with which the currently entitled article's author - one Scott Mac - is demonstrating towards the page. I call for a neutral administrator to intervene and remove this seemingly biased element from the equation till matters settle down and reason has a chance to percolate to the top. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
There are no authors on Wikipedia. All I did was revert a contentiousness move you made without discussion (indeed you didn't move it, you redirected to a non-existent article). As you see below there has been discussion of this. Please read the arguments for "wedding" and respond to them. Have you an answer to the question of where information about announcement of details of the wedding would go, if this was about the engagement. Bolding bits doesn't help, I can do that too "Prince William (pictured), second in line to the thrones of the 16 Commonwealth realms, and Kate Middleton announce their engagement to be married next year.". Please read the section below and give your opinions.--Scott Mac 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagging as future event

I'm not experienced with en-wiki templates, but should we not add a "future event warning" template to alert readers that this event may or may not happen, something similar to Template:Current ? DGtal (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we have such a thing on the next Olympic games, or next Presidential election, etc?--Scott Mac 13:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
We don't, but there is a difference between an event that needs a really big change, say USA becoming a Monarcy or a World war canceling an olympics like the 1940 Summer Olympics, and a wedding which can be canceled due to relatively common reasons. DGtal (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Image is needed

An image is needed of the couple for this article. Hopefully we can obtain a free or fair-use photograph.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The best one to use would be where's they're standing infront of the fire-place. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That's clearly not a free image. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 17:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that we don't have any images of them together, this will remain an aspiration. Unless any of the press pool feel like donating one (highly unlikely).--Scott Mac 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Anybody got the time, location & camera to get some photos? GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear liitle Mr TT is quite right, a dilligent civil servant no doubt. I'm not surprised. The answer is quite simple, I shall paint one of my impressionistic watercolours of the happy couple and donate it and all rights to the project for charitable auction. I can see it now, the handsome toga draped prince in apotheosis offering his laurel festooned coronet to Ms Middleton in her working class coal miner rags; all against an idyllic scenery of dark satanic mills, rioting students and Scottish folk playing bagpipes. Another couple of gins and I'll paint it tonight. There! Problem solved and so in keeping with the article. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Lady should know her poetry. The "dark satanic mills" are Blake's reference to these evil places, and not to the delightful almae matres of the royal pair.--Scott Mac 18:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
To address the topic of the section, there are various ways to illustrate this. The most obvious being a freely released photo taken by a member of the public during whatever parts of this will be in public (presumably the actual ceremony will be ticket-only, and I doubt Lady Catherine will be on the guest list). Might be an idea to discuss in advance what to do with photos of the numerous bits of merchandise that will be produced. Most will be non-free images due to underlying copyright in the objects being photographed, but there may be some possibilities if people are imaginative. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
We could get the WMF offices to hold a street party and take some pics? Seriously, there will be some events - and there's bound to be someone in the crowd in London. And I've been scouring free images of Diana to see if I could find a shot of her engagement ring, but no joy yet.--Scott Mac 22:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If nothing turns up, it is possible to just link in the external links to a suitable picture. I've actually been asking my older family members if they have pictures of the 1981 wedding (Charles and Diana) that they would be able to scan. One thing that may happen is a big guest list that it is possible to try and wikilink to articles. I've been trying to add wikilinks to the 1981 guest list, but am looking for some help. See here. Maybe Lady Catherine will deign to help identify some of the more obscure members of European royalty. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The closest Lady Catherine has ever been to royalty are the Bourbon Cremes biscuits she devours while watching The Tudors for historical inspiration.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

italics in title

Quoth the article:

"After the wedding, Middleton will technically become Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales..."

Is there any particular reason "Her Royal Highness" is italicized? I'd just change it, but I wanted to check to make sure I wasn't stepping on some obscure typographical requirement for royal titulature. --Jfruh (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


"Princess William"??? Maybe you mean Princess Catherine or something like that. --195.57.146.182 (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Technically she would be "Princess William". She's not a princess, and (contrary to popular opinion) you don't become a Princess by marrying a Prince. You are entitled to use your husband's name (as in the formal "Mrs John Smith"). That's why a prince is usually given a title on marriage, so his wife can become "Duchess of Somewhere". Otherwise its Princess William. See, for example, the unfortunately named Princess Michael of Kent.--Scott Mac 01:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
That's all very interesting, but not relevant to my question, which was about the italics. I've removed them; please justify them here if you put them back. --Jfruh (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Removal is good.--Scott Mac 09:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You do become a Princess of the United Kingdom by marrying a Prince of the United Kingdom. You are simply not entitled to use your own name along with the title unless you are also a princess by birth. Surtsicna (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No, you do not. Prince Phillip is a prime example of this. He *WAS* a Prince in his own right, but had to be created a Prince of the United Kingdom. Marrying a Prince/Princess does *NOT* make one a Prince or Princess. However, she will be able to be correctly referred to as "Princess William of Wales".. It's sort of akin to getting a new surname when you are married. That said, if this situation were the other way around (IE: Middleton was a Princess by birth and Wales a commoner) then William would *NOT* be able to use the equivalent title of "Prince (C)Kathrine of Wales", again, pointing back to Prince Phillip as the most recent example I am aware of. This is a quirk of the British Peerage system.. Dphilp75 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Correct. Philip was simply HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (a title he was granted on his marriage to Princess Elizabeth) until he was created a prince in his own right in 1957. I suppose he could have been given the "crown matrimonial" but maybe as well not.--Scott Mac 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Section headings

If we're going to have sections in such a short article, then I'd like to suggest that the content of each actually matches the section title. It seems to me that the current text falls neatly into four topics: Engagement; Announcement; Wedding Plans; After the Wedding. This will help structure the additional material that is inevitably going to be added over the coming months. Hallucegenia (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Title

Princess Catherine of Wales? Although is sourced, this is incorrect, as a grandson of the monarch if William doesn't receives a dukedom, Kate will be Princess William of Wales, right? just as, Princess Michael of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent is grandson of a monarch and is not holder of a Dukedom.Jibco (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are totally correct. Check the convo I started just below your thread. Again, the Sydney Morning Herald is HARDLY a reliable source on this issue.Dphilp75 (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Middleton's Title

Okie, I hate to be *THAT* guy, the Middleton will *NOT* be "HRH Princess Cathrine of Wales" when she marries William. She will be "HRH Princess William of Wales". As I said in a previous post, it is sort of akin to Middleton getting a new last name when she marries. I am desperately trying to find a source on this and I will post it when I find it, but the "Sydney Morning Herald" is HARDLY a reliable source on the intricacies of the Royal Titles in the UK. Dphilp75 (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear this up a little more, if William is given another title (Dukedom ETC) then Middleton WOULD be able to use the female version of that title, ie; "HRH The Duchess of London"... Dphilp75 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if William is given another title, she will still be Princess William of Wales.

Quite right, but the new title would take precedent. Dphilp75 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Technically, when Sophie Rhys-Jones married The Prince Edward, she became HRH Princess Edward. You don't become a princess by marrying a Prince. However, Edward was made Earl of Wessex, meaning she became HRH Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex. But such titles are easily shortened to HRH The Countess of Wessex.--Scott Mac 18:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite right again! This is exactly my point. The article currently claims that Middleton will become known as "Princess Catherine of Wales", which is, simply incorrect. Dphilp75 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree, when the current Queen dies and William is invested in the Principality of Wales, she will become "HRH Catherine, Princess of Wales", or simply "HRH The Princess of Wales", but not "HRH Princess Catherine". Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
She will first become HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, since that title vests immediately in the eldest son of a Sovereign. The Principality of Wales is confirmed by letters patent. See the Titles of Queen Mary for the most recent historical example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.254.251 (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank goodness! LOL! I thought I was going to have a hell of a fight about this one! Dphilp75 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, as the original inserter of the line about her future title, I'd like to clarify the reason I used the Sydney Morning Herald was that it was the only source at the time that mentioned the title (I inserted the line yesterday afternoon, US time). I understand that an Australian newspaper is no source on the British Royal Family, but the article did correctly identify the title as "Princess William." Other, erroneous contributors were responsible for sticking in the "Catherine" part. Either way, the current write up is satisfactory. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
An Australian newspaper may however be a very good source for the Australian Royal Family.--Scott Mac 01:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah; I forgot the Commonwealth includes much more than the UK. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just checking, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward were given their dukedom and earldom on the day of their wedding, so I take it that the Duchess of York and Countess of Wessex became so at the moment they got married. So I expect Kate will automatically become e.g. Duchess of Cambridge immediately on marriage. She may well be informally known as "Princess Catherine" or "Princess Kate", and I have heard it suggested that she could be given the fomer title officially by royal warrant. PatGallacher (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's HIGHLY unlikely that Middleton will ever be created a Princess of the United Kingdom. There is frankly no need for it, given that she will (presumably) one day be Queen Consort and lord knows Diana was never created a Princess, nor were any of the wives of the other male descendants of ERII. Traditionally speaking, the wives simply take on the subsidiary titles of their husbands and that's that. Though, as several people have pointed out, no doubt the media will consistently refer to her as "Princess Kate" and will cause another generation of "Royal Watchers" who have no understanding of either the Monarchy nor the Peerage actually works to wallow in ignorance... Dphilp75 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
That's been the tradition, yes. The IP 198.*.*.* says that the Duchy of Cornwall is automatically vested in the eldest son, but the other royal duchys certainly aren't, the boys have to marry. We're entitled to assume that William will get a duchy on his wedding day. Speculation about Kate getting the title of Princess is a bit further off: she will become Duchess of Cambridge, or Duchess of the Elephant and Castle, or wherever. She could be made Princess, either as a courtesy title (see Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester for an example) or by formal letters patent, but that would cause problems with the current Duchess of Cornwall: because William is lower down the order of succession than Charles, it would be illogical that his wife had a higher rank. Physchim62 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Biographies

I have removed (again) the section that contains biographies of Prince William and Kate; this material is entirely tangential to the topic of this article and, if not merely because no other article on an event has in it biographies of the players, keeping such information here goes against WP:ROC. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is really just a toy for all the interested contributors, imo best advice is to ignore it until about March, by which time any of this will be history. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a toy? a toy that was viewed 30,000 times yesterday. Physchim62 (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I have re-instated the section (again). I have seen articles in magazines, the press etc in which give a few details about the bridal couple. User:Miesianiacal regards is actions as WP:BRD, but unless there is a consensus for what he has done, I regard such action as vandalism. At least two other editors have impliticly agreed with me by editing the section in question. Martinvl (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You totally misunderstand WP:BRD. It would also seem you have a misconception of this article: it is not in a tabloid magazine, it is in an encyclopaedia that already has full biographies of both persons to be wed. Notably, you've failed to explain why, in light of the aforementioned, as well as WP:ROC, your additions are justified.
Off2riorob does have a point, though; the section will disappear in time, as the involvement of less experienced editors dies out and the more experienced move through to clean up the mess. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I concur that the biographical section in this article unnecessarily duplicates material in other articles. It should be removed. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Trim. Miesianiacal's complete blanking was unnecessary, but any 'bridal couple' section really only needs to be one paragraph long at most. Simply establish the basics, succession, where they met, brief family detail, and that's it. We don't need to include things like Kate's maternal relatives were miners, or what regiment William was commissioned into. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Kate's Religion

It will obviously be a Christian wedding (Anglican to be exact... (Church of England)).. but is Kate Christian, specifically, Anglican? Would she, if not Anglican, have to convert to the Church of England to become Princess of Wales? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, her religion doesn't matter. She can be any religion she likes, except Roman Catholic. If she was a Roman Catholic, William would have to renounce his claim to the throne. A Buddhist Queen is fine for Christian England, a papist is anathema. --Scott Mac 00:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No. I can tell you from personal experience that only one party to a marriage has to be baptised Anglican for a marriage under the rites of the Church of England. I'm not sure, but I don't think either of the parties has to be baptised if the marriage takes place in parish church of the parish where one or other of the parties lives. The big problem would be if she were Catholic (see Act of Settlement 1701), but no one has suggested that she is. William is obviously a communicant member of the Church of England, and our article records that he was baptised in the Music Room of Buckingham Palace on 4 August 1982. Ergo, no problem ;) Physchim62 (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite right. While it is certainly preferable for both people to be Anglican, only the Sovereign *MUST* be "in communion with the Church of England" and not have married a Catholic.. Dphilp75 (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales

Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales this is hilarious! (last section of the article) --08:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Then Diana was Her Royal Highness Princess Charles of Wales
That is not hilarious; it is correct; Diana was HRH The Princess of Wales, then Diana, Princess of Wales (she was also The Princess Charles during her marriage) DBD 11:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. It's the same reason Princess Michael of Kent is called Princess Michael of Kent, not Princess Marie-Christine of Kent. AnemoneProjectors 11:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
If Billy hasn't been given a new title by the time of the wedding? then yes, she becomes 'Princess William of Wales'. When Billy get a title Duke of.. or Earl of.., Catherine will become Duchess of.. or Countess of... GoodDay (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if I am being anal or if I am being snobby, but the level of ignorance on this topic in the media in general is driving me nuts. I understand how one could THINK that Middleton would become a Princess upon marrying William, but one would also think that the authors of these articles would do a little, oh, I don't know what you'd call it, JOURNALISTIC BACKGROUND CHECKING maybe, before writing articles the masses will ingest as the gospel truth... Dphilp75 (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Gradually, all the quirks will be ironed out. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Middleton will become a princess upon marrying William. She simply won't be entitled to use her own name as part of her royal style. But she will become a princess - Princess William [Arthur Philip Louis] of Wales. William's aunt, for example, is The Princess Edward, but she is not known as such (though the title remains a part of her full style). Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Not so. She will not be a "princess of the united kingdom". The title of prince or princess is reserved to children and grandchildren (in the male line) of the sovereign, and to those to whom it is explicit granted (e.g. Prince Phillip). For the rest, they are effectively using "Mrs. [husband's name]", which any wife in the land is entitled to do. So, she will be "Mrs. Prince William" or "Princess William". If she were a princess, then she would indeed be able to call herself "Princess Catherine".--Scott Mac 16:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Bang on Scott. With no disrespect intended to Surtsicna, his/her point is EXACTLY what I am talking about in regards to people *THINKING* they know what they are talking about when it comes to the Titles, and it is in large part to Journalists who don't do their homework and use terms like "Princess Diana", when Diana was in fact, never a Princess. Dphilp75 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
No, this is ridiculous. Of course she will be a princess. And of course Diana was a princess. You're confusing "princess" and "princess in her own right". One of the most basic definitions of "princess" is "wife of a prince" (and this usage in fact far predates the usage you're claiming is the only one - England had Princesses of Wales long before the daughters of the monarch were princesses). Proteus (Talk) 17:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The Letters patent, dated 30 November 1917, stated that "the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign (as per the above Letters Patent of 1864) and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1898) shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour". There are no other provisions. Except that Philip was granted the dignity in 1957. The confusion over Diana was that while married to Charles, she was able to use her husband's title as well as his name (he is a prince both relation to the sovereign, and by creation as Prince of Wales". Hence she was entitled to style herself "HRH Princess Charles, Princess of Wales" - legitimately shortened to HRH The Princess of Wales - but illegitimately called "Princess Diana". Notably, Sarah Ferguson was NEVER styled princess, but duchess - because she wasn't a princess.--Scott Mac 17:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't need to state it because under common law a wife acquires the female form of all her husband's ranks and titles. You won't find any references to wives having any titles whatsoever for this reason - they're not necessary, as it's assumed to be the case. For instance, letters patent for dukes don't mention any titles for their wives - by your logic that would mean they're not duchesses. Proteus (Talk) 18:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Oy.. Proteus, you are SIMPLY wrong about this matter. You have confused these titles with something you have read in a Fairy Tale.. No where in Common Law that I have ever read does it deem a Wife takes on all the titles. Further, the Letters Patent would trump any such law anyhow. The *FACT* is, marrying a Prince does NOT make one a Princess. PERIOD. It does however allow them to use their Husband's name in such a style "HRH Princess William" being the example used here. The wives of Dukes get to use the female form of the title because it is permitted by Tradition and the letter Patent that are issued when the Dukedom is created, not because of "Common Law"... I defy you to show me ONE woman who was created a Princess by marrying a Prince in the United Kingdom in the last 100 years, who was not already a Princess in her own right.. You won't find it. 18:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You've already been referred to Princess Michael of Kent. I'm afraid if you're going to argue that someone who is called "Princess William of Wales" isn't a princess, the onus is on you to produce a reliable source saying so. I'm not going to waste any more of my time pointing out the blatantly obvious to you. Proteus (Talk) 18:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
No, the onus is on you, as I am correct, and you are not. I am unsure what the point of referring to Princess Micheal of Kent was meant to prove. Let's go back to Diana, since that is the example a lot of people are familiar with. You show me, ONE TIME that she was EVER legally able to be called "Princess Diana". It never happened, as she was *NEVER* a Princess. Try to read this slowly. When a female marries a Prince, it's no different then when a woman marries a commoner, in that she takes his last name. Since the Royals do not have surnames (Mountbatten-Windsor notwithstanding) the women take on their "Christian" names, thus becoming "William of Wales". Now, since William *IS* a Royal Prince by blood, this allows his wife to use the female style of "Princess" with William's "lack of last name" becoming "Princess William of Wales". This is akin to a woman becoming "Mrs. Wales". Thus, she MAY NOT call herself Princess Catherine, thus, she is *NOT* a Princesses. There are MOUNTS of evidence that I am correct, and you present nothing except some vague nonsense about common law.. Again, read this SLOWLY; The only way to become a Princess in the United Kingdom is to be BORN one, which can only come from the male descendants of Her Majesty (Or, obviously, HM's children themselves) or to be created one, which only Her Majesty can do. There is a BIG difference between BEING a Princess and having the term Princess in your title. Dphilp75 (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I think what Proteus was trying to say is that the common perception will be that she will become a princess (lower-case 'p'), as opposed to the formal title Princess (upper-case 'P'), but then Wikipedia shouldn't assume what the common perception will be, but should in a way that doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article, explain succinctly how this is all handled, and it should be possible to do that without people shouting at each other on talk pages. As GoodDay says below, it is not the most important thing to worry about. Better would be to look at past articles on royal weddings and sketch out a plan for how the article should be developed in the coming months. I am sure there will be many more minutiae of protocol and etiquette and formal precedence to sort out, depending on what sort of ceremony they go for. Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Just think of all the arguments possible over title and styles for something like a coronation, which would be far more formal and an actual state occasion.
I agree with your statement. My issue is that Proteus is factually incorrect in what he is saying. There is no doubt that the common practice will be to call her "Princess Kate" or the like, but I feel that Wikipedia should contain the accurate information, regardless of what the common perception will/could be. The truth and fact of the matter is that she is not, and will not ever be a Princess, unless of course, Her Majesty decides to make her one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphilp75 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't fuss too much about the style. In all likely hood, Billy will be given a Dukedom before the wedding & thus Kate's article title will be Catherine, Duchess of.... GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree GD, I simply have a difficult time with people who wish to insist on spreading inaccuracies. This *IS* an encyclopedia!! LOL! Dphilp75 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the Austrian method cutting the thing:Kaiserliche und Köngliche Hoheit Franz Joseph Otto Robert Maria Anton Karl Max Heinrich Sixtus Xaver Felix Renatus Ludwig Gaetan Pius Ignatius, Kaiserlicher Prinz, Erzherzog von Österreich, Königlicher Prinz von Ungarn became Otto Habsburg-Lothringen. --Stone (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So, you get to be styled "Your Royal Highness Princess William of Wales", but you're not actually a princess but merely "Mrs. Prince William"? Huh. I suppose the Countess of Wessex is not really Countess of Wessex either - someone should notify the poor woman. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You are exactly correct Surtsicna. The Countess of Wessex is able to use the female form of her Husband's title by virtue of the marriage *NOT* by virtue of being a Countess in her own right. The same with Middleton; She will use the female form of her Husband's title, by virtue of the marriage, *NOT* because she is a Princess in her own right. Again, Princess Anne is a Princess in her own right as the daughter of the Monarch. Princess Beatrice is a Princess by virtue of being the daughter of a male descendant of the Monarch. Marrying a Prince however, will *NOT* make Middleton "Princess Catherine", but "Princess William". I don't actually understand how you can infer that being called "Princess William" is akin to being "Princess Catherine" I'm seriously starting to think one of us is just road blocked in the noggin here... Dphilp75 (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you obfuscating the matter now? Princess Catherine would imply princess by birth. We know that. She is going to be a princess by marriage... which still means she will be a princess. Seven Letters 04:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Spring or summer"

There's been good faith attempts to reword this as "mid". I can understand why. Unfortunately the announcement is "spring or summer" - and we ought to follow the announcement. "Mid" does not mean the same thing. If we translate "spring or summer" we will, of neccesity, be less accurate, since these words are not ours but those of the announcement that we are recording. In this case the MOS guideline doesn't apply - and would weaken the article.--Scott Mac 18:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the quote from Clarence House that uses the "spring or summer" phrasing. MOS definitely doesn't apply in the same way to the direct quote! Cheers, matt (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec)It isn't accurate. What it is an interpretation/description of the meaning of what was said - it takes the reader further away from the announcement. I wholly agree that if we were describing for ourselves when the wedding was to be "mid" is a more certain description than spring/summer - since seasons vary depending on hemisphere. But we are not describing when the wedding will be, we are reporting what the announcement has said, and the announcement said "spring or summer". Hence "spring or summer" is a more definite record of what was announced. "Mid" is not what was said, is a second level interpretation, and isn't even an accurate one - since April could be spring, but it isn't "mid" by any stretch. Where the facts are vague, best to reflect that vaguery directly.--Scott Mac 21:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

PS, remember the MOS is only a guideline, don't impose it when it is to the detriment of the article. The quotes are better, I agree - but note as a device to please the MOS.--Scott Mac 21:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The latest news says they're getting married at the end of April. Stephe1987 (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
If there's been a new announcement, record it with its source. Don't change what's there as the sources given say spring or summer. Also the announcement was "spring or summer" so we don't change that ever when we are narrating what was originally announced.--Scott Mac 08:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It's gonna be on April 29, 2011 at Westminister Abbey. GoodDay (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Second in line to the throne(s) of...

What's it gonna be folks - 1) Elizabeth II, 2) United Kingdom and the 15 other commonwealth realms or 3) 16 commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(2) Physchim62 (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
(2 or 3), as Elizabeth II isn't a throne. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Either 2 or 3. Preferably 2. "The throne of Elizabeth II" is grammatically and idiomatically correct. The throne belongs to her. But it is a bit of a circumlocution. "16 commonwealth realms" is obscure - although it is correct and NPOV - lots of readers may not immediately connect it with (what is generally known as) the British monarchy. The second one associates it with the principle "throne" while indicating that it is equally the throne of other nations.--Scott Mac 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
3. 1 makes no sense and 2 has an inherent pro-British bias. However, none take into account that there's more than one throne to be inherited. The main page today also uses the phrase "thrones of the 16 Commonwealth realms"; this article should as well. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, the fact is that this institution being located in, and historically originating from, Britain has an inherent pro-British bias. It would thus be accurate for that to be reflected in how it is described. I'm not suggesting excluding the other 15, but pretending that they are all equally associated with the monarchy is simply counter-factual and a non-neutral spin. And 1 does make perfect sense - it is just that you don't understand it.--Scott Mac 23:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Please don't lecture me on this subject, especially when you're wrong. The only monarchy located in Britain is the British monarchy; the legal walls dividing the former single crown throughout an empire into individual crowns for each state went up a long time ago. The monarch of Australia, for example, may reside mostly in the UK, but that has no bearing on the fact that the Australian throne is planted firmly in Australia.
Again, if "thrones [note: plural] of the 16 Commonwealth realms" suffices for Wikipedia's main page, it is suitable enough for this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's mainpage isn't a source that can settle this argument. I am well aware of the Statute of Westminster, but "The throne of Elizabeth II" makes no reference to nation whatsoever. It is a reference to the office she holds, and could quite equally be used of any of nations. It is commonly used to refer to her office - and the thrones of the Commonwealth are not separable (the Act of Succession governs them all). Anyway, I much prefer not using "throne" at all, so it is a bit irrelevant.--Scott Mac 23:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The main page is an example to be looked at, though, and I remain steadfast in my opinion that it uses the superior wording. However, while I still believe "throne of Elizabeth II" is terribly unclear, it is, at least, and as you say, neutral, and I can tolerate it if "throne" is pluralised to "thrones"; there is indeed more than one (and they are "separable"; there's no law requiring Canada to have as its monarch the same person who is monarch of the UK, no law preventing any realm from amending its copies of the Act of Settlement and (if even necessary) the Statute of Westminster, and, as a concrete example, Ireland, when it was an independent realm, had, for a time, Edward VIII as king while the other countries had George VI). Just add an "s" to "throne" and I'll stop being a bother.
Also, I apologise for barking like I did. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Elizabeth II's thrones, would look slightly better, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, no. That reads really strangely. It isn't an expression one ever hears.--Scott Mac 00:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Would Queen Elizabeth II's throne be alright. PS: Physically speaking, there's is more then one throne - there's one at Buck Palace, Balmoral, Windsor Castle etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, the normal way of wording it would be "the throne of Queen Elizabeth II" - which is exactly the same thing, so I can't see why we need to invert it.--Scott Mac 00:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
That's cool too. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) I really don't like the phrasing "Elizabeth II's throne(s)". They are the thrones currently occupied by Elizabeth II, but they do not "belong" to her in the same way as, say, her achievements, or her children, or her corgis. They existed before she was even a twinkle in her daddy's eye, and she is simply the current occupant, keeping them warm for her successors. Physchim62 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It is, however, a common expression.--Scott Mac 00:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Why not "British throne" per Line of succession to the British throne? And link to that article. AnemoneProjectors 02:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
If I am understanding the issue here correctly, such a linking would be far too pro-British, given that we are talking about 16 independent and separate thrones. But further to the OP, why not simply use something along the lines of "Second in line to the Crowns of the 16 Commonwealth Nations"? It's accurate, succinct and could easily link to the Commonwealth page for anyone who doesn't understand what it means...? Dphilp75 (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not accurate because "16 Commonwealth Nations" mashes together the two different groups "Commonwealth realms" and "Commonwealth of Nations", in the latter of which there are more than 16 crowns, not all of which are William's to inherit. "British throne" is equally inappropriate because there's more than one throne for William to inherit. I just pluralised the word "throne" in "throne of Elizabeth II" and linked to a list of the various relevant monarchies; I think that's a decent enough compromise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, that's a cool solution, linking thrones to commonwealth realms. Blasted, why didn't think of that? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

FFS. Great. Now the first line of this article, which is about a wedding, reads like a bloody article on the structure of monarchy. This is ridiculous. Anyone reader who didn't understand what 'heir to the throne/s of Elizabeth II' meant, is most certainly not going to have understood what 'heir to the throne/s of the 16 Commonwealth Realms' meant, or even what 'second in the line of succession to Queen Elizabeth II' meant. You either understand them all, or none of them. And the first one was the simplest and most appropriate for this article. And for the record, not that the opening line of this article is the place where this sort of tedious monarchy-trivia crap even needs to be 'clarified', the 'Crown' that William will inherit is both unified and separate, and that situation is not changable without unanimous agreeement of all the realms, and that is why it is still commonly, and quite correctly, referred to as the British monarchy, from which it derived in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

