Jump to content

Talk:Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton/Archive 2

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

Isle of Anglesey

I'm just curious, but do we have a source on this: "after which the couple intend to live on the Isle of Anglesey in Wales, where Prince William is based as an RAF Search and Rescue pilot"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagislaqroo (talk • contribs) 00:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a reference - my only problem was which of many to choose. Martinvl (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Intro

I didn't check to see who changed the intro lately, but is it asking too much to propose such changes here, first? GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the changes seemed in line with the consensus in the poll above. Have you an improvement to suggest.--Scott Mac 01:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I meant Mick's 18:05 Dec 26 change & I reckon, now your 23:00 Dec 29 change. I've no probs with them, but past sudden changes have prooven to attract complaints. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Republican soapboxing

This article is about a wedding , not about the excuse for adding republican soapbox winging to an article. Just add a comment at the bottom.. the republicans didn't like it because they don't like them. Or start yourself an article, list of republican negative attack comments about the wedding. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe republican reactions should be suppressed in general. I just find that too much emphasis is being given to trivial details, thereby crossing WP:UNDUE; that's been a persistent problem with this page. Further, and in particluar, Gillard's "moderate republican leanings" was pure WP:OR that seemed to be thrown in there just to give some excuse to include her comments. If we're going to have reactions from prime ministers, put in what was said by all those who said something. Otherwise, simply leave the wording broad and non-specific. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Republican dislike of the royals is not even noteworty here, especially that such and such a republican said this and such a such republican said they also are a republican so they don't like it. Just keep the opinionated soapboxing to a complete minimum, report the wedding not the republican soapboxing attacks. One simple comment will cover them all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I assume that any royalist comments about the wedding are minimized too. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
So minimal I can't even see them. Is there any mention in this article of a monarchist saying the wedding will be a boon for the Crown? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The only pro-wedding type comments mentioned are Elizabeth's & Charles'. Obviously, we can't excludes those, they're William's grandmother & father & so are family comments, not royalist comments. BTW, do we've got any comments from the Middleton parents to put in? GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that unless the wedding proves to be a catalyst for the renewal of either republican or monarchist sentiment, much of these comments are not appropriate for this article. Wikipedia isn't scrapbook for everything that someone said bout anything. Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
When Broadbent's comments were first added, I was of the view that they had no place. Consensus was otherwise. I am still of the view that they have no place, but if Broadbent is quoted, then there should be a representative view of republican comments which is why I have included Gillard. In summary then, all three comments, or none. I personally favour none. Martinvl (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Broadbent isn't mentioned as a "representative view" of anything. He's mentioned because his statements (not his views) were newsworthy and caused some controversy. That makes them notablable enough to include in brief. That William's family expressed the expected happy sentiments, or that some republicans were nicer, really is not notable. If Gillard's or anyone else's statements became part of the story, then list them. If not, then they may not need to be mentioned. I expect every commonwealth politician said "I wish them well" - hardly worth recording. Controversy over the wedding is. (Oh, to refute the title, I'm not a republican if it matters).--Scott Mac 10:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
We should remember that Broadbent is a suffragan bishop, not a diocesean bishop and is therefore not in the top echelons of the church's hierarcy. Also, being newsworthy for a day does not neccessarily warrant an encyclopeadic mention (apart from the article Pete Broadbent). Martinvl (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Broadbent's rank is irrelevant. We go with sources. Sources indicate this was one of the largest stories in the aftermath of the engagement. Not huge, doesn't merit any more than a sentence or two, but there it is. Attempts to suppress this story are ill-founded. It certainly had more coverage than speculation about titles.--Scott Mac 11:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll just repeat myself: the mention of Gillard's "moderate republican leanings" is pure OR and has been pushed in only to give some justification for including any mention of Gillard. It should go and, if it does, then there's no reason to keep Gillard's congratulations at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
May I repeat myself - reading the second paragraph of a reference is hardly OR. Please look at the reference yourself. Martinvl (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where you first said that, but now that you have, I see where her republicanism is mentioned in the source. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
If William & Catherine were getting married in Australia, this would definitely be a keep. Anyways, do as ya'll wish. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Opening line

It's unbelieveable that this is being edit warred over again. So, let's get a few facts straight before we start this discussion again.

