Jump to content

Talk:Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton/Archive 3

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

Deprotect

Should the article be unprotected so that anonymous and newly registered users can edit? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the issues that are afflicting the Pippa Middleton and James Middleton articles, I think it would be quite risky. I'm happy to unprotect as a trial, see if it is still a vandalism magnet. Don't be surprised if it is back on fairly quickly though if we get BLP violations. Woody (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The term 'commoner'

The opening section of the article makes much that Kate Middleton is a commoner. There is, in fact a legal definition of who is and who isn't a commoner and it certainly is nothing to do with royal blood or membership of the aristocracy. The actual legal definition is, quite simply, that a commoner is entitled to graze livestock on a piece of land designated as having common status (as well as some other rights on such land). That right is specifically excluded from the sovereign, Earls, Countesses, Marquesses, Marchionesses, Dukes and Duchesses. This means that Prince William was, until today, a commoner because he had no title other than 'Prince' and thus was not excluded from these grazing rights. The rights were lost when the title of Duke of Cambridge was confered on him this morning, Kate Middleton losing them on attaining the title of Duchess on her marriage to him. 86.183.174.248 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Commoner" is the most widely-accepted term for someone with no notable royal peerage. The politically-correct term which you rightly described would be too obscure to be relevant to this article. OlliffeΦObscurity 16:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
No no no; "commoner" means anyone who is not the soveregin or is not part of the peerage. In this regard, Prince Harry is indeed still a commoner. Please edit the relevant section in the first paragraph. One can look it all up here to his heart's content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoners_in_the_United_Kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.226.241 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
According to a recent discussion of this issue in the Guardian, there is no generally accepted definition of the term commoner. I suggest the article should reflect this. PatGallacher (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It's like the word heir, which is used (erroneously) as a descriptive of the next in line to the throne. These terms over the years have been used incorrectly. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Then have a look at any dictionary of legal terms. You will find it there, just as I did. 86.183.174.248 (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
ip86 is prefectly correct - according to Wikipedia, both were commoners before their marriage. So it's difficult to argue that only Kate deserves that description. Unless we're all writing for The Guardian here? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
No, Prince William was created a Duke before his marriage. Opera hat (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's true, hours before. So the article is technically correct, but not for the reasons most readers might assume. The couples' entire courtship was conducted with them both being commoners. This could be made clear by adding e.g. "William's Dukedom having been conferred only hour before the ceremony.. ", but perhaps this would be seen as being too pedantic. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that a little rewording of the offending sentence would solve the entire problem. Simply remove the reference to 'commoner' and rearrange to avoid the resultant clumsy phrasing. Something along the lines of:
"Much of the attention focused on Middleton's status in that she was marrying into the royal family even though she was not of royal blood or a part of the aristocracy."
I can't edit the article myself, so maybe someone else might like to have a go. 86.183.174.248 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I've linked the word "commoner" to Commoners in the United Kingdom. Does that help? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It helps but doesn't solve the basic problem in that the article still implies (though granted, it doesn't specifically state) that Prince William was not a commoner prior to having the dukedom confered on him prior to the wedding. 86.163.86.229 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"As William was not the heir-apparent to the throne"

Surely William IS the heir-apparent? Referring to Heir apparent, this is not, as I understand it, correct in British use. Charles, Prince of Wales, is the Heir, William the Heir Apparent. If Charles' first born had been a girl then she would have been Heir Presumtive until such time as Charles had a son or he died.--Teach46 (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Charles is the Heir apparent (or simply the Heir). Indeed we could remove the word apparent here, as William is neither the heir presumptive or their heir apparent - he isn't the heir at all (of either type).--Scott Mac 16:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
William is the heir-apparent of the heir-apparent to the thrones. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Here, here, he's the heir's heir.--Scott Mac 09:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
William is the heir-presumptive. The heir presumptive is the second in line with no possibility of anyone joining the queue ahead of them. 86.163.86.229 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No, an heir presumptive is someone who's currently #1 in a line of succession, but who could possibly be displaced. E.g., Elizabeth II was the heir presumptive to George VI because a younger brother would have knocked her down to #2.
—WWoods (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Celebration or performance?