By checking the new 'commonwealth realms' link, people can learn about the commonwealth realm set-up. We aim to educate. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Mies, You are totally correct.. Commonwealth Realms *IS* what I should have written, and what I had in fact meant. Nice catch! :) Mick, your point that it is commonly referred to as the "British Monarchy" is correct, but the FACT remains that he will be heir to 15 other Crowns as well. I would hardly think that simplicity and ease of reading should take precedent over factual representation of information. Yes, this article is about a wedding, but that hardly precludes the need to keep the information on factual for the sake of ease of reading... Dphilp75 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, William's being 2nd-in-line to these thrones, is the core of the wedding's notability & press coverage. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I often find it strange that the same people who will correct usages of "Queen of England" or "Princess Diana" will, at the same time, accept the equally casual and inaccruate use of "British monarchy" and make all sorts of convoluted arguments as to why. Anyway, I'm still not sure what MacNee's objection is; does the added "s" offend for some reason? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Common usage is to blame. The Queen is rarely described as Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand etc etc. She's usually called Queen of Britain, Britain's Queen or that dreaded inaccourate Queen of England. This trickles down on the family members, too. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's hardly to blame for the inconsistency of some editors: "Queen of England", "Princess Diana" bad; "British monarchy" good. Makes no sense. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more Mies.. The "Queen of England" one drives me particularly nuts, but it would seem that many editors are either obstinate for the sake of being obstinate, or they are far too pro British when it comes to the Monarchy.. Dphilp75 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It's likely lack of awareness. A hair pulling experience, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy:good, pedantry:bad. If you can show me a single person out there who cannot understand 'throne(s) of Elizabeth II', but can understand 'throne(s) of the Commonwealth Realms', I will show you an idiot. And I've never in my life called her the Queen of England, I've no idea what these particular comments are supposed to have to do with anything. Simplicity of reading does take precedence over over-precision, where the desired accuracy is already presented in the relevant places already. It doesn't need plastering everywhere and anywhere. You will see precisely that common sense approach laid out in quite a few policies. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Again: do you have some objection to the present wording? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Jesus christ. Of course I bloody do. My version was perfectly fine, and had been read and understood by probably thousands of editors, until you came along to claim it was 'unclear'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear: You object to the addition of an "s" to the end of "throne"? Because, that's the only difference between "your version" and what's there now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Only the first diff is my version. Everything else that followed was the follow on result of your arrival on the scene. I've got no real objection to adding an s, it will probably confuse more people that it informs, but I'm sure you will carry on this pretence of some non-clarity if I don't agree to that, but this is irrelevant, becuase simply 'adding an s' was not your original change. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You make it sound almost as though I don't have the right to edit an article while, at the same time, continuing to lament about a version I gave up on some time ago in favour of a pretty simple compromise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The plural expression "thrones of Queen Elizabeth" is found nowhere on Google at all (except to refer to actual seats)[1]. The expression "the throne of Queen Elizabeth" is regularly found, precisely in the context of the monarch. [2]. I can't see why we don't follow the common usage here - we are not even mentioning Britain, so its not British-centric. We could include a clarifying footnote saying she's Queen of multiple commonwealth realms - and pointing people to the appropriate article. That avoids any bias whatsoever.--Scott Mac 16:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Throne, in the singular, immediately invokes the question: Which throne? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Mick and Scott here. There is no need for exact precision in wording to satisfy pedantry. The article (and the efforts of editors working on the article) should concentrate on the actual topic it is meant to cover, namely the engagement and the forthcoming wedding. Prince William is second in line to the throne of Queen Elizabeth II. The stuff about Commonwealth thrones can be dealt with in a later sentence of section, or put in a footnote. Excessive precision or qualifications in the first few sentences causes the flow of the writing to suffer. Carcharoth (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The throne of the Commonwealth realms. DrKiernan (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no "throne of the Commonwealth realms." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Blasted, why didn't I leave well enough alone. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Title after the Wedding section.

I really like what the editor has done with this section, but I would like to make a suggestion that we add a note; something in regards to how she will likely be known unofficially as "Princess Kate" she will never actually BE a Princess of the United Kingdom. I'm asking for a consensus on this rather than "be bold" as this has caused a fair bit of discussion here on the talk page, and, frankly, I full on admit that I am perhaps being a little uppity about this issue as a result of my desire ensure that as many people as possible "GET" that she is not, and likely never will be "Princess Kate". Dphilp75 (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Once she marries Billy, she'll likely be called Princess Catherine. Buck Palace, is already encouraging the media to call her 'Catherine'. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that she will likely be called "Princess Catherine", and AFAIK, Buck Palace isn't encouraging the media to call her Princess Catherine, so much as they are encouraging using her full name of Catherine rather than just Kate. (Forgive my interchangeable use of K and C! LOL) But my point is that she will never actually *BE* a Princess of the United Kingdom, and I'm hoping for someway to insert that fact in to this section...? Dphilp75 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
That's what I said, Buck Palace is encouraging the media to call her 'Catherine'. As for Princess of the United Kingdom? you're correct, she won't be princess by birth. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I realize that GD, you and I were making the same point there.. ;) Dphilp75 (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a bit WP:CRYSTAL to say she will never be a Princess of the United Kingdom; she could always be created Princess by letters patent. The fact is that she won't automatically become a princess, and that such letters patent are very rare (but not impossible nor unprecedented). A second possibility (also WP:CRYSTAL) is that she be allowed to use a courtesy style of Princess without letters patent, which is what happened informally with Diana and formally with Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. Physchim62 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but that is exactly the point I am making. Something along the lines of mentioning that while she likely will be called "Princess Catherine/Kate/Whatever", that she will not actually *BE* a Princess, without, as you point out, Letters Patent issued. You could also well be right that it's a Crystal Ball issue, which is why I thought it best to seek a consensus first! :) Dphilp75 (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This happened with Elizabeth & Philip's wedding (1947). Philip wasn't created a Prince of the United Kingdom until 1957. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
True, but it was a different set of circumstances in so much as Phillip was already a Prince of Greece, and he gave up his titles to that Throne to marry Elizabeth.. I'm not aware of anytime in recent memory that a woman was created a Princess of the United Kingdom who was not already a Princess in her own right.. Dphilp75 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of people who have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about. A princess by marriage is still a princess. You can call it a name, a style, a rank, whatever you want, but that is exactly what she will be. Are you going to say next that the wife of a Mr. is not a Mrs.? Give me a break. Seven Letters 19:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear lord, another one.. No Seven Letters, marrying a Prince does not make a woman a Princess. For, I think, the third time, here it goes; A Princess is A) The Daughter of a Sovereign, (Princess Anne, Princess Margaret) B) The Daughter of a Prince (Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie)or created a Princess by Letters Patent from the Monarch (Actually can't think of an example for a Princess, but Prince Phillip is an example.) Now, do you have anything constructive to add to my request for consensus? Dphilp75 (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The wife of a king has always been queen and the wife of a prince has always been princess. As simple as that. If you are going to argue that the Queen Mother was never really a queen, I think this discussion will become even sillier. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I won't argue that the Queen Mother was never a Queen. I will argue that the wife if a King is not always a Queen. When (if) Charles becomes King, there is almost no doubt that an act will be passed to make Camilla Princess Consort and *NOT* Queen. There may well be Monarchies in which marriage to a Prince makes a woman a Princess, but NOT the British Monarchy. Dphilp75 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't pander to those who want proof of custom that exists plainly before all of us. The wife of a prince is a princess. Check in any dictionary for the definition of what a princess is. Don't bother explaining it to me, I read it before even though my eyes were rolling back in my head. Princess Michael, Princess Alice (Duchess of Gloucester) etc, all were/are princesses. Do you have anything sensible to add to my request for realization of the truth of the matter? Seven Letters 21:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
And I don't pander to those who do not do their homework. A Dictionary is *HARDLY* proof of the intricacies of how the Royal titles work. There may well be Monarchies in which a commoner marrying a Prince makes the woman a Princess, but not in the British one. Princess Micheal is EXACTLY the point I am making; She is Princess Micheal, *NOT* Princess Marie Christine. Princess Alice is a PRIME example of someone who was permitted to use the title Princess by specific allowance of the Monarch. You'll note that until her Husband's death, she was merely HRH Duchess of Gloucester. Seriously, if you are going to give me examples to help your point, don't pick ones that prove mine.. Dphilp75 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Sarah Ferguson, when married to a Prince, was never called princess anything, merely HRH The Duchess of York. Sophie Wessex, also married to a Prince, is NOT a princess - but countess as wife of an earl. Diana was only styled "Princess of Wales" because her husband held the "Principality of Wales" and NOT because he was a prince of the blood. Marrying a prince does not make you a princess.--Scott Mac 21:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Not being called something doesn't mean you aren't that thing. "HRH The Duchess of York" is the short form of her former full title. Andrew too also had other titles... prince, earl, etc. She was Her Royal Highness The Princess Andrew, Duchess of York, ...". I suggest you read these ladies' full titles and styles and educate yourself accordingly. Seven Letters 22:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
EXACTLY! She was "HRH The Princess Andrew..."!!! She was NOT "Princess Sarah"!! Read this slowly.. Being called Princess Andrew is akin to being called Mrs. Smith. I suggest that YOU do your homework. What we have been telling you is F A C T. It just the way the British Monarchy has worked for hundreds of years. Seriously, just do a *LITTLE* digging, you'll find that marriage of a Prince really doesn't make you a "Princess of the United Kingdom", PERIOD. Dphilp75 (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I have reinstated the Duke of Connaught becuase that is what the article said. Please read the article before making any changes. I have re-instated the Duke of Cumberland for completeness sake to simplify the changes to this section if and when WIlliam gets a title. Martinvl (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
But why did marrying an earl make Sophie a countess when marrying a prince did not make her a princess? Surtsicna (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Same reason why there wasn't a Princess Sarah, there's not a Princess Camilla. Only the monarch's children, grandchildren via the monarch's sons, automatically are 'Prince of the UK' & 'Princess of the UK'. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite right GD! I *DEFY* anyone to find a SINGLE *official* reference to "Princess Diana" or "Princess Camillia" or "Princess Sarah".. Again, I think this rather massive misunderstanding goes back to the Media throwing the title "Princess" around too much. I can understand how one could logically think that marrying a Prince makes one a Princess, but it just isn't so in reality. Dphilp75 (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this will help clear this up. Let's use Wikipedia as the example. If you go look at the Earl of Wessex page, you will see that it refers "Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex", and if you look at the Countess of Wessex page, you will find it refers "Sophie, Countess of Wessex." Note that it doesn't refer to a "Princess Sophie" anywhere. This is specifically because Sophie is not, never has been, nor will ever likely be, a Princess of the United Kingdom. Dphilp75 (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The article British prince covers this topic quite well, its sources are there, waiting to be used as proof. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh whatever deity you believe in, have mercy on us: we use Sophie, Countess of Wessex for familiarity. Because she is Sophie and she is Countess of Wessex. In her instance if we named the article Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex, we'd be applying a name to her which is always masked by her shorthand style of "The Countess of Wessex". Are you one of these people that can't admit a mistake? Really, this is getting very silly! In this example we have "Her Royal Highness The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex". Seven Letters 04:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I am absolutely not someone who can't admit a mistake; I've done so on this very page. I am, however, NOT wrong about this.
Please, just answer me this question.. To your mind, are you thinking that (Again, to use Sophie) Sophie is a Princess because part of her Official title is "Princess Edward"? And if that is the case, why do you think she is called Princess Edward and *NOT* Princess Sophie?
Further, can you please explain to me why it is YOU think that Princess Anne, the Princess Royal is specifically referred to as a Princess, while Sophie is not permitted to call herself "Princess Sophie"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphilp75 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
She is Princess Edward because she is a princess by marriage. That's still being a princess. I'm not wasting anymore of my time on pushing fact in your face. Feel free to re-read this as many times as you need to. Seven Letters 15:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
So.. Basically, you can't answer my questions, and you are just going to walk away in ignorance.. Fair enough.. Dphilp75 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Speculation on Duchies

It is (just about) notable that sources indicate that William may be given a title on marriage, and that this is what happened recently to Andrew and Edward. The details of what's being speculated are not really notable.

  • It is certainly NOT notable that a few sources have ignorantly speculated that he might be made "Duke of Connaught". Connaught (for those who don't know) is now in the Irish Republic, and so although the Queen can legally give him this title, it's about as likely as her calling him "Duke of New York". I've removed this nonsense several times only to have it reinstated - now with a long bit of trivial that this has been speculated but is wrong. Informing the readers of such ignorant rubbish, even to refute it is not what we should be about.
  • I also removed crazy nonsense about the fact she couldn't call him the Duke of Cumberland because the title is suspended and not vacant. This is true, but incredibly irrelevant. She won't be calling him the Duke of Norfolk either - and the Duke of Windsor is unlikely (for reasons we could give). Shall we just list all the titles she can't won't give him and say why????