  • This article is about a wedding, not the in's and out's of the monarchy and it's structure
  • The vast majority of people know who Queen Elizabeth II is, far more than who know what a 'Commonwealth Realm' is
  • The phrase 'second in line' is perfectly understandable English in a monarchical context for all readers, to suggest otherwise is simply a fantasy
  • The vast majority of readers of this article don't care about the pedantry or semantics being used to justify the repeated changes - the links to other articles are there to explain this, that's what a wiki is

I've AGF'd for a while on this, but now frankly, it's hard not to see the repeated attempts and continued frankly unbelieveable arguments (i.e. the phrase 'second in line' doesn't appear in Google!) as to what readers do and do not understand, all being used to reinsert the language 'the throne in 16 Commonwealth countries' or variations into the first line, as pure monarchical accuracy POV pushing. Yes, the thrones are all separate now (and at the same time joined actually, if people actually read our own articles on the subject), and yes, it isn't just the British throne anymore (even though, like it or not, everyone still uses the term, and it is still well understood, to mean the whole lot, when necessary, and without any better term), and yes most people don't get this intracacy, either through ignorance, or simply not giving a toss, and yes, that's all incredibly sad, and presumably very hurtful for Candadians and Australians and whoever else feels put down by the realities of the world and how people speak, read and understand. But FFS, the first line of this article is not the place to be 'educating' people about this issue, even though we are an encyclopoedia. Just sort your lives out, and ask yourself in all honesty, are you reverting this article for the benefit of all readers, or are you trying to ensure this article is accurate according to what is important to you (but to not a lot of other people at all)?. The opening line should simply explain that William is second in line to Elizabeth II, or something equally simple and universally understood, in as few words as possible, and without assuming that everybody knows, or even cares, what a Commonwealth Realm is, or why there are 16 of them, and whether they have one or 16 thrones, or whatever else. This article has no chance of ever becoming an FA if the vast majority of readers can't even get past the first line without thinking 'wtf does that mean?'. Enough already. MickMacNee (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Howabout ...second in line to the throne of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms. This may be more recognizable to most readers. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how it's any more recognisable, or what assumption that's even based on. It's still an uneeded monarchy lesson masqeurading as a first line explanation as to why this article exists, only in that form it's even longer. The goal is shorter and simpler, not longer and a little bit more 'accurate'. MickMacNee (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
...second in line to the British throne? Afterall, the 15 other realms are mentioned further down in the article. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
No. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a little difficulty understanding how "second in line to the throne in 16 countries" is the "ins and outs of the monarchy and its structure" or what the seemingly self-contradicting claim "pure monarchical accuracy POV pushing" is supposed to mean. The prhase "second in line to the throne in 16 counties" is merely a relatively clearly put, objective, and factual statement. It might seem the bad faith you suspect is coming from others is itself merely manufactured by you in a bad faith attempt to discredit the majority that opposes your edit and against whom you've regularly reverted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Second in line to 16 commonwealth countries, what utter POV tosh, jesus , it could only happen on the silly wiki, that anyoner can have a laugh on. support Mick simple reality, second in line to Queen Elizabeth II - Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I've already made clear my position on the phrase "second in line to Queen Elizabeth II." However, could you elaborate on exactly what POV is being pushed in "second in line to the throne in 16 countries"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • - Some kind of commonwealth pov, whatever, its silly - extremely false representation imo, thats my POV. Perhaps you call them that in Canada but I live in the UK and imo its a made up pointy expression that no one ever would actually say. Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you've stated your opinion. It's just that the reasoning behind it isn't evident. For example, I don't know what you mean by "them" or why accurate expressions should be denied credence because they're not popular. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


Miesianiacal, it's a "relatively clearly put, objective, and factual statement" that just happens to have a clearer, more relevant, and still factually correct statement that could be used instead, for the benefit of all readers, not just the monarchy accuracy minded, especially if people give due weight to the kind of objections to the 'second in line to EIIR' phrase like, it can somehow refer to a grocery queue, or indicates that EIIR is "a destination or something to be inherited". These are frankly ridiculous. Maybe your confusion stems from the fact you spend huge amounts of time editing articles about the monarchy, and therefore, this sort of 'detail' just seems normal to mention to you, as opposed to writing from a more rounded perspective. It's normal info for articles where it relevant, but this is not one of them. MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
And btw, feel free to expand on this supposed 'majority' of editors I am apparently reverting with bad faith (when the only recent edit war over it was to reinstate the monarchically 'accurate' version, as linked above). I count you, GoodDay, and Martinvl, and GoodDay is not exactly unwavering in his support. Counting me, there are at least three people who think it's completely uneccesary, and probably more if I actually went to look rather than just remembering the last few discussions. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
No, Mick. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't like "in line to Queen Elizabeth II" for one reason: its poor syntax. Try to denigrate that adherence to grammar as "ridiculous" and me as a detail-obsessed kook all you want; it won't change my mind. But, that said, it's only a poorly written claim, not a counterfactual one; "in line to Queen Elizabeth II" is not so offensive as to inspire me to revert it if it's put back in. I just won't revert anyone who does decide to replace it with "in line to the throne in 16 countries", or some such version. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
What a waste of time all this crap is. Whats your position now? you promise not to revert if someone else reverts but only to your second preference? Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's go with my proposal: ...second in line to the British throne, it's simplier & more recognizable. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Support - at least I have heard people say that. I am taking this page of my watchlist, taking wikipedia of my watchlist is the next step, what a wasteful time this sort of content discussion is. Pages and pages of archives that two decent working together contributors could agree on in two lines two minutes. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Completely against; violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Billy & Kate are getting married in the UK, live in the UK & met in the UK. Besides, the other 15 realms are mentioned latter in the article. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
That's not relevant; we're talking about what William's in line to inherit, not the wedding or the people getting married. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
We'll see what the others think, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The wedding aint until April 2011, plenty of time to iron out this article. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