We currently have: "The Dean of Westminster, John Hall, officiated for most of the service, with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, celebrating the wedding itself and Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, preaching the sermon... It has long been traditional for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church of England's most senior bishop, to officiate at the weddings of England's monarchs and future monarchs."

Am I just being put off by the "celebration" of the nation and the crowds - images of Dr. Williams waving a flag? Is the marriage ceremony a holy sacrament that is celebrated in the Anglican church as it is in the Roman Catholic? Or is a rite or ritual that is performed? I was guessing that it is both. Or does the second sentence here contradict the first, in that both Hall and Williams "officiated"? I looked for a steer in the articles for the marriages of Prince William's father and grandmother, but in the former we have just "presided over" and in the later "officiated by". No-one celebrated there, apparently, Has the liturgy, or the way it should be described, changed since those weddings? If everyone else is happy, then fine. But I thought I would just ask. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Celebrated" is correct. The person who actually weds two people is the "celebrant", whether in a church or a civil wedding. The Dean of Westminster was not a "celebrant" at this wedding. Amandajm (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks. I suppose that I was really hoping to see celebrant with a wikilink. "Celebrated" seemed to be slightly ambiguous, in the context of the larger (national) celebration. So can a marriage have a celebrant, or only a wedding? Also, who were the celebrants for the weddings of William's father and grandmother - and should they be described as such in their respective articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Text Attribution

There's a {{Merged-from}} template on this page. This merge was done when this article had a different name, and this article was was moved [1], the attributing article being deleted [2]. Can an admin please look at this and restore the edit history and attribution of the previously merged text. Edgepedia (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus (w/ definite lean towards opposition), and no compelling argument to act against WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. -- Hadal (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton → Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton – Procedural nom from me. I have no particular opinion either way. There were two sections above that discussed this #Title too long and #Page title. The main argument seem to be WP:COMMONNAME and per precedent on previous Royal Wedding articles. A clear consensus for the page title either way would be helpful. Woody (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  • This article was originally "Prince William" and was moved without discussion to the unnecessarily longer name "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge". As there isn't, to my knowledge, any other Prince Williams who have married Middleton's, then there is no reason why WP:COMMONNAME should not apply here. A procedural request seems unneccessary given the article's default was simply "Prince William", but if it ends the debate with a clear outcome fine. I have no view on the Kate/Catherine discussion. In short, Keep as Prince William, without the full title.--Scott Mac 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep at Prince William for the same reason - it isn't incorrect (he still is Prince William) and Duke of Cambridge is an unnecessary disambiguation. Opera hat (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep at Prince William (as above). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support change back to Wedding of Prince Wililam, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton. The Ducal titles are used in the other British Royal Wedding articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unnecessary extra words should be avoided. NBeale (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Like GoodDay, I think this should be consistent with the other royal wedding articles. Only one Prince George married Princess Mary of Teck, only one Prince Albert married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, only one Philip Mountbatten married Princess Elizabeth, and only one Prince Charles married Lady Diana Spencer and married Camilla Parker-Bowles. The argument advanced above that the disambiguation is unnecessary rests on the faulty premise that the articles are so titled for disambiguation. Even if we accept NBeale's argument, and I do tend to agree, it is asinine to have this article at a shorter title but leave the others alone because this one is more recent. This article should be brought into conformity with the others, then an attempt should be made to change all the relevant articles in a multimove. -Rrius (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The only reason the other royal wedding article titles haven't had the same criticism levelled at them is because this one has attracted more attention. I don't see the point of moving this one back while waiting for the others to be renamed. Opera hat (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This article shouldn't have been moved to Prince William and Catherine Middleton, in the first place. There was no RM held for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Equally, there was not RM for the move to "Duke of Cambridge". Anyway, let's work out where consensus is now.--Scott Mac 23:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This article should match the other British royal wedding articles. Billy was the Duke of Cambridge before he got married, a fact that should be in the article title. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Last paragraph of criticism section

I'd like to note that Charlie Veitch is not notable, and the source quoted there is also far from notable. I guess it could be removed by someone? 79.178.44.51 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree but for different reasons. The "Soverign Independent" looks more like a pressure group with a set agenda, so it has RS issues. If coverage of this "criticism" was provided by third party secondary sources I would be happy for it to remain, regardless of Veitch's notability, since non-notable people can become the centre of notable stories. On those grounds I've removed it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert but please include your rationale here. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