I suggest that we record that there's speculation he may be given a Duchy, and that this is a tradition which was done for Andrew, (and an earldom for Edward), and that we leave it at that. The rest is a mixture of irrelevance, ignorance, trivia, and original research.--Scott Mac 21:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would go further. Unless we have a good source, i.e. a recognised authority on the subject, this entire section should be removed. Speculation based on previous titles of William's uncles, or indeed any one else, is clear original research without a such a cite. Other media speculation may be citable, but does not belong in an encyclopaedia. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that just about every other prince has been given a title in marriage - we can cite that as fact. We don't need to include any speculation.--Scott Mac 22:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
We should delete the section, until Buck Palace announces that Willy's gonna get a title. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Scott, in so much as there is really no doubt that he will be given a Duchy, or much less likely an Earldom, but anything beyond that really is just gross speculation..Dphilp75 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
To emphasize the fact that he will be given a personal title on marriage: if he's not, any daughters will be born commoners, as will any sons apart from the eldest... Physchim62 (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with you there Physchim.. As sons and daughters of the Son of the son of the Monarch, they would automatically become HRH and Prince/Princess.. Dphilp75 (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
As long as he's not the heir to the throne, none of his kids will by HRH or Prince or Princess. See the Letters patent 1917, as quoted above.--Scott Mac 02:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
He won't be the 'heir' until he succeeds the throne. The 'heir' is the monarch. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you point me to somewhere where I can read about this business of the heir being the monarch? Most people take "heir" to refer to the heir apparent or heir presumptive. I'm not clear what the difference is between that and still being the heir once you've acceded to the throne. Carcharoth (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, in law you are not someone's heir until they are dead. Hence, it is argued that Charles is not his mother's heir until she has died. Obviously, in common speech it is used to mean someone that will inherit upon someone's death rather than someone who will do so because their predecessor is dead. DrKiernan (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me requote the Letters Patent from above: "the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign (as per the above Letters Patent of 1864) and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1898) shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour". So only the eldest (living) son of William would be "HRH Prince" (unless the rules are changed, which is always possible). Physchim62 (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah! You are quite right! I stand corrected...! Hence why I said I wasn't sure I agreed! ;)Dphilp75 (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This reminds me of what I read in the Wikipedia article about the current monarch: Elizabeth gave birth to her first child, Prince Charles, on 14 November 1948, less than one month after letters patent were issued by her father allowing her children to enjoy a royal and princely status to which they otherwise would not have been entitled. The letters patent is here. This was (presumably) because Elizabeth as a woman wasn't covered by the previous letters patent. Carcharoth (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This "Title after the wedding" section still contains badly cited speculation. It is the speculative opinion of the contributing editor that what happened in the cases of William's uncles when they get married may have bearing on what may happen when he does. Yes, I know it doesn't straight out say this, but why else are these details included if not to suggest this? I do not know if these precedent are relevant or not, but that's ok, I don't have to know. What I do need to know that a reliable source thinks they are relevant, not just a Wikipedia editor of unverifiable expertise. The cites do not do that, as the merely serve to verify what happened, they do not contain the speculation connection to William's wedding. This is still original research and should be removed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to spell out what exactly consists of speculation and original research in this section, as a number of editors aren't following my point;

  1. A cite that makes absolutely no reference to Prince William, or his marriage, or his future wife, cannot be used to cite a statement that speculates about what their titles will be in future. Extrapolating what they say to predict future events is original research and speculation, neither of which should be in the article.
  2. A cite from a newsgroup faq does not constitute a reliable source.
  3. Statements about William's Uncles' marriages and titles, no matter how well cited, is contributing to speculation when the cites again make absolutely no reference to Prince William, or his marriage, or his future wife. We have no verifiable way of knowing if these past examples are at all relevant, or indeed complete red herrings.

What is needed is a good reliable source, preferably a recognised authority on royal titles, which actually comments on this precise Prince, this marriage and this future wife. Only then is it speculation worth anything. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The speculation tag should be removed since it is no more than what has appeared in the major papers. It's not original research when the ground has been gone over repeatedly by prominent sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Then please cite it appropriately from these sources. So far all that has been added consists of past examples that the reader has no way of knowing apply and do not discuss this wedding. It should also be noted that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It shouldn't be concerning itself with loose speculation. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what Escape Orbit says above. He is absolutely correct about what needs to be done here in terms of the article content and its sourcing. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I've done this now.--Scott Mac 01:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are still using original synthesis, A+B means C. Please read what I have said and this link. If the cite does not mention William you cannot construct a case by of citing other examples. What this is doing is saying;
  • William is a member of the royal family in line to the throne - A
  • These too were members of the royal family in line to the throne, and here's a cite about what happened to them - B
  • Therefore William is likely to have the same occur - C
You cannot do this as you can not demonstrate that B is relevant to this case other than by your own analysis. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding appropriate cites. this one], for instance, is good because it quotes a recognised authority. His opinion, while still speculative, is at least noteworthy. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
That was a lot of wrangling on this one! But I must say I like what it became..! Dphilp75 (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: page title

Should this article have a title referring to the wedding or the engagement of these two people? 15:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from TreasuryTag

None of the sources are about the wedding: not one. They are all about the engagement. There was massive coverage of the engagement, but only a sprinkling of press speculation about the wedding. We can make a new article for the wedding when references emerge, or we can rename an "engagement" page. But for now, the article obviously has to refer to the engagement. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 15:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Wedding the engagement is simply the announcement of the intention to marry. Facts beyond speculation about the wedding have already been announced (it is happening in London, it will be in spring-summer 2011). More facts will be announced in the coming days. Yes, we could move this to engagement right now perhaps, but we'd only be moving it back to wedding in a week or two when even more announcements are made, since the details of the wedding would look strange on an engagement article. When an election is announced, we start an article on the election itself, not on the "announcement of the election".--Scott Mac 16:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Wedding. Obviously. Silly question. otherwise as per Scott Mac. Physchim62 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    Yeah, really silly question. I almost wonder why there's been such widespread disagreement about it it's so stupid. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 16:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Engagement, as they've yet to be married. We can always 'move' the title to Wedding, after the event. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
So, when the venue, time, place, dress, guests, and details of the wedding are announced, should they all go on an article on the past event of the engagement?.--Scott Mac 17:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Once the wedding occurs, the engagement falls into the article's history section. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but before the Wedding occurs, where do we put what will be the growing number of announcements about it (and perhaps notable controversies and commentary)?--Scott Mac 17:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, if they happen during the period of the Engagement of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton then I would presume in the article entitled, "Engagement of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton." ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Dispite the fact that they relate to the wedding of Wills and Kate (as does the engagement, for that matter)? Physchim62 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
There is obviously no guarantee that the wedding will take place until it has actually taken place. I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of an engagement being broken off. Also obviously, the chance of any cancellation becomes the closer we get to the wedding. Since the engagement has definitely happened, and will always have happened, it would therefore seem sensible to have the article on the real-world encyclopedic topic until there is a more up-to-date title regarding the wedding. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 17:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Wedding - The probablity that the wedding will happen is high. This article will metamorphose over the next few months until it becomes a historic record of the wedding. Meanwhile planners of sports events, school curricula, business seminars will be affected by the wedding and at least some will refer to this article to confirm their planning and most will look up "wedding" rather than "engagement". Martinvl (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
For all we know, William might be Duke of Cornwall & Prince of Wales, by the time of his wedding. Maybe even King. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Massively hope so... ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 07:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Careful! Mind the Treason Felony Act 1848! In all seriousness though, I can't agree with that opinion but you have to bear in mind William will be King eventually. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Crystal" is irrelevant. That is about subject matter within an article. Removing "It is rumoured that Kate Middleton will wear an ochre dress" could be done under crystal. The title of an article is not covered by that guideline so people need to stop quoting. In any event, the "wedding" is not idle speculation but an announced event. Otherwise, I don't care, but I dislike to see people abusing guidelines. GDallimore (Talk) 14:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Engagement per TreasuryTag - The engagement is an established fact. It happened. Although the engagement could be broken off, the fact that they were engaged is forever true. The wedding is an announced scheduled event in the future, which may, or may not occur. Comparisons to a future election are apples and oranges, as the probability of future elections occurring don't depend on the emotions, plans, intentions of only two specific people, and what may, or may not, happen to change their willingness or ability to have a wedding. The probability of the scheduled US General Election occurring in 2012 is infinitesimally close to 100% with extremely high confidence, based on a long history of continuously re-occurring elections as well as our cultural and legal/constitutional norms. The same is obviously and clearly so not true for this scheduled wedding. Move Engagement of... to Wedding of... if and when it actually occurs. That is the intellectually honest way to title this article. Also, Wedding of ... will redirect to the Engagement of ... article, which will take care of search concerns. — Becksguy (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


This discussion is moot. The article now contains verifiable information on the Wedding plans and announcements of time, venue etc. and criticism of the wedding plans. These aspects will grow further over weeks. Those arguing for moving to engagement are arguing on ideological grounds and have never once addressed the question of what they'd wish to do with such material, which does not relate to the details of the engagement. The article has moved on from the grounds of the RFC. I think we can close this now (unless someone wants to make an argument as how we should change the article without losing the material.--Scott Mac 12:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Martinvl (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, I don't see it as moot, it's ongoing. The wedding does not yet exist, it didn't happen, regardless of how much verifiable information there is on the wedding plans. The operative work is "plans". And making wedding plans, royal or otherwise, is integral to being engaged, so no content needs to be removed. And I believe this discussion is more about what people see as accurate, rather than ideology. — Becksguy (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Information about the wedding build-up and the criticism of the wedding belongs on an article about the wedding - not the past event of the engagement. No one has criticised the engagement. Same as information on the build up to an election gets put on an article on the election, not on one about the announcement of the election. Anyway, the proposed move lacks consensus and isn't about to get one, so I'm just going to get back to improving the article, rather than arguing about such things. Thanks.--Scott Mac 13:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Wedding Plans for a Wedding are being made, and now will affect the whole country after a national holiday being announced. The Wedding (event) being planned is more important (to more people) than the engagement (which really only affects two people). Edgepedia (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Bank holiday

Seems to be confirmed as a bank holiday now, the BBC evening news reported it as a confirmed bank holiday and this cite confirms it also . Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Scottish BankH confirmation also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11825222 - Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the article

I've been reading through the article, and a few thoughts:

  • (1) (DONE) The phrase "Both William and Kate are 28 years old" will not be true after 9 January 2011.
  • (2) The lead fails to says that they are both from the United Kingdom, and should be expanded in any case to give a better summary of the article, including the current residences of the couple as well as their prospective future residence.
  • (3) (DONE) The fact that the prospective groom's father was "on a visit to Poundbury, Dorchester" is trivia
  • (4) (DONE) "The confirmation of the announcement explained that Queen Elizabeth II was happy for the couple." - this wording is awkward
  • (5) (DONE) "Following the announcement the couple gave their first interview to ITV News' Political Editor Tom Bradby." - unless other interviews are mentioned, this sounds like a plug for ITV and Bradby. Is there a need to mention who was given the first interview? Possibly, as it seems it was the only interview.
  • (6) "The couple are fifteenth cousins" - this paragraph fails to make clear that (as far as I know) the couple were not aware of this when they met. To put this in context, two things are needed: (i) to say who did the research for this; (ii) to say when this research was published. Ditto for all the other geneological material.
  • (7) Rather than have separate biographical summaries, what is needed is a summary of their backgrounds at the time they met, and a brief history of the relationship (not really present in the article at all at present).
  • (8) (DONE) Nowhere in the article does it say where the announcement and interview and photocall was made/held. The announcement was made by Clarence House (that is the 'office of the Prince of Wales'), and the interview and photocall were held at St James's Palace.
  • (9) There is lots more in the news reports that isn't mentioned here. Obviously not everything should be mentioned, but there is probably potential to expand this article if anyone wanted to do so.
  • (10) (STARTED) Finally, balance. There has been some negative reaction to the plans - this should be mentioned somewhere, though what balance to strike is tricky.

That's what strikes me on a first read-through. I might try and address some of the points, but am putting my thoughts here so others can work together on the article if they want to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, there's gotta be some negative stuff. I'm certain some tax-payers aren't completely excited about royal weddings. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Some balance has now been added, though I hope it won't go too overboard. Certainly this wouldn't have been the case when his paternal grandparents married, though it would be interesting to see what the republican comments were like then. Certainly there was a republican stance in 1981. Anyway, I'd like to thank Scott MacDonald for these edits, which addresses some of the points above. I'll tackle a few more now and see if the changes stick. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder: if there's a "republican stance" on a royal wedding, is there a monarchist stance on a presidential marriage (such as that of Tricia Nixon Cox or Jenna Hager?) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not certain. Somebody will have to find out & make it "perfectly clear". If an answer is found, hopefully it won't be "mis-underestimated". GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The section 'criticism' should be re-named 'supression of free speech', which is what the Bishop of London has committed. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Date of wedding set Fri 29th April

Date of wedding set Fri 29th April Source BBC [3]

At Westminister Abbey. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes Italian Mediaset just confirmed the date.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable, Adolf Hitler married the same day, 29th of April 1945... --46.74.62.108 (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What point, if any, are you trying to make by this coincidence?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Unattributed "royal aid" quoted in a tabloid

'A royal aide was quoted in the press as saying that the wedding will not be a state occasion, as William is neither the sovereign nor first in line to the throne.[1]'

I've removed this several times as obviously unsuitable, but it is continually restored. The problems are manifold.

  • The Express isn't particularly reliable (ymmv), and some anonymous opinion they've got from some "aid" (who? could be the cook?) giving an opinion, simply isn't reliable enough for an encyclopaedia.
  • Even if it was reliable, is such a discussion notable. If whether this is a state affair or not is important, then there ought to be much more solid evidence of that, and proper discusison.