I did two Google searchs - one for the text string "second in line to the throne" and one for the text string "second in line to elizabeth" (both strings in double quotes). The first gave over a million hits, the second just one hit, I repeat - just one hit and that hit was irrelevant.

The current text uses the phrase "in line to the throne" and emphasises that it is not just the throme of Great Britian, but the thone in sixteen independent countries. This might be POV, but it is in line with the official positions of all countries concerned, for example here where one find the text "throne of Australia" being quoted in the Australian Parliament. Martinvl (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I will double you twice over - I will assume that Google is out by not one order of magnitude, but by two orders of magnitude, and not two orders of magnitude on one side, but on both sides. That means rather than saysing I found over one million hits one way to only one hit the other way, I will claim 10,000 hits to 100 hits. Still rather one sided. Martinvl (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
This is totally and utterly meaningless, even ignoring the well known technical issues. To try and use Google to answer the question, 'does anybody not understand this phrase' is frankly absurd. I am simply astounded by the logic. But as I suspected, the whole point of this edit war seems to be to emphasise (i.e. POV push) monarchical accuracy, whether it's revelant to the article or not. My original version way back was infact 'second in line to the throne of Elizabeth II', so I'm also glad you agree that this doesn't fail your odd Google test, so we are left with you trying to explain how '16 Commonwealth countries' is such a widely understood term among non-monarchy accurists, that it is worth using that in the very first line of the article, instead of the name of the person which gives even that phrase the only real world relevance it will ever have in this context, for most of the readers arriving here, and who are wanting to read about a wedding, not yet another POV push about the realms of monarchy. It's a tough call to judge which is the most repeated information all over the pedia, either the sovereign indendence of the Irish Republic and all dates therein in triplicate, or the independence of the '16 commonwealth realms' from Britain, even though that independance is infact meaningless, as they cannot unilaterally change their own lines of succession. MickMacNee (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Howabout about my 'above' proposal? GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I still don't understand this "emphasise (i.e. POV push) monarchical accuracy" schtick; "Queen Elizabeth II" seems equally monarchical to "throne in 16 countries" and since when was the pursuit of accuracy in and of itself a violation of WP:NPOV? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Its not relevant. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee seems to think it is; he's said the same thing twice now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed it anyway, its not about that , thats covered in the body of the article, its primarily a wedding. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
This is best, see how it's done at the 3 other British royal wedding articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, if you spend your entire life editting monarchy articles, then you probably wouldn't realise the difference in relevance and utility to the general reader of the name of arguably the most famous monarch in the world, as compared to using the 'accurate' depiction of her realms in it's place. Still, if it all stays out, and the monarchy accurists are happy to leave it at that, then I am too. Better it says absolutely nothing, than readers being forced to read yet more of the 'clarification' which spawns all over the pedia in the very first line of an article which is barely even about the throne or the realms. And after all, if not before, then certainly now, William is probably just as well known to the general readership as his grandma is. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It's good to see we all (I hope) agree, to keep the whole disputed thing out of the intro & thus making this article consistant with the others (which I've already mentioned). GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
You didn't address what I said and asked, MMN. But, no matter, I don't object to nothing there, either. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I can only answer your puzzlement with my own interpretations, I think you would be disturbed if I had the ability to do anything further. And to repeat what I've already said, it's POV in as much as it expects readers to know what it means when many clearly don't, not compared to the alternative, or worse, it's an attempt to use Wikipedia to make it common knowledge. I was not using 'POV' in the sense that there was a neutrality, i.e. NPOV, problem, just that it was pushing one point of view over another (although favouring a level of fore-knowledge in readers, or assuming there is a desire for it outside of the more relevant articles, over tailoring the lede of this article to a general audience, is arguably a presentation of a non-neutral point of view, and therefore an issue of NPOV, but only in the most meta of senses). MickMacNee (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
@GoodDay and all - yes, fantastic - it seems we can all agree, phew, I was giving up. You were the one that finalized the idea, many thanks to all and excuse me - I have been a little fed up about the project today. Off2riorob (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Giggle giggle, it never hurts to have a republican in the mix. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Your interpretation of POV could be thrown right back at you, MMN; you seem to have a "POV" that puts too much emphasis on appealing to the lowest common denominator, to the point that, to do so, you'll sacrifice the use of proper English. But, again, no matter; the sentence is gone now and it's likely you'll never see my points as anything but "ridiculous", anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I would hardly call those readers who have no idea what the 16 realms are, the 'lowest common denominator' (i.e. ignorant scum). I'm fine with catering for normal readers, as that is our mission as a general reference work, under the same principles as WP:JARGON, and as is clearly explained in WP:LEDE and WP:MOS. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Round Two