New last paragraph of criticism section

User:martinvl removed my addition to the Criticism section, that the Church of England included no active female clergy in the wedding, and that the female staff on the altar were inappropriately dressed. I also included a typical photo of the Archbishop (already in the Commons, not something I made up) showing that he can't be bothered to get a decent haircut. The reason given for the removal of my addition was that it was deemed to be "irrelevant trivia". I don't agree at all that these things are irrelevant or trivial. The Church's presentation of the wedding was front and center, in front of 300 million viewers. The C of E made some mistakes and it has been criticized, and I provided references. Why is it notable that trees were used to decorate the Abbey, but not notable that the couple chose to marry in a church that discriminates against women? GaryGo (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The use of trees was possibly unorthodox, but was almost certainly had the approval of the couple. However the couple's views on female clergy (if any) has never been made public making this a totally inappropriate place to raise the matter. Martinvl (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not the couple stated their views on anything, the wedding was a public spectacle, and it was intended to be a public spectacle, even a national holiday. Therefore, it is appropriate to criticize the choices of the couple and the Church. I'm not going to put my text back, since I suspect I'm in the minority in this argument, but it's unfortunate that I am in the minority. GaryGo (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
First of all there isn't any criticism of the nun, just an observation that her attire didn't conform to the dress code. Maybe the fact that the dress code didn't apply to clergy staff can be integrated into the wedding attire section? Secondly, there was no criticism of the lack of female clergy. The sole reference that was used to source the section was from 2008 and makes no criticism of the wedding, so that was basically all original research. If you could find such a criticism of the wedding for not involving female clergy in reputable sources I would support its inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Betty and martinvl, for paying attention. I think it's an easy stretch to refer to the internet jokes about the Reeboks as "criticism" (but I will drop it). The published criticism of the wedding has focused on spending tax dollars during a British recession. I consider this to be trivial (but well documented, so there it is). My additions of criticism of the Church of England for their support of the "status quo", in the face of worldwide poverty, is a big stretch and an obscure topic, and it is correct that I don't have a specific reference for this other than original research. From a Wiki perspective, I need to drop it. GaryGo (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture by Mark Rowden

I removed the linocut picture created by Mark Rowden - it looks like spam to me - Mark Rowden promoting his owm art. I checked him out on the Internet - a fair number of hits were his own facebook, linked-in a nd other advertising entries. I am minded to list his biography for deletion on grounds of non-notablility. Martinvl (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Why is it not notable to include some of the information of how many viewed the royal wedding in different parts of the world, that is in pat what makes the event so notable. The introduction is not so big that it can not have a few additional lines on this matter. Until a few days ago there was several lines talking about estimated global audience, that has been removed and it seemed reasonable to replace it with some information for which solid figures exist. The one line talking about it being broadcast around the world is not enough information. CoiledSnow (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The introduction should be a summary of the article. It isn't the place for a detailed list of specific information. DrKiernan (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It did summarise the article. It gave the information about within the UK, the largest and 3rd largest audience viewing figures around the world and the largest of the online streams. That is a summary compared to the detailed broadcasting section which lists many other countries and broadcasters, along with global estimates. I think the viewing figures are more notable for the intro than the detail that they left Buckingham Palace in a car with the reg "JU5T WED". The introduction is not extremely long compared to other articles. there is no reason why a final paragraph can not summarise the audiences too. CoiledSnow (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The introduction is indeed quite bad, but that's no reason to make it worse by the insertion of even more trivia. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
How exactly is figures covering the audience that viewed the wedding live "more trivia" it is factual information. CoiledSnow (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That the Queen wore yellow is also factual information. That doesn't mean it should go in the lead. The lead is for the most important points only. DrKiernan (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This is an article about an event, the fact that tens of millions of people in Britain and around the world watched the event seems notable yet at present this article neglects to properly inform people. It is nothing like what the Queen wore on the day which is too much detail for the introduction. a detailed version within the article could say ** watched on BBC 1, *** watched on Sky news, *** watched on ITV. The single sentence on how many people in the country watched is not unreasonable along with the largest audience figure from the USA and the youtube figure. CoiledSnow (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It's too detailed. You need to move towards a middle ground and come up with a compromise -- something along the lines of what you just said: "tens of millions of people in Britain and around the world watched the event" on television and online (and the removal of the duplicate clause) is the kind of thing that I would consider appropriate for the lead, not a highly specific list of detailed facts and figures. DrKiernan (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Well how about we just include the line about the UK and tens of million/Youtube line? "National figures released after the wedding showed a peak TV audience of 26.3 million viewers and a total of 36.7 million watching at least some part of the wedding coverage in the UK. The ceremony was viewed live by tens of millions more around the world including 72 million on YouTube which broadcast the event live via the Royal Channel." That then just gives a basic summary of the UK viewing figures which is relevant (a detailed mention of that would highlight breakdown of viewing figures for different channels) and the largest source of the on line viewing sources along with the act 10s of millions more viewed it around the world. That doesnt seem like too much detail considering some of the stuff included in previous paragraphs and the intro is not too long. The sentence in the first paragraph simply says there was much media in the event in the run up and for the occasion itself, it makes no reference at all to viewing figures. CoiledSnow (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd say even that was too long and specific, however, I would not argue with "In the United Kingdom TV audiences peaked at 26.3 million viewers with a total of 36.7 million watching part of the coverage. The ceremony was viewed live by tens of millions more around the world including 72 million on the YouTube Royal Channel." It gives the same information but in fewer words. DrKiernan (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks that would be enough to cover the main points and is shorter as you say. CoiledSnow (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ellie Goulding and details of the evening reception