The sentence doesn't belong here. Can those removing it say why they think it does? Can others opine?--Scott Mac 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If no one actually comes here to defend the section, I'll remove it again.--Scott Mac 14:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
My latest addition (Clarence House and Downing Street statements) renders this sentence redundant, but I will not take sides in whether it stays or goes. Martinvl (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
And you hit your 3RR limit by doing so. Regardless, whether the wedding is or is not to be a statae event is relevant to the subject of this article and the claim is published in a source that meets WP:RS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
However, consensus here is currently running against inclusion, so why did you just replace this. Further, you've not given any argument for including it. I've never suggested that there's not a reliable source for saying that some unnamed aid may have said something - I've suggested that an unnamed aid saying something isn't itself reliable or notable. No, I won't edit war with you, but I invite someone else to remove this.--Scott Mac 15:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not making any more edits or reverts on this article. The very few times I have, since its creation, I've been reverted quickly - grrrr. Anyways, an un-named aide is a poor source. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
What consensus? All I can see, so far, from the edit history is that three editors are for its inlcusion (the person who initially put it in, Rrius, and myself) and one is not (you).
I just said why I think it should be included: it is relevant to the subject of this article. It's our mission here to provide as much information as possible to inquisitive readers: I don't think it's too insane to believe that at least some people will be wondering about whether or not this wedding is a state affair. I think this aide's reported comment should be combined with mention of the fact that the families will be covering most of the costs themselves to together communicate the fact that this ceremony will not be a state function. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The wedding is 5 months away, even if the statement was reliable, things could change from now 'til the wedding. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


To be accurate, this should read: "one unnamed royal aid (position unknown) was quoted in one tabloid newspaper as saying...".--Scott Mac 15:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The source is weak very weak. We should wait until Buck Palace or Clarence House makes an annoucement on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
"Unnamed" is not an unreasonable addition. The rest seems to be going a bit far. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Both the Telegraph and the Guardian had comments from "named royal sources". I am reminded of the quote in the TV soap Yes Minister in which Bernard said "Minister, is that another of our irregular verbs - 'I give a confidential briefing, you have have a discreet leak, he gets done under the Official Secrets Act'?". (This was probably said by a British civil servant as large sections of that TV series were based on fact). It sounds as though this was an "discreet leak" so we will never hear an official statement. Martinvl (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
If you guys wanna keep this stuff in the article, no probs. But, that's a weak source backing its inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with GoodDay. What's the rush to include it? Let's wait until the Palace releases an official statement to the press.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
A source quoting an anonymous royal aide is weak support for the assertion that an anonymous royal aide said something? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep, we need that aide's name. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous aide sounds weasely.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 You're moving the goalposts, GD. You said the source was weak, but all the article says is that a royal aide said something about the wedding, which the source affirms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
How do we know if the royal aide is reliable, when we don't know who he/she is. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
It's irrelevant what we think of the aide's reliability; we're not using the aide's comment as a source affirming the wedding will not be a state affair; we're using the newspaper as a source affirming a royal aide said something about the wedding not beinng a state affair. Hence, I believe the sentence should be combined with the information about the families (rather than the Crown) paying for the wedding to communicate that the wedding won't be a state function. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Whatever ya'll can figure out, is fine by me. This has become confusing for me. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Is is really a big issue? What is a state occasion ? an official formal occasion, which has traditional ceremonies connected with it, and at which important members of the government, royal family, etc. are present .. it seems to be pretty close to that, and noting something it may not be seems peculiar also. I think looking around, state occasions seem to be, the run of the mill every year occasions, opening of parliament and such like, we should note what the occasion is and not what it may not be according to an unnamed aide, as in it is a royal wedding and it is a bank holiday and so on. To state it may not be a state occasion would also require stating what that is. I also note that, there is no mention of if it was not a state occasion at Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer. Who suggested this was a state occasion ? This is not even supposed to be or ever had any chance of being a state occasion and as such saying it isn't is totally irrelevant, whether or not some unnamed aid said it or not.Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as an edit war had broken out, I reckon it has become a big issue for the article. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Well I would prefer your thoughts about my comments but no worries. It might be controversial , but a little bit of tit for tat reverting amongst a couple of experienced contributors is not similar to an outbreak of the plague. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
My understanding (I am open to correction), is that the taxpayer pays for state occasions. (The taxpayer always pays for the Royal Family's security.) Is this, in the view of other editors, important? Martinvl (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems the payment arrangements are already included in the article, personally I see no reason to add a caveat that ,, the queen is paying for it because it is not a state occasion, we don't even know that for sure do we, its all what if and yea but sort of crystal gazing. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The Queen is paying for it? in otherwords, the taxpayers are paying for it. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking for the long live the republic page it is over there.....Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify things. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Yet, you're doing the opposite. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The monarch has no salary. She lives off of what the taxpayers provide: castles, property, vehicles etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Correct: the monarch doesn't pay herself a salary out of the Crown treasury. But, if you knew that, where, then, did you think the Queen would get the cash to put towards this upcoming wedding? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Her government will pay for it. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The Queen-in-Council is putting money from the treasury towards only security and (I think) transporation. The rest is being covered by the Queen out of her personal fortune, the Prince of Wales, and the Middletons. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Where'd Liz & Chuck get the money? GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear User:GoodDay,

While I respect that you are perfectly entitled to a republican point of view (at least that is what I read on your user page), this is not the forum to argue it. However, summaries of well-argued articles that criticise the wedding are welcome in the section "Criticism". Also, before continuing with this stupid conversion,do everybody a favour and read the article Civil List.

Martinvl (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll cease from this point per WP:BLOG, not per "stupid conversation". GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Elton John

Italian news yesterday evening stated that Elton John is slated to perform at the wedding. Any further confirmation of this? If so, it should go into the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

He's quoted as saying he wants to. But IMHO that's not a reason to be included here. [4] (I now the results of this will change). Edgepedia (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree - this is an encyclopedia, not Hello! magazine. WE should only be including such items if the source is of high quality. Martinvl (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Edward, heir to the title Duke of Edinburgh?

Not so, like any Dukedom, the eldest son is heir-apparent & in this case it's the Prince of Wales. See the Duke of Edinburgh article. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's in the Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex article. See the references there "It was also announced at that time that the Earl of Wessex would be created Duke of Edinburgh when the creation of that dukedom, held by Edward's father since 1947, reverts to the Crown", see here. So, yes, the wording here was wrong, but you can see what the editor was trying to say there. But really, it's not relevant to this article. Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I have reinstated the bit about the Duke of Edinburgh. I believe that it is relevant - one cannot at this stage dismiss the possibility of William, like Edward, being created Earl of XXX and with a subsequent higher title (Duke of Edinburgh in Edward's case and Prince of Wales of WIlliam's case) to come later. I agree that the possibility of William not being given a Dukedom, but rather an Earldom is a bit of WP:CRYSTAL on my part, but the statement about Edward being made an Earl with s subsequent Dukedom to come later is fact. At this stage, I am only "covering all the bases". Martinvl (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the 'dukedom of Edinburgh', there's no complete guarentee, that the Earl of Wessex will eventually receive that title. As for William as 'prince of Wales'? that title can only be bestowed by the monarch & so isn't inherited. GoodDay (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This would happen if Prince Phillip and Prince Charles both die before the Queen, but the odds are against this, we do not need to mention every hypothetical scenario. PatGallacher (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In that scenerio, Wililam would inherit the title 'Duke of Edinburgh'. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


This doesn't belong here. It has no connection with this marriage whatsoever. The contention "one cannot at this stage dismiss the possibility of William like Edward, being created Earl of XXX and with a subsequent higher title" is pure speculation, unless you can attribute it to some reliable source.--Scott Mac 13:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Children's titles

I have for the second time reinstated the section concerning the titles that will be given to any children born of the marriage - if that has already been settled, then I believe that to be an integral part of the marriage arrangements. User:Scott MacDonald obviously thinks otherwise. In support of my view, may I point out that the Church of England marriage service (the rites that will be used in Westminster Abbey) makes reference to the bringing up of children, though the Book of Common Prayer does make the proviso that such sections may be omitted from the service if the woman is past child bearing. Comments? Martinvl (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait until they marry & conceive 'first'? GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Matrinvl, can you provide a source which makes this link? Otherwise it is original research, or a synthesis.--Scott Mac 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, since most people are expecting William to be given titles on marriage presumably this will affect what titles any children have. Too much crystal ball gazing. PatGallacher (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Two points:
  • Can I provide a source - Yes, done
  • All that was written is that the eldest son will be His Royal Highness, but not subsequent children. Any titles given to William will not be affected.
  • Should we wait until they conceive first - Not neccessary - according to the rites of the Church of England, one of teh purposes of marriage is to bring up children in a stable enviroment. (Please verify this in The Book of Common Prayer).
  • I also removed the OR flag - this is hardly original research - the evidence is all in the previous sentence.
Martinvl
Let's be patient. GoodDay (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it matters not what William's title is — his eldest son will be HRH Prince X of Y (no courtesy title, hence unaffected by which titles his father has) and his other children will be styled as children of a duke, no matter what (if any) peerages he has. Full stop. DBD 06:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Martinvl, the source I require is not for the information itself, it is a source linking it to William's marriage. If our sources are not making this link, then we are creating an original synthesis. (Your, or the BCP, linking this is not relevant.) I am also concerned that you've replaced this against the putative consensus here. At the moment you are the only one arguing for this. You may replace it if you can convince a consensus here.--Scott Mac 09:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Date

The date is presently mentioned twice in the "Planning" section. I twice tried to address this repetition, but User:Scott MacDonald reverted both times without explanation. I wonder if he'd be so kind as to explain why the article must mention the wedding date two times within the space of a few short paragraphs. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning of the wedding date, need not be repeated. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Except if we have a planning section and then subheadings on venue and time, it is reasonable to summarise in the interdiction to the planing section. It would be strange to narrate the date of the founding of the cathedral, before narrating the date of the wedding.--Scott Mac 17:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The introduction to the "Planning" section is not now an introduction. It consists of a lone fact and then a repetition of another. Summary, also, does not equal verbatim repetition. Why, then, must we have the wedding date mentioned twice within a few short paragraphs? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

reordering and POV dispute tag

Miesianiacal has boldly reordered this article[5]. In the spirit of WP:BRD, I've reverted, and suggest we discuss it before reordering.

My problems with this are two-fold.

  1. The Bishop's remarks were a week after the announcement, and thus don't belong in a section on the engagement announcement and the immediate reaction of the royals.
  2. The information on possible criticism in Scotland, seems to intrude into a narration of the facts of the plans and the venue. It is more natural to record reaction and criticism of this after we're narrated the plans themselves. I'm also aware (even as a Scot) that Scottish reaction isn't as universally significant as the plans themselves. No doubt there's Welsh reaction and others as well.--Scott Mac 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I note Miesianiacal has now labeled the criticism section "POV". Miesianiacal can you give some reasons for that. It is unusual to tag a section as POV unless there is a talk page dispute first. Merely having a criticism section does not infringe NPOV, although sometimes the content of them does. Can you please explain what's problematic here BEFORE sticking dispute tags on the article. I don't currently see any dispute.--Scott Mac 18:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My concerns with your rationale are: What is the date that divides reactions to the engagement announcement, and who set it? Your revert of my edit wasn't the only resolution to your second concern.
Regardless of all that, "Criticism" sections are NPOV, and I have tagged this one as such. Read the tag to understand its purpose. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you mean POV. However, look at the tage. It says "This article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject." I agree that integrating may be better, if we can agree a way to do that. However, the section itself does not violate NPOV just be existing, it only MAY do, depending on the contents. So, can you remove the tag, or explain precisely how the section violates NPOV? Re-ordering is a stylistic matter and we can discuss that, but we only tag if there's a neutrality dispute, and I see none.--Scott Mac 18:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, I meant POV, which the tag itself insinuates that "Criticism" sections are. Overall, the section imbalances the article because there's no corresponding area specifically called "Praise". But, of course, two such sections would be silly and likely unworkable in the end. Instead, as it's possible for both positive and negative comments to cohabitate in one section, as I made it work before it was reverted, the information in "Criticism" should be split and integrated elsewhere, which you now indicate you're open to.
Per the Bishop's comments: I still don't see what the date is that divides reactions to the engagement announcement, or who set it. Per the date of the wedding and the Scottish election, it can go into the "Planning" area, though the information therein may need reworked a bit to make the addition fit. (It needs work, anyway). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The announcement is not yet complete - in terms of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 formal approval form the sovereign must still be obtained. In the case of Prince Edward, who had a six month engagement, this was published in the London Gazette about five months into the engagement. When such approval is published - will it be part of the "Announcement" or part of the "Planning"? Martinvl (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we can cross that bridge if and when it comes. --Scott Mac 20:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The royal family is not above criticism & a bishop getting suspended for practicing freedom of speach, should be mentioned in this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's a specific problem in the criticism section, can we remove the POV tag? It only says that criticism sections MAY cause POV problems, but I can't actually see one here. What do others think?--Scott Mac 20:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the section imbalances the article because there's no corresponding area specifically called "Praise". But, of course, two such sections would be silly and likely unworkable in the end. Instead, as it's possible for both positive and negative comments to cohabitate in one section, as I made it work before it was reverted, the information in "Criticism" should be split and integrated elsewhere, which you now indicate you're open to.
Per the Bishop's comments: I still don't see what the date is that divides reactions to the engagement announcement, or who set it. Per the date of the wedding and the Scottish election, it can go into the "Planning" area, though the information therein may need reworked a bit to make the addition fit. (It needs work, anyway). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You are implying that "criticism" sections are inherently biased. That's simply not true, and not policy. The guidelines are that we should be wary of them because a whole lot of criticism unbalanced by other things (including praise) MAY indicate biased content. However, you are not suggesting the content is biased as far as I can tell. So there is no content reason for the POV dispute tag. The only dispute is stylistic, and I'm happy to work with you to see if there's a better stylistic way to order this material. So, I suggest the tag is removed and we see if we can do the style better.--Scott Mac 20:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The tag implies that stand-alone criticism sections are inherently biased, which they are, without a corresponding section just for praise. On top of that, having all criticism of everything wedding related corralled into one section is irrational; some criticism is directed at the wedding itself and the media, other criticism is aimed at the date, and I'm sure that more will come up as we approach the ceremony and after. If the section is split, as I suggest, the problems will be resolved and the tag will disappear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't. It says they "may be" biased. If anything, this article's bias is pro-royalty. --Scott Mac 21:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've had a stab at re-ordinging - see what you think.--Scott Mac 20:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the bishop's comments shoudl be moved into the announcement section, bu tthat tehy be trimmed back considerably. My suggested text is:
On 23 November 2010, the Right Reverend Pete Broadbent, the Church of England Bishop of Willesden, was suspended by the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, after criticising the wedding on Facebook. Broadbent criticised the monarchy for a string of broken marriages and spoke of the hereditary principle as "corrupt and sexist". The bishop, who is a republican, later apologised for his remarks.
Martinvl (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
A bishop of the Church of England being suspended is not a small matter. And given comments above that the article was biased because it included too little reference to criticism, I don't think we should reduce this. It certainly should not go with the announcement section which otherwise contains only references to the announcement on the day of the engagement. This was a week later, and far more general.--Scott Mac 21:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The bit about the Scottish election is in a better location, but "Public discussions" makes little sense; there's no discussion contained therein. You've called the Bishop's comments "general", yet they focus specifically on the upcoming wedding. You've also mentioned "the week" thing again. I'll ask for a third time: who set this date as a dividing line between reactions? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
They focus on the upcoming wedding, yes. So does the whole article. The announcement happened one one particular day and is a neat subsection of the article. If we are going to have subsections they need to be logical and discrete, that's why I reverted "venue and costs" as a heading - both are aspects of planning, but there's no logic in lumping them together in a subsection, separate from timing. I suggest we don't make any more re-ordering changes without discussing them first. No "public discussions" isn't great - since we've only gone one. I suppose we could rename this "bishop suspended" to make it more precise.--Scott Mac 01:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that to fix a part of someone's edit you must revert the entire edit. Twice you've done that to my work today. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't "only one" discussion within the present "Public discussions" section, there's none; the Bishop's comments aren't a discussion. Whether a reaction to the announcement of the engagement came the day of or a day or a week after is irrelevant. The words of the Queen and Prince of Wales are reactions to the engagement announcement. So are Broadbent's. Dividing them apart because the latter came a week after the former is random. Thus, there's still no understandable rationale for giving Broadbent his own section. It should instead be trimmed (though slightly differently to what Martinvl suggests) and, along with additional brief mention of feedback from other world figures, put together with the other remarks that came in the wake of the notice of the engagement. I personally don't think there would be enough content to warrant it, but a "Reactions" subsection to "Engagement announcement" is still possible. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop repeatedly changing article mid-discussion