The majority of us have agreed to keeping the throne stuff out of the intro, Scott. Besides, it makes this article more consistant with the 3 other Royal wedding articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Blasted, cut out the bull-dog approach & take note that consensus hase changed on the intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I do see Scotts point and I also if we are having anything support something close to what we have now - I also support just adding the English throne as all the other guys are minor side issues Off2riorob (talk)
English throne? GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yea. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
See below. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't very much care whether we say "second in line to the throne of 16 commonwealth realms" or "heir to the throne of QEII" or whatever. It's fairly trivial what it says and it is a pity you can't agree.

However, I do object to removing any description whatsoever. This significance of this wedding rests in William's position in relationship to the crown, and the fact his wife will be Queen. We cannot assume that this will be clear to an international audience. Some may think he's the next king, some may not be sure who he is among the princes. It isn't acceptable to solve a Wikipedia debate over the trivial decision of HOW to describe his relationship to the crown, but denying the reader any description whatsoever. So, by all means debate which to use, but leave one of them in the meantime. Go to RFC if you need to, to decide which.--Scott Mac 16:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

English throne? GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yea, the one in London and the Crown Jewels of England - Off2riorob (talk)
It's the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Quite. The English throne was abolished in 1707. If we want to be geographic I suppose we could call it the Westminster Abbey throne.--Scott Mac 16:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
What about the one in the Senate in Ottawa? ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Wait a sec - What's wrong with "...elder son of Charles, Prince of Wales"? GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Assumes people know that Charles is the heir to the throne. It is better to speak directly of William's relationship to the throne, rather than use indirect stuff.--Scott Mac 16:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Or - Diana's first born - English throne abolished in 1707 - Isn't that just propaganda - I need to go read some articles. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Chuck is heir-apparent. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Howabout this - "...second in line to the British throne"? GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
For about the fifth time: That assumes either that he has only the British throne to inherit or, contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW, that the British throne is somehow more important than the other thrones he's to eventually get. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Worldviews see it as British & besides, the royal weddings seem to keep occuring in the UK & never in Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, popular perception is not always accurate and we're not talking about weddings at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
It is not contrary to any wikipedia policy to assume that the British throne is "somehow" more important than the other thrones. It is more important than the other thrones, because it's the only one where he'll actually exercise his monarchical functions on a regular basis. john k (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the first thing that needs to be settled is whether or not the opening sentences should mention, with wording to be later decided on, that William is heir. I believe it should be included, for essentially the same reasons as Scott Mac's. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"...second in line to the throne of Queen Elizabeth II" is an unacceptable wording. Lilibet doesn't own the throne, the state does. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Pedantic and nonsense. Actually, in legal theory she is the state. But the "the throne of x" is often used and easily understood, and avoids the POV problems of specifying a nation. Seems the best option to me.--Scott Mac 17:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The 'the throne of the United Kingdom' then. As for the other commonwealth realms, we don't need to have 'em mentioned in the intro. Billy & Kate aren't getting married in all 16 realms (it would be phyically impossible). GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Where they are getting married is irrelevant. It is about the significance of the marriage and the couple.--Scott Mac 17:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Quite right. Where the wedding's to take place is a total non sequitur. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Anyways, where's the fourth option? - no mentioning of the throne(s) or the Queen in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I hate polling - but

How should Prince William's relationship to the Crown be described in the lead?--Scott Mac 19:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Which to you prefer?

Please indicate first and second choices.