I feel that further details of the evening reception of the wedding at Buckingham Palace, including the fact that Ellie Goulding performed the couple's first dance should be included in the article. Anyone agree? Bleaney (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added some info and a reference. This could probably be expanded upon with further detailed references. Bleaney (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Leona Lewis? Didn't she sing?188.141.24.232 (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find a reliable source saying she did so. DrKiernan (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism to "Guest List" Section

From the beginning of the Guest Section of this article, there were a few criticisms I felt necessary to address. The very first sentence of this article begins with, "On 16 and 17 February..." I personally feel the sentence would sound more appropriate if it was written as, "On the 16th and 17th of February," or "On February 16th and 17th." Shortly after this first criticism, I began to notice tense changes within single sentences. I feel as though this section needs severe grammatical editing with the focus on verb tenses.

--Kireland1 (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes for dates (WP:DATESNO). DrKiernan (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced the dates are needed at all. The dates are hardly significant in this case; it's pretty obvious from the context it is in the run up to the wedding, and that is probably the extent of its chronological significance. In regards to the issue raised, the current date format does conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Change of Heart Regarding a Title?

Before the wedding, Prince William had said that he didn't want a dukedom and wanted Kate to be called "Princess Catherine." So, what changed? Did the Queen overrule him? Did he acquiesce? At the very least, I think it should be noted that William initially did not want a title. TheUnknown285 (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Who IS Prince William?

DrKeirnan, this is an encyclopedia. Don't presume that your readers know who Charles prince of Wales (William's father) is, and that they will therefore realise the significance of William's position. Many people do not. His position needs to be clearly stated in an encyclopedic manner.

  • If you are the person who holds the expertise to say that this manner of expressing his position, "second in the line of succession to the throne of Great Britain and the Commonwealth realms", is not correct, then obviously, you are the person to fix it.
  • Kindly fix it, rather than deleting it, because this (or a similar statement) is entirely necessary to the article,otherwise, the marriage itself is just another society wedding.

Amandajm (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother. I have fixed it.
I do think it needs to indicate the realm that he is a prince of, or isn't this deemed necessary? Do weee only do that for "foreigners" like Danish and Norwegian princes?
Amandajm (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't speak to me like that. You know nothing about my heritage or my ethnicity. I'm fed up with your incivil attitude towards me. Don't insult me. Do not personalise debate. DrKiernan (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Spouse of Catherine's second cousin three times removed.

Firstly, that is the correct relationship - g-grandmothers 2nd cousin is grandmother's 2nd cousin once removed and is mother's 2nd cousin twice removed.