Firstly, you've made bold changes which have been reverted. Now we discuss and seek consensus. You don't reinstate changes until there is consensus. If we can't agree we wait for the opinion of others or go to dispute resolution. Keeping reinstating your changes in the face of objections is edit waring and is disruptive. Specifically:

  1. I object to the truncating of the bishop's intervention. This article has already been accused of "fawning". Having self-congratulatory remarks buy royals and minimising the criticism is not neutral. There is a level of criticism in the UK, and the article ought to reflect that. Truncating this smacks of royalist bias.
  2. Truncated or not, the bishops remarks do not specifically relate to the engagement, but to the media discussion of the wedding in general. I'm happy to seek to find a way not to have them in "criticism section" - perhaps "reactions" might be better - and we can add other reactions as they occur. If that's no use then let's seek another way. It may be simply having them in a section under "bishop broadbent" might be best for now. The article will grow in the coming months and doubtless be reordered as it does.

If you disagree, we keep discussing it, and seeking more input until we have a consensus. If consensus is with you then fine. But do not keep changing an article in the face of objections.--Scott Mac 09:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The article must be as neutrally balanced as possible. The bishop (and his remarks), deserves as much display as the positive comments on the wedding. GoodDay (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Scott Mac. This info might be relevant to Bishop Broadbent but not here. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Keeping reinstating your changes in the face of objections is edit waring and is disruptive. That haughty lecture ignores the fact that reverts are made by you completely without stated objection. I made changes. You reverted all of them, expressing a complaint about one part, but offering no explanation for why the rest was so objectionable. I then restored what you didn't complain about while, at the same time, addressing your specific grievance. You did nothing but revert everything again. Given that and your previous breach of 3RR at this page, I don't think you're in much of a position to warn others about edit warring. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

User:GoodDay wrote: "The article must be as neutrally balanced as possible. The bishop (and his remarks), deserves as much display as the positive comments on the wedding." If one takes into account that Bishop Broadbent was effectively sacked by his superior for his comments, then one should be careful about giving his views too much publicity as this will fall foul of WP:UNDUE. Martinvl (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Balance, not everybody is overjoyed with the coming nuptials. That's counting those who know of the coming nuptials. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Some of Broadbent's comments deserve a place in this article; there's no question about that. However, it is counter to WP:UNDUE to give too much detail about them on this page - if anywhere, that belongs at his biography - and I specifically refer to his wider critiques of royal weddings, the media, and monarchy in general. With those of Broadbent's words that are tangential to the subject of this article either gone or greatly reduced, Scott Mac's reasoning for keeping them in their own section no longer holds. The Bishop's words specifically about this couple and this wedding are little different to the reactions from the Royal Family and other world figures except for being diametrically opposite in sentiment, and thus all these reactions belong together. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright, as long as it's mentioned somewheres in the article. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have reread Broadbent's comments. While he is entitled to his views on the institution of the monarchy, his comments were offensive towards the individuals concerned, brought his Ministry into disrepute and not worthy of discussion or inclusion in Wikipedia - there are many other republicans out there who at least had the decency to wish the couple well. Martinvl (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact that he was suspended (by the Bishop of London) for sharing his views, is what makes it noteworthy. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've been reading more on this topic & it appears he's not suspended, but rather has chosen to quiet himself for awhile. Anybody know more about this? GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The text in The Church Times says "THE Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Richard Chartres, this week asked the Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Revd Pete Broadbent, "to withdraw from public ministry until further notice"". In my view, this is tantamount to "suspension".Martinvl (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Supression of freedom of speach, alright. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and libel. The Daily Mail said (here) "The Rt Rev Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden had earlier denounced the ‘corrupt and sexist’ Royal Family as ‘philanderers'". In my book this is libellous (and therefore none significant apart from Broadben't own biography), which is why I have deleted the section. Martinvl (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Libel? I disagree. But that's for a blog site, not here. Meanwhile, I recommend you restore that which you've deleted, as keeping anything negative off the article, creates a monarchist-bias to the article. GoodDay (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I saved you the trouble & reversed you deletion. The British courts haven't charged the bishop-in-question with libel. GoodDay (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't libellous. But if her were charged with libel, it would only serve to make it more notable and then we should definitely include it. Martinvl this is Wikipedia and it isn't censored, I think you might want Windsor-opedia which expunges anything deemed seditious libel, and ends every article with a midi-file of "God save the Queen".--Scott Mac 10:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Courts don't charge people with libel ever. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
May I respond to a number of points:
  • Libel charges are civil charges that are brought by the person or people who were libelled. However the British Royal FAmily has a policy of "Don't explain, don't complain" - ie don't lay libel charges.
  • May I draw to attention the following sentence from WP:BLP: "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". Broadbent's comments are certainly contentious. They refer to a group of living people. Broadbent no longer stands by his statement.
  • Wikipedia is not not censored, but it does rely on quality sources. Broadbent's choice of language is hardly quality - in my opinion it is the level that I woudl expect from a tabloid columnist and therefore should not be associated with any article apart from his own biography.
  • Finally, is this is the best that the British Republican movement can come up with?
Martinvl (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Not appropriate for this article. It is not a mainstream fact. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It's appropiate for this article. Shocking as this might be, not everybody in the UK, see the royal family as perfect human beings. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
What does corruption and sexism have to do with this wedding in particular? This is why I said earlier that Broadbent's comments need siphoned to retain only what's pertinent to this article; his ideas about monarchy and the press in general are not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Give me an example here. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
on 23 November 2010, Pete Broadbent, the Bishop of Willesden, wrote negative remarks about the wedding on Facebook, saying: "Marriages should be about family, not some piece of national flim-flam paid for out of our taxes... As with most shallow celebrities, they will be set up to fail by the gutter press. I give the marriage seven years." The Bishop was later suspended by Bishop of London Richard Chartres and apologised for his remarks, which also included criticism of the Royal Family, monarchy, and the press. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an acceptable version. Please do add this (in place of the current) & Martin's stuff about the Australian Prime Minister, to the article. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Even if some people regard the royal family as having some imperfections (with which I agree but that is irrelevant), Bishop Broadbent's views on the family or celebrities are irrelevant to this article. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
They're relevant enough. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
In themselves his views are not relevant, neither are Janet Street Porter's. However, given that his expression of his views on the wedding were national news because they gone him suspected, makes that incident noteworthy in relation to the wedding. It is far more encyclopaedic than us recording that Billy's grandmother was please for him - which I would remove as routine and uninteresting. It is no more encyclopedic than the colour of Ms Middleton's dress at the time of the announcement would be.--Scott Mac 16:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mies' compromise

It's very much acceptable, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My version (timestamped 15:22) which was reverted by User:GoodDay, pulled together a number of points:
  • If one compares the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the country with the biggest republican movement is Australia. In the other three countries, the republican movement is insignificant. Most Australians that I speak to agree with my analysis: In favour of a republic - 5.5%, In favour of the Monarchy - 4.5%, don't care 90%. Republican views are a minor issue, even amongst Australians.
  • I found a quote from the spokeman for the Autralian Republican Movement which was quoted by an Australian TV station (and therefore unlike Facebook, not self-published), was not offensive and, unlike Broadbent, was spoken on behalf of an particular organisation. Broadbent on the other hand spoke on behalf on nobody but himself and his professional organisation (the Church of England) disowned his statements.
  • I published that quote (along with the Australian PM's quote) and removed Broadbent's quote.
May I ask other editor's views about reverting to my version of 15:22 02-December-2010. I think that is covers most of the essentials of Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Adding the Australian stuff is fine. But, would you please restore the Braodbent stuff (which you had no consensus to delete). GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Public discussons section

I don't mind if we compact that section, as long the section remains at this article. GoodDay (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If I can find a comment from a pro-Republican which is anti the wedding, but not offensive would you be happy? Martinvl (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, you can add such a comment in with Bishop Broadbent's comments. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Kitty asked for my opinion and I have read the discussion and the desired addition and here is my position. The comment from such an opinionated person like Broadbent is closer to insult than criticism, and that why he has got into trouble for it, and it has no value in the article other than to insult, the fact that he made such insulting comments and was more or less removed from public position is relevant to his own article only. I also have removed it after reading it, I couldn't stop myself. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's because of who & what he's criticizing, that his comments became important to this article. Had he been against JohnSmith & his coming wedding? nobody would've cared. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It isn't criticism its simple insults. Criticism is fine. Mr Bishop said he hated the royals and insulted them...yayda yada .. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't condem a man for practicing 'freedom of speach'. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no freedom of speech in UK. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Aparrently not. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, thats your third revert, your edit warring, its not like you to even edit article main space, perhaps you are a trifle involved here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already announced it's my last revert. I usually don't go 3, unless I feel NPOV is under siege. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think its about NPOV, the guy is barely even notable he is actually now a one event insulter, his blp has more edits since he insulted the royal family than it has had in the last two years. If you want to add insults from republicans you will find plenty that doesn't mean they belong here, on facebook how droll. Its a bit like wanting to add that David Cameron thinks Ed Miliband is an idiot.Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey wait a sec, that was only my second revert within 24hrs. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The Bishop's comments that relate to the wedding are notable because a) they came from a bishop of the church that is to marry the couple and that William will eventually head in England, b) they attracted the attention of the Bishop of London and prompted him to react, and c) it was reported in the media. I've already trimmed out the excess that doesn't relate to this article, but I do feel the remainder has a place here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
They have no educational value at all, not even worthy of reporting here. Nothing more than simple insults, its irrelevant which church he was part of. If you want to add criticism at least find some that it intelligent and that will have some lasting note.Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That you find it insulting or unintelligent is irrelevant. Verifiably these things were uttered, noted, and created public discussion in the context of the wedding. That we note them in that context is entirely appropriate. They are part of the public debate.--Scott Mac 18:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any lasting value it it at all. We have a powerful and huge press, totally not noteworthy things are citable and this has a cite, imo it is valueless and if it is worthy of preservation here and any wikipedia mirrors will be the only place it will be preserved and propagated. A Bishop said he was a republican and insulted the wedding and the royal family, yada yada, not what I consider worthy of note. The section title, public debate is also a bit strange, what is it for, to add that some one also really likes the royals and said the wedding was great, David Beckham said he was really hoping to get an invite and that he thought the wedding was going to be a brilliant spectacle. Presently the section would be more honestly titled Republican insults and criticism. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not gonna hurt one bit, to keep the Broadbent stuff. Such refusal to do so, would only be viewed as censuring. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Ha, censoring my butt. What about starting an article? Republican insults of the wedding. Keep it for now but I can't see it lasting long, it does nothing apart from shame the Bishop anyway.Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The guy was honest about his views. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, its a shame he had to resort to simple insults, as we all know WP:NPA he would still be blocked if he was a wikipedia editor. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Dvid Beckham reveals his plan to ask Prince William for an invite to royal wedding - David Beckham and Victoria Beckham get invite to Royal wedding - Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Costs

The subject of costs presently resides at the head of the "Planning" section, alongside one of two mentions of the wedding date. As I've said above, the double mention of the date leaves one redundant and I believe it's logical (for obvious reasons) to retain the one in the "Timing" subsection and remove the other. That will leave the matter of costs alone at the top of the "Planning" section, the only matter without its own subheading.