Think this now has enough of a 30 to remove the tag..Lihaas (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

"second in line to the British throne"

  • (British POV? But the UK is the seat of the monarchy, and best associated)
  1. My first choice: Billy & Kate are most associated with this realm. The other 15 realms are mentioned latter in the article. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  3. My second choice - Martinvl (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  4. First choice - clearly the common way of referring to it. It's the British crown that will physically be placed on his head at coronation, after all. Powers T 13:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    It is not the British crown - it is the symbol of all the Commonwealth countries of which (s)he is sovereign - at least that the offical Canadian view Martinvl (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  5. This one. The throne of the United Kingdom is, in fact, the most important one William will inherit, and, at any rate "British throne" is a perfectly acceptable term for the whole institution, even if he will be king of other countries than just the UK. One can, in fact, find Canadian sources that refer to the "British throne". A google search of the CBC website shows many references to the "British throne" and none to the "Canadian throne" or "Commonwealth throne". The same is true for the Globe and Mail. "British throne" is the term used for the monarchy even in Canada. john k (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"second in line to the throne in sixteen Commonwealth realms"

  • (designation not so well known, but avoids UK bias)
  1. My first choice: Not the popular phrasing, but is the most accurate and neutral, adheres to a worldview, and isn't confusing in the least. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. Second choice - but still fine.--Scott Mac 17:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  3. My first choice Martinvl (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  4. Second choice. Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC) First choice Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  5. relucatant second choice since it is more accurate than unspecified or British, but really clunky phrasing. Lessthanideal (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"second in line to [the throne of] Queen Elizabeth II"

  • (Avoids any national designation "the throne of" may be superflouous)
  1. (although my preference is weak - the Commonwealth one is also fine)--Scott Mac 17:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. My second choice: poorly worded, but at least neither biased nor counterfactual. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  3. "second in line to the throne of Queen Elizabeth II", is my 2nd choice. Since we've moved towards having 'throne' or the Queen mentioned in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  4. Equal first choice. Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  5. Until an authoritative text can be found that uses this wording - this is incorrect - every reference that I have seen uses the wording "... the throne of <country>". Martinvl (talk) 7:12 pm, Today (UTC+0)
  6. 'Queen Elizabeth II' is a million times more relevant and accessible to all potential readers, compared to '16 commonwealth countries'. Those editors who seem to really really want to educate the 'ignorant masses' about the whole realms/thrones issue, can do so elsewhere in other articles (and have already tbh, all over the place). And the realms issue is also already linked in the very first para of the EIIR article after all, which readers will be clicking to from here if they really don't have a clue what even that name refers to (and therefore, are obviously not going to have the first clue what the relevance of the 16 realms are either). MickMacNee (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  7. Have to agree with MickMacNee about the relevance and clarity, this is in the lead and should be a summary of the later content which does explain all the realms and thrones bit. MilborneOne (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  8. First choice "second in line to QEII" - he is second in line to QEII with all her titles etc. Who she is, is not the topic of the article. I'd avoid "to the throne of QEII" - could argue it isn't her throne, and unnecessary extra three words. Lessthanideal (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  9. definately the most undisputably neutral and purely factual (the others could be dubious, and you never know by the time hes nearer Scotland may well be independt and following Ireland's lead)(Lihaas (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).
  10. First choice (without the bracketed text). Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  11. First choice (with the current first line) as it defines him by reference to the reason he is famous, however, the wording should be changed to "second in the line of succession to Queen Elizabeth II", to avoid the choice between throne and thrones and to define the line. Having said that the current first line is badly phrased. "It has been announced.." is particularly cumbersome and over-formal. I prefer the simpler "The wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton is scheduled for 29 April 2011." DrKiernan (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  12. This would be my choice as well, though I don't see why the word "succession" has been omitted. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"second in line to the thrones of Queen Elizabeth II"

  1. HM doesn't occupy just the one throne, does she?! And "second in line to Queen Elizabeth II" makes absolutely no sense! Is he the second in a queue to become his grandmother?! That's mental. This is my only favoured option because we clearly can't get away with "UK bias" (how can I get bigger, more sarcastic quote marks?!) and "Commonwealth realms" isn't well-known enough... DBD 18:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Second in line to the [unspecified] throne"

This is a new addition which was added at 10:48 on 19 December 2010. William's title will tell the reader which countries are involved, as will references to Scotland, Wales and Westmister Abbey, all of which appear in the article's lede.