If the annonymous editor persists in adding this snippet, I think that we need to ask that this artile be semi-protected for a week. (We get very few good edits from non-registered editors). Martinvl (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Scotland

Both the BBC and STV said the low number of official street parties was unrepresentative of the number of people celebrating because lots just went to their own parties:

  • [4] "The number of official street parties taking place may give a misleading impression that there is a low level of public interest in celebrating the royal wedding."
  • [5] "Only a handful of applications were made to close roads for street parties in Scotland – most of which are in Edinburgh – but this does not mean Scots are not partying."

The Daily Record said "Thousands of people turned out at street parties and special events in the sunshine across the country."

Indeed, we know that thousands went to unofficial events because of what happened in Kelvingrove Park. DrKiernan (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Response:

Dr.Kiernan,

You quote the BBC - "The number of official street parties taking place may give a misleading impression that there is a low level of public interest in celebrating the royal wedding." This is merely anecdotal. Equally, it may NOT give a misleading impression and, it could be argued, given the sheer force of the factual evidence (see below), that it would be unreasonable to assert that it did.

One could equally argue that the purpose of the whole BBC article, including the opinion of its Scottish government correspondent, was to present a balanced response to the overwhelming lack of interest, a belief that could have been borne out by being in Scotland at the time. However, like your use of the BBC source, that is also anecdotic and might not make for a cogent argument.

You quote STV - "Only a handful of applications were made to close roads for street parties in Scotland – most of which are in Edinburgh – but this does not mean Scots are not partying." Again, this is anecdotal.

Firstly, if 10 people were partying in Wick and 12 people were partying in Hawick, we might be justified in saying that people were partying from one end of Scotland to the other. That statement could convey the misleading impression that public response was widespread in Scotland. However, if only 22 people were partying, we would be unjustified in making that claim. The factual evidence (see below) undermines STV's rather subjective statement.

Secondly, the issue is not whether there were celebrations in Scotland or not but to what extent celebrations occurred. The factual evidence suggests that use of the term 'muted' is actually rather generous. When one compares the muted celebrations in Scotland to the exuberance in other parts of Great Britain, this outlines the conclusion even more starkly.

Evidence:

The Wikipedia entry claims that people in England made around 5,500 applications to hold street parties. In Wales, it is claimed that there were around 200. However, in the whole of Scotland there appear to have been only 28 applications.

The population of England is just over 10 times that of Scotland so, had the Scots been as motivated as the English had been, we might have predicted around 550 applications in Scotland (10%). In fact, the 28 applications there makes only half of 1% (0.51%) of the English total (5,500). The Welsh population is just under 3/5 of that of Scotland. We might have expected a lower response in Wales given that fact. Alternatively, we might have expected around 333 applications in Scotland, had the Scots been as enthusiastic as the Welsh had been. Actually, the 28 Scottish applications represent only 14% of the Welsh total.

In London alone, there were 850 applications, 28 in the whole of Scotland. In Cardiff, there were around 50 applications, almost twice the entire Scottish total. In Edinburgh, there were 16 applications. This means probably a few hundred people at most (even allowing for other forms of public celebration) in a city with a population of nearly half a million. There are 150,000 more people in Edinburgh than in Cardiff but there were around 3 times as many applications in the Welsh capital.

If we exclude London from the English total, we see that there were around 4650 applications in England. If we exclude Cardiff from the Welsh total, we see that there were around 150 applications in Wales. If we exclude Edinburgh from the Scottish total, we see that there were 12 applications in the whole of the rest of Scotland. If we multiply that by 10 (Scotland has around 10% of England's population), the number of applications is still considerably less than the Welsh total, never mind the much larger English one.

However, although Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, it is not the biggest city. The population of the Greater Glasgow area is around 1.75 million, around 1/7 of Greater London (850 applications). In a city that size there was only 1 application for a street party. 'Muted' barely begins to do justice to the Glaswegian response.

And what of elsewhere in Scotland? Certainly, it was reported that 2,000 people had attended a celebration in St. Andrews. This was hardly surprising given that the small town hosts one of the elite universities of the UK and that Kate and William were educated there. The demographics of St. Andrews have never been typically representative of any other part of Fife or of Scotland precisely because of that elite status.