Amongst other work, I tried to first merge the costs in with the venue under the heading "Venue and costs". User:Scott MacDonald objected to this with a revert of all my changes. I then gave the subject of finances its own subsection within "Planning", thinking that there will very likely be more related facts to come that will fill the area out. Scott MacDonald again reverted without explanation. I wonder if he'd be so kind as to explain why the costs must stay alone at the top of the "Planning" section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There's very little information about the costs at the moment. It doesn't (at the moment) merit it's own section. It is a general aspect of planning and thus belongs under that heading, but there is no real link to venue (except through planning) thus it is best in the general introduction to planning.--Scott Mac 17:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
With the duplication of the date gone from the opening of the "Planning" section, the single sentence about costs will be the introduction to the "Planning" section. Is that your wish? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No, that would look strange. I think the introduction should be a brief summary of the sections - date time and venue - and when these were announced. If we do that, then a sentence about the costs announcement also fits here. More details can then be put in the subsections on "venue" and "timing" and perhaps we can later have a subheading on "costs" if there's any more to be said than we can briefly say in the planning introduction.--Scott Mac 18:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Why didn't you just do that then, instead of reverting everything? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Em? That's how the article currently is? Isn't it? (I may have missed something)--Scott Mac 19:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The introduction to the "Planning" section consists of a lone fact and a repetition of another. That's not an introduction. That said, the section hardly seems big enough to warrant an introduction. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If a section is divided into subsections, you need something to introduce it. It briefly summaries the time and venue, allowing for both to be expanded upon the the subsections, and allows us to add the statement on costs, which we can't expand on at the moment (because we have no more details). This is what I said above and you seemed to concur. What text would you suggest here?--Scott Mac 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Take out the subsections. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

opinion section

This Broadbent rubbish is not worth edit warring about, it has been in and out more times than a .... fill in your own comment. If it continues its likely the article will be locked and we wouldn't want that ..Seems like its a split, three all, Martin , me and Kitty think its not worthy of reporting here and is a simple insult with no long term value, and Scott , GoodDay and Miesaniacal want to keep it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Two wording tweaks

OK, I just had two of my copy edits reverted, so rather than edit-war about I'll open up for discussion here:

The first sentence I changed was:

He had already been created Duke of York a year earlier, shortly after the death of his older brother, which meant he was likely to become king.

The problem with this is that it's not clear what clause "which meant he was likely to become king" is dependent on. People who already know how the British monarchy works know that it's dependent on "shortly after the death of his older brother," but if you didn't know much about the subject, it wouldn't be unreasonable to interpret it as dependent on "He had already been created Duke of York a year earlier" -- i.e., you might read it as saying that George was likely to become king because he had been created Duke of York. My proposed reworking was "...shortly after the death of his older brother left him first in line to become king after his father," though I wasn't entirely happy with this and would welcome other suggestions.

The other sentence I modified (and the only one that got referenced in the edit summary reverting the change) was:

Recently, royal princes who did not already have a title and were given one upon marriage include...

I find the core sentence construction here -- "Recently, royal princes ... include ..." to be clunky bordering on ungrammatical. I modified it to:

In recent years, several royal princes who did not already have a title were given one upon marriage, including...

The edit summary says the original was clearer because "it's probably not just in recent years princes were given a title on marriage." Having followed the intense back and forth on this page, it seems to me that part of the issue is that there's debate as to whether it's citably true that princes are traditionally given a title on marriage, and that this sentence was written to imply this fact without coming out and saying it, or at least not precluding such that interpretation (thus we want to have the "recently" in there without implying that it's only recently). I don't have a dog in that fight particularly but I do think the sentence as written now is poorly written and open things up to suggestions on fixing it. --Jfruh (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To clarify. Victoria's sons were given dukedoms when they joined the army so they already had titles when they married. Martinvl (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This appears to have now been cleared up, and may have been even before I posted this. I like the current wording in the article. SOrry to go on such great lengths. --Jfruh (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Presiding over the wedding

According to the website Royalty news, the Archbishop of Canterbury & the Bishop of London will be sharing the role of presiding over the wedding. Anybody got more details on that? GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This was reported in the Sunday Telegraph - though no official announcement has been made. I have updated the article. As the wording suggested that there had been a leak, I prefixed the additions with the words "It has been reported that ...". Martinvl (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

N is for what?

The article says "If however William is given a title, she would be known as "Her Royal Highness the Duchess [or other rank if appropriate] of N"." I wanted to know what N stands for.--— JL 09 talkcontribs    14:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"N" stands for "name" in legal and church documents. Afterwriting (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Second in line to the throne(s) of.... Cont'd

Contrary to common usage, Charlie & Willy are not heirs to the thrones; Elizabeth II is. Charles is the heir-apparent (meaning he will apparently be the heir). William is the heir-apparent of the heir-apparent. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. My original wording was "second in line to the throne", not heir or second heir or whatever, so with the added s, that's what it now is, in the above spirit of the opening line of the article not being the place for a lesson in monarchyical practices. MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's still unclear why the link is, as you put it, "unnecessary and distracting." What, exactly, is distracting in "second in line to the thrones of Queen Elizabeth II" that isn't in "second in line to the thrones of Queen Elizabeth II." And since when was a correct link, other than one that duplicated another, unnecessary? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you agree to wording along the lines of "second in line to the throne in 16 Commonwealth realms". That escapes the need to define it/them as singular/plural. DrKiernan (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Give it try. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't because I've already had my 3 reverts: I can only add new material not change any existing material. DrKiernan (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I could go either way on this one, but I would be more apt to lean towards "second in line to the throne in 16 Commonwealth realms".. Keeping the current link would still be a good idea IMHO though.. Dphilp75 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm content either way, particulary since the wedding is 'bout half a year away. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I give up. When you people can't even take the advice of an arbitrator on what is and isn't good writing, and now you start stuffing bloody references into the first line as well as obscure 'realms' nonsense, on top of section links to subjects that can be found from the link two words down the line, then seriously, have a word with yourselves and what you are actualy here to do. This article is about a wedding, and you have right 'royally' screwed it up for the reader, right from the first line. Well done. MickMacNee (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

At least we didn't have to read out all 16 realms. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought we were all fine with the previous wording; I was. It was only that MacNee thought, for some still unknown reason, that wiki-linking "the thrones" was "unnecessary and distracting." Now the matter seems to have become complicated all over again by people re-questioning the composition. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, many still see things as United Kingdom and the 15 other commonwealth realms; at least those who know of the other 15 realms. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone suggest that. So, I don't know what you're talking about. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a theory. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think citations are necessary for him being "second in line to the throne" or "16 Commonwealth realms" because these facts are not contentious. So, the references can be removed from the lead as far as I'm concerned. It is use of the word "thrones" that is contentious. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think refs are necessary either, but the plural "thrones" is the right word to use, if "throne" is going to be used at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
No sources pluralise "thone" in this context. He is "second in line to the throne" in each of the realms separately.--Scott Mac 01:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, one throne in each of 16 realms: hence, "thrones". "Line to Queen Elizabeth II" leaves one wondering if the Queen is some sort of theme park attraction. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
NO sources pluralise "thrones" when referring to the Commonwealth. "Heir to the throne" is NEVER pluralised afaict. He is "heir to the throne" in 16 realms. I've used a wording which avoids throne altogether because we can't get consensus on how to use it. Have you a better idea?--Scott Mac 13:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes: Use "second in the line of succession to the thrones of 16 independent states", or "second in line to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms", or "heir to the thrones of Queen Elizabeth II." Here's two sources that pluralise "throne": "Watching was Prince Charles, eldest grandson of the last King-Emperor and heir apparent to the Commonwealth thrones."[6] "Prince Charles of Wales (born November 14, 1948) is the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and is the heir apparent to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms."[7] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with avoiding the word thrones. Why do you insist that it be inserted when there are so many alternatives to describe his position that avoid controversy? "the eldest son of the Prince of Wales", "a grandson of Elizabeth II", "second in the line of succession to the Queen", "second in the line of succession to the throne in 16 Commonwealth realms", etc. You know full well that there are academics who say it is a shared monarchy (i.e. a single throne shared between independent states) as well as those who say the British throne is now divided into 16 separate ones. This is not the article in which to enter into a long discussion about the nature of the Commonwealth monarchy/ies. It is better to avoid any need for qualification and instead chose a neutral descriptor that does not need to be explained in a footnote or bolstered by citations or balanced by an opposing view. DrKiernan (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why we need to avoid the word "thrones", but I will concede that "heir to the throne in 16 Commonwealth realms" does make sense, if read the right way; it's just that when something can be read in more than one way, it tends to create confusion, which I like to avoid. "Second in line to Queen Elizabeth II" still grates on me; it says to me that Queen Elizabeth II is something one can stand in line for. I guess she can be, when people cue to see her at a royal event; but, is William really known for being second in such a line? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"heir to the throne"? GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
This might settle things. Can Elizabeth II abdicate from some of the thrones, but not all 16? Can the Line of succession be changed in some of the Commonwealth monarchies, but not all 16? GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes and yes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Or, no and no. Compare with the previous (and only) precedent when Edward VIII abdicated in all the realms and the line of succession was changed in all of them. The succession may only be changed by all 16 agreeing to do so; that's one of the reasons why it is thought that attempts to change the law (to allow Catholics to inherit, for example, or to allow elder daughters to inherit before younger brothers) will be doomed to fail. It is too difficult to get all the realms to agree and legislate at once. Particularly considering the competing interests of republicans in the overseas realms and disinterest in all the realms, including the UK. DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
And yet, who was still King of Ireland on 12 December 1936? Even with that particular situation aside, all a country has to do is amend the Statute of Westminster (if even necessary, given that the words about a common succession throughout the realms are only in the preamble) and then the Act of Settlement. A republic isn't the only alternative for a nation that want's to leave the group of Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps no-one, as I've already told you: Talk:Edward VIII abdication crisis#Introduction. There was no King in Ireland after the 11th. There was only the British king who had powers delegated to him by the Irish Parliament. DrKiernan (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The External Relations Act was passed in Ireland on 12 December, while the Declaration of Abdication Act was passed in Britain on the 11th. Hence, regardless of what happened after the 12th, Edward VIII was still King of Ireland on that day, while George VI was king in all the other realms; the British law had no effect in Ireland, due to the Statute of Westminster. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
As I have told you before, the Constitutional Amendment removing the monarch was passed on the 11th [8]. DrKiernan (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I could continue this interesting little debate, but I think this edit summary pretty well shows it's time to close this thread. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Someday, somwhere on the 'pedia, all will have to sit down & iron out this Commonwealth realms business. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, I'm in agreement with Mies. There's 16 seperate monarchies/thrones. Thus it's allowable to have "second in line to the thrones of 16 Commonwealth realms". GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted mention of William's place in the line of succession, anyways. The articles of the other British Royal weddings don't mention 'line of succession' in their intros. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that change lasted a total 55 minutes. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Heir

Again folks, Elizabeth II is heir to the throne. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the current monarch is heir to the throne which she currently occupies. Regarding William, he is either "the heir to the thrones of sixteen ..." or "the heir to the throne in sixteen...", but not "the throne of Queen ELizabeth ..." Martinvl (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The heir is the person who occupies. Charles is the heir-apparent, which means he will apparently be the heir. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your definition of heir, which is not the common usage. Queen Elizabeth was, at one time, the heir of her father, but she now is the monarch. To call her the heir would be misleading. The OED defines heir as: "The person who is entitled by law to succeed another in the enjoyment of property or rank, upon the death of the latter; one who so succeeds; in general use, one who receives or is entitled to receive property of any kind as the legal representative of a former owner". Heir-apparent means that there is no way that an heir with greater entitlement can appear - contrast with "heir presumptive", where a better heir might yet appear (a son superseding a daughter for example). --DavidCane (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
That's my point, heir means successor. Elizabeth II is George VI's successor. Though Charlie is often called heir to the throne, it's the wrong discriptive because he hasn't succeeded to the throne yet. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
But that's contrary to the definition: "the person who is entitled by law to succeed another... upon the death of the latter". The Queen was entitled to and did succeed her father. Yes she is her father's heir, but she is not, now, the heir to the throne. Being an heir is a latent condition. Once the succession takes place, the heir becomes the incumbent and a new heir is created. --DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Now that George VI is dead, Elizabeth II is his heir (i.e successor). Check the terminology section of Inheritance. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This is silly. Elizabeth II is George VI successor, and thus fell heir to his throne. Charles is Elizabeth II's heir - or heir to her throne. The idea that being "heir apparent" means they are not yet the heir is nonsense. "Heir apparent" is not used is contradistinction "heir", but in contradistinction to to "heir presumptive" - which was what Elizabeth was to her father, since it was technically possible that he'd have a son who would displace her as heir - thus until his death she was mere "heir presumptive". It is perfectly correct to refer to Charles a "heir to the throne" or equally "heir apparent"- implying he's "heir to the throne [of Elizabeth]".--Scott Mac 23:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the heir is the Monarch. BTW, How'd we get into this discussion? we might be breaching WP:BLOG. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
"1. A person legally entitled to the property or rank of another on that person's death." Charles is legally entitled to the crown on the Queen's death, thus he is her "heir" - as the Queen is heir to her Father. The problem with the word "heir" is it invites the question "to whom?". "Heir to the Throne" is most naturally understood as "heir to the person currently sitting on the throne" - i.e. the Queen's heir. "Throne" here is being used as a circumlocution for monarch. Both Elizabeth and Charles are heirs to a monarch (just different ones) - one has inherited and one hasn't yet. It is perfectly correct to refer to Charles as "heir to the throne".--Scott Mac 23:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it's best we stick with heir-apparent & heir-presumptive usage, for those who are 'next in line'. We all agree on the meaning of those 2 terms. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
No, we don't agree. You evidently think "heir-apparent" means "not yet heir", which is wrong.--Scott Mac 23:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, since nobody's planning on going over to the Charles, Prince of Wales article (for example) & changing the term in the intro from heir-apparent to heir. Nor is anybody planning on going over to the Elizabeth II article (for example) & changing the term in the intro from monarch to heir. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, GoodDay, but you're are wrong. The word "heir" refers to one who expects to inherit some right, property, title, or interest. One who holds such an interest is a holder, not an heir. Elizabeth was heir to the throne until she acceded to it. She was called "heir presumptive" to describe which kind she was, i.e., one whose heirship could be cut off by the birth of someone with a higher claim. By contrast, an heir apparent is an heir whose interest cannot be cut off by someone else. -Rrius (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Yas ain't convincing me. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own definitions of terms. From the American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th ed.:
  • heir apparent: an heir whose right to inheritance is indefeasible by law provided he or she survives an ancestor
  • heir presumptive: an heir whose clam can be defeated by the birth of a closer relative before the death of the ancestor
Yes, in one sense, Elizabeth is George's heir, but using the present tense so many years after title transferred is generally going to be so awkward as to be wrong. In fact, I am having trouble constructing a sentence where saying Elizabeth is, rather than was, George's heir doesn't present the false impression that she still expects to inherit. It would have been natural in the days after his death, but that would have faded very quickly. For any normal conversation (and possibly any weird one), we would say she was his heir from 11 December 1936 to 6 February 1952 and no later. -Rrius (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Common usage says - Charles, heir to the throne (using 1 throne for example), but correct usage is - Charles, heir-apparent to the throne. I just wish to point out that it's more accurate to use heir-apparent & heir-presumptive, for those who are in line of succession. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
To clarify - Elizabeth was heir-presumptive, not heir apparent because (in theory) George VI have had a son who would have taken precedence. I have not seen the text relating to the proclamation of Elizabeth as queen, but when Victoria was proclaimed queen on the death of Willaim IV, the proclamation was conditional on William's widow not being pregnant. Martinvl (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Reinstatement of 4-December