  1. I am happy to make this my second choice ahead of "throne of the United Kingdom". Also, please read the article throne. Martinvl (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Second in line to the Crown"

In reading around the subject a bit, my attention was drawn the the Succession to the Crown Act. The English Parliament has passed six such acts, the last in 1702. On the other hand, Wikipedia only lists one "Succession to the Throne Act" - that of 1937 which was passed by the Canadian Parliament. This suggests to me that technically the correct term should be "Second in line of succession to the Crown". Martinvl (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not just say "possibly the next King of England" and throw accuracy and neutrality out of the window? Acts of English Parliament (which was abolished in 1707) do not in any way determine modern usage of language. --Scott Mac 18:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an "encyclopedia". Specificity counts! Jagislaqroo (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Common ancestry

I deleted the genealogical bit about commons ancestors but have been reverted as some people find it interesting. It may be interesting but has nothing at all to with the wedding and is not really notable to the couple either. Most is original research at ancestry, phrases like circumstantial evidence, There is uncertainty, They may also be is not really encyclopedic. So it should really be deleted mainly as nothing to do with and no relevance to the wedding. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's interesting but irrelevant and may be incorrect, so should be removed. AnemoneProjectors 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It may be unimportant, but it is not irrelevant. The distant relationships among wealthy betrothed and married couples (when there is one), particularly when royalty is involved, is a topic commonly discussed. It is particularly of interest where, as here, one half of the couple is noted as a commoner with an "unworthy" background. While it may only be of interest to some people, it is of interest to them, and so for them is relevant to the wedding. It's not something the two of you (or even I) care about, but it is simply inaccurate to say it is irrelevant. The quality of the source is the valid argument and should be the focus of the discussion. -Rrius (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If it is "commonly discussed" then mainstream and not research sources would be available. When and if the quality press discusses it, then we may say it is "commonly discussed". At the moment it is trivia of interest to few.--Scott Mac 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Even if you were right, your relevance argument would still be your weaker argument since it is subsidiary to the quality-of-sources argument. If you actually want to convince people, why not concentrate on what is most likely to convince them rather than spending time on an argument that tends to alienate people by marginalising their interests? -Rrius (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It isn't me marginalising anything - this hasn't received mainstream discussion and thus isn't commonly discussed. If people can show sources that say otherwise, then I'd reconsider. Whether this is an "interest" of me, you, or unspecified people isn't the point.--Scott Mac 23:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If it is kept (and I don't think it should be), then the text of the article should say who did this genealogical research, which would be one way of indicating to the reader whether this is mainstream historical research, or some guy with a genealogical interest. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what all this detail about their common ancestry has to do with their wedding. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If they were very closely related, it would have some relevance. But you are right, this detail has no relevance to their wedding. It could be placed separately in the articles about them. This will become even more obvious after the wedding, as most of the article will be about what happens on and around the day itself. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The other thing is that the section, as currently phrased, doesn't make clear whether they knew of this relationship before they met. AFAIK, William had never heard of Kate before they met (obviously Kate knew who William was), and there is no indication that they or any mainstream source is interested in any common ancestry. It wasn't like they knew each other, or were moving in the same family circles before they met. This is a discovery made only because interest (from some) in their ancestry increased because of their being in a relationship. Really, the whole section needs to go, completely. What is really needed in the article is how and why they met, and the subsequent course of the relationship. It wasn't like they immediately compared ancestry notes on meeting (though I suppose some people might). Carcharoth (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's where we differ: I don't believe the information is entirely irrelevant to everything; it has a place in Wikipedia. I just don't believe it has a place on this page; any more than a quick mention, at least. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ya did the correct thing in deleting. They're not closely related enough for it to be significant. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
A number of publications including The Daily Telegraph and the BBC have referenced their common ancestry, mentioning that they are proven 15th cousins. It is in the nature of an encyclopedia to clarify such statements where possible. From this it follows that any reasonable suggestions of a closer relationship should also be catalogued. As a part-time genealogist myself, I believe that that the statements asserting that they are 12th cousins once removed have the status "not proven, but worth following up" as opposed to being "proven true" or "proven false". Martinvl (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You haven't explained why all this information is relevant to the wedding. Isn't there some place else it belongs? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If you can tell me where it belongs, I will move it there. Until such time, please leave it where it is. I will be reinstating later. Martinvl (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It isn't relevant to the this article. Also, as 15th cousins, there's no chance of any genetical problems with their future children. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