Similarly, there were reports of hundreds celebrating in Balmoral, which is a bastion of monarchy, given its Royal connections, so hardly surprising. There were 11 other applications for street parties in the Lothians and the Borders, probably amounting to no more than a few hundred celebrants. There appears to have been another one in Kinloss, where the RAF had a major base at the time of the wedding. A few thousand people were reported to have attended Kelvingrove Park in Glasgow on what was a sunny public holiday. Kelvingrove Park is one of the most popular destinations for Glaswegians on ANY public holiday, so we have no idea how many people were there as royal wedding celebrants and no way of checking. The STV report you quote also gave largely anecdotal evidence about small celebrations in retirement homes and community centres, and a church in Motherwell.

Of the 32 council areas in Scotland, none of the others granted applications for street parties. Shetland and Highland council areas did not even allow the public holiday.

A very generous estimate might put the total numbers of public celebrants in Scotland as being fewer than 10,000 in a country with a population of over 5 million. The existing factual evidence (see above) is clearly representative of an unambiguous repudiation by the majority of the Scottish people to the royal wedding of Kate and William. However, it's probably more palatable to call the public response in Scotland 'muted'.

Winstonblacksmith (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

First child

If you wish to contribute towards the article about the Duke and Duchess' first child, please do so via Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Birth of baby. This will ensure a centralized discussion. Martinvl (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

William as heir

Since this edit made claim that William is in the line of succession to the throne of one country, perhaps the editor who made the edit could here provide some evidence that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis have all removed William from their royal succession lines. Otherwise, as far as it stands, William is second in the lines of succession in all the aforementioned countries and the United Kingdom; 16 in total. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Lupton family

An IP is edit warring to include a reference to the Lupton family. Further discussion here, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, It is most important to include a reference to Sir Charles Lupton when one is discussing Kate Middleton's ancestry - as this article does with her "possible" ancestry - Sir Thomas Fairfax. Please read to see why he is of considerable importance ie was knighted by King George V- http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2013/apr/05/duchess-of-cambridge-kate-middleton-leeds Cheers Ted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.4.192 (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry not notable, this is not an article about the couples ancestry and has no relevance or notability to the wedding. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This IP is registered to Telstra in Australia and is on the identical node as 121.219.192.61 (talk · contribs) and 58.168.129.122 (talk · contribs), which have both tried to bomb wikipedia with links to the Luptons before. Including on this article, where they were previously reverted [6][7][8]. The reversions led to such personal abuse as "martinvl seems like a fool""martinvl is quite mad". This is of course mild abuse, the serious stuff was revision deleted: e.g. [9]. See also the talk page section above this one where the issue was raised previously but ignored by the IP. DrKiernan (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with User:MilborneOne - Sir Charles Lupton is not notable in the the context of this article. A wedding is primarily about two people from different families being legally bound to each other - in this context Sir Thomas Fairfax is notable in that he is believed to represent a point where the two families diverged. IMHO, the evidence is very strong. Martinvl (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I tweaked the article before reading this. Feel free to revert if you think the article needs it. My interest is via Frances Lupton (which I created and took to DYK the other day). I too have come across the anon user you refer to. With User:HelenOnline's help, my eyes were opened by this Daily Mail puff piece. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately the same WP:CONTENTFORKING was still happening very recently on other articles related to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge by other Australian IP addresses (see my talk page starting here) and I have recently given user warnings to 124.176.153.199 and 165.228.99.128 in this regard. HelenOnline 15:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Challenge on Sword Wearing

The section relating to the Duke of Cambridge's uniform at the Royal Wedding states that he didn't wear a sword as he was entering a church, whilst this has sources it plainly cannot be the reason because all other uniformed members of the Royal Family wore swords.

I should be grateful if someone could clarify whether this should therefore be amended/removed? 82.44.115.6 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only the officer getting married that doesn't wear a sword. See here for a link - under "Swords". Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going with WP:BOLD and am going to amend the article to avoid ambiguity. 82.44.115.6 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Parker-Bowles family

The grandchildren were there, so they're should be the children of Camilla. And was Lord Howe alone there or with his wife?79.243.196.15 (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wedding_of_Prince_William_and_Catherine_Middleton/Archive_3&oldid=1140150119"