I did a Google search on the text "William "second in line" Elizabeth" and not one reference came up with the text "...second in line to Elizabeth...". There were many hits for "... second in line to the throne..." or "...second in line to the British throne...". I have therefore changed the text to align it with what is reported elsewhere, but have added a reference to the Commonwealth. Martinvl (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In agreement. 'Second in line to Elizabeth' reads terribly. It's like saying "I was second in line to Elizabeth at the grocery store". Throne or thrones should be included. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Reverted. It's perfectly understandable as it was, which is why it lasted for so long. A Google search on the exact phrase isn't going to tell you anything in that regard, whereas everyone here should be intelligent enough to realise that EIIR is the relevant link here for the first line, and no ordinary reader is ever going to think the phrase 'second in line' refers to a Grocery queue, that's frankly ludicrous, borderline insulting tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I've always held the opininon that "in line to Queen Elizabeth II" is terribly unclear; it communicates that Elizabeth II is either a destination or something to be inherited. That observation isn't an insult, it's simply an analysis of the grammar. I never reverted because I said earlier that, for the sake of ending the dispute, I'd live with "in line to Queen Elizabeth II", with conditions. I will stick to that promise, but, with two other editors disapproving of your edit and none, besides yourself (so far), supporting, perhaps you should self-revert. Or, open an RfC on this matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It should be ...second in line to the throne(s). GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What about Charlie?

If we still can't get an agreement on the above, perhaps we should skip mentioning of the succession in the opening & go with elderst son of Charles, Prince of Wales. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal Marriages Act 1772 (removed)

I've removed this text:

Under the Royal Marriages Act 1772[2][3] the couple will require that the formal consent of the sovereign be entered into the books of the Privy Council before they can enter into a lawful marriage. It has been customary for such permission to be publicised in the London Gazette, though this does not always happen – for example the Prince of Wales’ second marriage was publicised by means of an Order in Council.[4] The timing of the publication varies – for example the sovereign’s consent for Princess Anne’s first marriage was published in the London Gazette over three months before the wedding while the sovereign’s consent for her second wedding was published the day before the wedding.

This is original research from primary sources (acts of parliament) and history. If this is to be included it requires solid sourcing connecting the Royal Marriages Act to this particular wedding. Is there indeed speculation in the media or reliable sources which shows this is a matter of debate and comment? Secondary sources are required. Even if it is true, if it isn't being discussed, then it is just trivia and cruft not notable enough for an article. Are the sources noting this in connection with THIS wedding?--Scott Mac 13:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So much detail doesn't need to be included here; in fact, there's frequently far too much tangentially related minutiae dumped into this page. This isn't an article on all royal weddings and every event, tradition, and law relating to them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe this to be WP:OR - I believe it to be common knowledge (at least once the provisions of the Royal Marriages Act are laid out). I will be reinstating this. Do you want me to include an RFC?
Marriages a legal contracts - and the law pertaining to royal marriages is more exhaustive than the law pertaining to other marriages. I have included what I believe to be sufficient information for people reading the article to say "I didn't know that - when can I expect the announcement".
Martinvl (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Do not reinstate this. By all means go to RFC and get more input to generate a proper consensus - not a bad idea. But you don't reinstate something when two other editors question it and no one is (yet) supporting you. By the way "common knowledge" is not how we do wikipedia. If the sources are not discussing this, then it is not notable.--Scott Mac 17:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears that consent has been given, so I have reworked the section. An additional note will be added once the Privy Council publish the minutes of such consent. Martinvl (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the secondary source. That means we can include it. I've moved it under "engagement" since the source indicates the consent was given on the day of the engagement (as would be required). Since we can wikilink Royal Marriages Act 1772 there's no need for a link to the primary source text of the Act. The privy council minutes would be another primary source, but might be worth a footnote. The source indicates this was all low-key and unreported, so we similarly should not be making much of it. Again, thanks--Scott Mac 13:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Should the bishop's comments be excluded as offensive?

On 23 November 2010, Pete Broadbent, the Bishop of Willesden, wrote negative remarks about the wedding on Facebook, saying: "Marriages should be about family, not some piece of national flim-flam paid for out of our taxes... As with most shallow celebrities, they will be set up to fail by the gutter press. I give the marriage seven years." The Bishop was later suspended by Bishop of London Richard Chartres and apologised for his remarks, which also included criticism of the Royal Family, monarchy, and the press.[5]

The section above is the subject of a dispute. Editors wish it removed as simply insulting and derogatory to living people. Other believe that the suspension of a Church of England Bishop over remarks made about the Royal wedding is pertinent and notable.Scott Mac 12:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My position is that it is not NOTABLE for this article. It is merely POV republican opinion and UNDUE WEIGHT. Leave it under Pete Broadbent. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I find that the Bishop's words are notable enough for mention; as I explained above, he's a high officer of the church that's to marry the couple and of which William will eventually be head. The question is: just how much coverage does Broadbent get in this article? I already significantly trimmed the paragraph of most of its irrelevant details. However, it could possibly be reduced even more: The "Public discussions" section (already awkwardly titled) should be eliminated and Broadbent's words moved up to "Engagement and announcement", then they can be merged into a sentence that reads something like the following:
Positive reaction to the announced engagement was expressed publicly from various sources, including the Prince of Wales, who said he was "obviously thrilled"; Queen Elizabeth II, who claimed she was "absolutely delighted"; and other world figures such as governors general, prime ministers, and other politicians.[relevant cites] Conversely, the press also published comments that Pete Broadbent, the Anglican Bishop of Willesden, made on Facebook, wherein he called the wedding "national flim-flam" and predicted the media would drive the couple to divorce in seven years. In Australia, republicans immediately opined that the event would reignite anti-monarchy sentiment, while the announcement was celebrated by monarchists there.
I suppose, ultimately, that the whole thing could be diluted down to "The announcement attracted both positive and negative response." But, is that really living up to the purpose of this encyclopædia? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I could live with something like that, except a bishop being suspended over wedding remarks is also notable. Further "the press also published comments" is a bit evasive.It was the Bishop that published them himself. I think your summary also tones down his remarks which isn't so neutral.--Scott Mac 14:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Putting something of Facebook isn't publishing; if that's not the case, then I'm a published author. Broadbent would never have been heard of had the media not picked up on his Facebook post. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
In asking Peter Broadbent to “withdraw from public ministry until further notice”, was the Church of England suppressing legitimate discussion from the middle to senior level of its ranks or was it taking appropriate action against a person within its jurisdiction who had brought his office into disrepute [My words, not the words of the Bishop of London]. If it was the former, then this episode is notable and worthy of inclusion in this article, but if it was the latter, it is not notable in respect of this article.
A newspaper report that shows more of the language used by Broadbent is [here]. If Wikipedia editors choose not to report everything, then the criteria should be one of summarising the main points of the article, not the removal of the most contentious parts. The current Wikipedia text has been “sanitised” by the removal of the most contentious parts of the report.
One of the jobs of the clergy is to work with people who are contemplating marriage and in many cases to assist those whose marriages are in trouble. The Christian view, as reiterated by Broadbent, is that a marriage is for life. If he sensed that the foundations of the marriage between Prince William and Kate Middleton were shaky, it is his job to try to assist (if possible) in helping that marriage work, not to stand of the side-lines publically shouting “I told you so”, especially when he appears to be more interested in promoting his personal political views rather that examining the marriage itself.
It is my view that the language Broadbent used when publishing his views on Facebook brought his office into disrepute and that his suspension from office reflects that rather than a cover-up of dissent and therefore that this episode has no place in this article.
Martinvl (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Notability? BBC news, CNN, CBC news (for example) made the Bishop's remarks & suspension notable. Why have it at this article? William & Catherine's pending nuptials was the main focus of the Bishop's newsmaking remarks. Delete? there's currently no consensus for deletion & IDLI isn't a good reason for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • New input requested Folks, as regulars here we've had our say. Can we wait for some new input? The danger here is that this thread grows by us all repeating ourselves and folk responding to the RFC are discouraged from commenting. I'm willing to fall silent and listen to others, can I invite the rest of you to limit yourself to one post with your opinion and avoid responding to each other.--Scott Mac 14:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a newly fabricated rule that leads to the question: At what point, if ever, can "the regulars" chime back in? After input from two outside editors? Four? Ten? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This was - and continues to be - a a very notable news event. Therefore including Broadbent's comments is perfectly acceptable in the article as long as they are properly referenced. I cannot see any way in which doing so conflicts with any BLP policies. The fact that the comments are considered offensive is not in itself relevant. Afterwriting (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Per NPOV, specificaly UNDUE, it only merits one sentence here, and certainly not a whole section - "Bishop xyz was suspended and apologised for critical public remarks he made about the wedding." And the remarks should be described as critical, not 'negative', one is a fact, the other is opinion. If anyone wants to actually know what he said, they can go to his own article, or the refs. They don't need to be transcribed here, particularly as he seems to have said quite a lot. MickMacNee (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
support - as per Mick. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. It seems to me that this is obviously notable in regards to the story and should be included in some way in the article. I find the arguments that the BLP rules should exclude it to be specious -- those rules are meant to keep libel/slander out of articles, not to prevent any negative opinions about the article subject from being discussed. --Jfruh (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any fundamental BLP violations or obvious policy reasons to take it out of the article. It's just a question of weight and balance. For that reason I generally agree with MickMacNee's suggestion although we might not need to mention "Bishop XYZ" - it is not the identity of the bishop that is important, just the fact of it being a bishop who said it. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I was invited to offer my opinion here by Kitty (who might be regretting that now, as I am about to disagree with him ;). I am of the opinion that the fact that the Bishop spoke out about the wedding is notable. He was the first, and perhaps only, establishment figure to offer anything in the critical realm, and consequently it was widely reported. That said, I don't think there is a need to quote his comments at length. A brief mention that he spoke critically and faced the backlash should be sufficient (and mentioned in the context that the wedding announcement was widely welcomed, per WP:UNDUE). Rockpocket 21:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Rockpock A brief mention and the backlash is OK, in my view. I don't see this article as optimally becoming very long, so the bulk of space should be devoted to aspects really central to the wedding. --Dailycare (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. The Bishop's comments are offensive but that's no reason to exclude them. The event of his punishment for the words is notable and clearly connected to the wedding. In time, if the furor dies down we may reduce or exclude the coverage of the event. Powers T 18:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be that Broadbent should have a mention, but nothing more. I personally feel that he does not warrant that, but in light of what appears to be consensus, I have trimmed references to him down to what I believe to be the minimum needed to give a fair summary. In addition, so as not to give his views WP:UNDUE prominience, I have reinstated text that I introduced earlier.

I have also moved his comments into the section "Announcement"; a section "Discussion" is not appropriate in an article of this nature - what is there to discuss about two single people who are in their twenties getting engaged? There is however room to report on discuission relating to the cost, the venue and so on, but such reporting should be in the section relating to cost, venue etc. Martinvl (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Good call, I think that is well written. By the way, well done to everyone here, for demonstrating how content disputes should be resolved. Rockpocket 10:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you still requesting comments? Because the tag is still up and it's still on the RfC page... anyway, since I'm here, my comment is that they are notable views and should be included, and the way you've done it now seems like a good compromise. Lessthanideal (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/212185/No-budget-wedding-as-Prince-William-and-Kate-Middleton-opt-for-day-of-pageantry-
  2. ^ "Royal Marriages Act 1772 (c.11)". UK Statute Law Database. Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved 2010-12-13.
  3. ^ "George III (r. 1760-1820)". The official website of The British Monarchy. The Royal Household. Retrieved 2010-12-13.
  4. ^ "Royal Marriages Act, 1772". The Cambridge University Heraldic & Genealogical Society. Retrieved 2010-12-15.
  5. ^ "Royal wedding: Facebook row bishop suspended". BBC news website. 23 November 2010. Retrieved 23 November 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wedding_of_Prince_William_and_Catherine_Middleton/Archive_1&oldid=1150995947"