How about Prince William of Wales#Ancestry? Threatening to revert war isn't certainly isn't going to help your case. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reinstated the section about their common ancestry (which does not belong in Prince William of Wales#Ancestry because it is about both of them, not just William). Obviously the BBC and The Daily Telegraph have found their common ancestry relevant to the wedding, so I think it is appropriate that Wikipedia should follow those publications. Martinvl (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing to indicate that the BBC or The Daily Telegraph find William's and Kate's ancestry relevant to the wedding; only that it's relevant to William and Kate. Odd that the detail about their common ancestors belongs only here when the same isn't the case for other royals or otherwise notable figures, many of whom don't even have dedicated articles on their marriages. I mean, there's Elizabeth and Philip being second cousins (not 15th!), yet, where are the details of that fact mentioned? What is it that makes William and Kate so special in this regard? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the material again. Martinvl, by all means present the argument for including it, and try to persuade people. However, when everyone else concurs with its removal, it is poor form to reinsert it.--Scott Mac 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't concur with its total removal; I was only in favour of reducing the amount of information pertaning to their ancestry. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you make a suggestion as to what you'd like to see?--Scott Mac 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What I pared it down to; essentially what you deleted (with corrections to Martinvl's intervening change). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The information is interesting the BBC, several news magazines and newspapers including the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and The Times have found it so. I would like for the last edit by DrKiernan to be restored. Sundayschild — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundayschild58 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated what both DrKiernan and Miesianiacal added with the additinal wording "circumstantial evidence" regarding them being 12th cousins. This circumstancial evidence is fully described in one of the references and was desceribed by one of my previous edits. Martinvl (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Still not seen any evidence that the presumed common ancestry is relevant to the wedding or a clear consensus that it should be included. The main support appears to be that it is "interesting" and that we have nowhere else to put it, clearly a measure of lack of notability. Also remind editors to gain a consensus to remove or otherwise change the section and not to edit war, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think brief mention is relevant to this article as it is about the union of these two people. I just don't believe this is the place to go into all the detail on the subject. This is what we're directed to do by WP:SS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry still cant see any evidence that it is relevant, none of the references I can see mention that common ancestors or descendants have been invited to the wedding or involved in the planning. I would expect some sort of press release saying the couple have thousands of common ancestors and there descendants have have been invited to the wedding. Nothing outside of what you would expect from a royal wedding. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite get your line of reasoning. William and Kate are getting married. Their marriage closes a couple of loops of ancestral lineage. Hence, their common ancestry is related to the wedding. However, it is not a central part of the wedding - either the reason for it or the planning or execution of it. Hence, it's only worthy of a mention. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps that is the problem I see this as an article about the wedding but others see it as an article about the couple, which it is not. Not unreasonable to have some background info on the couple and the rest of the couple section is fine. But the didnt get together for some important genealogical event, they didnt meet and say we must go out because we are 12th cousins second removed it is not relevant to a summary of the couple, it is not relevant to the wedding. If it is of note then it can be mentioned in the individual articles, but sorry in my opinion (and some others) it is just not relevant. If others feel it should be mentioned then perhaps we should rename the article to Prince William and Kate Middleton and drop the wedding bit. Perhaps a Genealogy of Prince William and Kate Middleton may be better. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yet, I don't see this as an article about the couple; it was I who once deleted the entire section that speaks of the bride- and groom-to-be. But, if that section is to stay, I don't feel the mention of their common ancestry is entirely irrelevant. Still, I'm only repeating myself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with MIESIANIACAL that a short bit about their common ancestry is appropriate. It is now about as short as it can be without sacrificing accuracy. Martinvl (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't truly see the purpose in having it. But, it's not something I'd try to delete. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I truly don't see why this short section keeps being deleted, while the following section, which started out as idle speculation as to what of a series of titles William might be given at their marriage was not deleated but instead rewritten and improved.Sundayschild58 (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Speculation on titles

I was reading this from 12 December 2010 (it is already used as a source in the article), and I found it interesting how tradition can change (or not) in light of such things. It also shows the danger of speculating on such things before any sources publish on the matter. There is also a great bit about why Prince Edward asked to be Earl of Wessex! Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, for the moment, Billy doesn't want a dukedom. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya.seems he wants his wife to be HRH Princess Catherine. I can see this man seeking lots of revenge for his Mama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.80 (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate source (wargs)

We are twice citing [1]. I note the webpage says "should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft". Given that description, is it really appropriate for an encyclopedia to rely on this. The disclaimer would seem to indicate that the author DID NOT in fact think people should rely on his research at this point. I think the source should be removed by virtue of that disclaimer - otherwise we present this as a reliable source of information, contrary to the intention of the author.--Scott Mac 09:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The full sentence is The following material on the immediate ancestry of Kate Middleton should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft. (My emphasis on the word Immediate). Since this disclaimer refers only to the immediate ancestry (rather than the total ancestry), may I put forward the proposition that the author insereted this to protect himself should anybody quote this document in court and that he is called on to defend his position in a legal battle. I therefore see no problem in quoting this as a source - after all where did the BBC and the Daily Telegraph get their information? I think that it was from this research. Martinvl (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a couple of suppositions in there. Firstly, "immediate" is probably in contradistinction to "historical". The researcher will be drawing on previous work for William's ancestry and for that of the historical figures with which he links Kate's family. The disclaimer is to the "immediate" i.e. those of commoners that are not going to be so well documented. But this is a killer, since any mistake made here would mean that Kate didn't connect with the historic ancestry indicated. The suggestion that this is simply to "protect himself" legally is speculative and unlikely - a disclaimer as to accuracy is a disclaimer. We've no idea where the BBC and Telegraph got their information - so we can't speculate there either.--Scott Mac 12:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
As discussed above it is all speculation and not relevant to the wedding, I suspect that anybody with a few hours on ancestry.com or similar could knock up a similar speculative family tree. The wargs page actually says at the bottom that it was mainly done from the bmd and census records, so not really rocket science but no real depth of research. So really should be deleted as speculation and not relevant. Interesting comment on the page This webpage was built as an experiment MilborneOne (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The standard way of doing genealogy from the 19th century onwards is to use Birth, Marriage and death certificates and to link them in with census records. I have been doing that for my own family for the last 20 years (and using church records for earlier periods). If Reitwiesner's research (WARGS = William Addams Reitwiesner Genealogical Services) does not correspond with the BMD and census records, then there is something seriously wrong. For the record Reitwiesner died in November 2010 - those who are interested can look up his record in the Internet and then comment on whether or not his research should be considered reliable. Martinvl (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm only going by the fact that he said that some of the intermediate links on Middleton should not be taken as "authoritative". However, you seem to be saying that he was wrong to say that, and that we can rely on this draft as an authority. Yes?--Scott Mac 13:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Given Reitwiesner's publication record, I would say that he is an authority on genealogy, and is a more reliable source than the newspaper reports otherwise provided as references. Indeed, this is the main reason why I believe Reitwiesner's claim that the twelfth-cousin link is plausible but not proven and disbelieve the newspaper report that they are twelfth-cousins. DrKiernan (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Might I point out, not to dismiss others knowledge of genealogy, that circumstantial evidence can be quite persuasive but without an actual document conclusively establishing the link must still be labeled as not proven, even though if submitted in a court proceeding it would almost certainly be taken as persuasive evidence.Sundayschild58 (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That is why the text reads "... and are possibly twelfth cousins once removed, circumstantial evidence suggesting ...". Martinvl (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
"those who are interested can look up [Reitwiesner's] record in the Internet and then comment on whether or not his research should be considered reliable" I've just done so, and it is impressive, and I apologise for referring to him above as "some guy" (in an earlier section). Really, though, the whole issue of others producing family trees of famous people needs further debate about what should be considered reliable or not. Carcharoth (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Given William Reitwiesner's reputation as a published genealogist I would change "possibly twelfth cousins one removed" to "likely twelfth cousins once removed" but perhaps others do not feel the same. Sundayschild58 (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Official visit to Canada

I think that the note about the offical visit to Canada should be in the article Kate Middleton, not here. That article will need to be overhauled and renamed on 29 April.

I don't see that the royal tour in June/July has any relevance to the wedding. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree visit not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I have added the story to the article Kate Middleton. Martinvl (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course, in time, it should also be added to Royal tours of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Notable Confirmed Invitations"

Just to say I've removed this section as unsourced (as have two others). I don't think we want it sourced or not. A bit of text outlining the type of people invited, with a few examples would be fine. But the nature of the wedding is that 1900 invites have been issued, and many hundreds will be to "notable" people - politicians, celebrities, governor generals. A long guest list would seriously distort the article - and amount to trivia. If such information is thought worthy of inclusion (and I think not) it would need a separate article.--Scott Mac 13:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that we need a section of confirmed invitations - this is not a newspaper. Most of what has been written to date can be modifed after the wedding merely by changing the tense, but an on-going guest list will prove difficult. Since the wedding is just over two months away, it is my view that notable guests should be included in the sub-section "Guest list" after the event when we can get some proper sources. I am expecting to write a line or two about how many heads of state attend (Don Juan Carlos probably will, but maybe as a family friend rather than as a head of state). Martinvl (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for a guest list on internet, but could not find it. But I would be very interested to see such a list on this page, if that would be possible. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The palace press release said that no such list would be issued. Reference is in article. Martinvl (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Would it be best if a new page was created in relation to this issue that is based on both articles affirming the invitation of quests and evidence of attendance on the 29th April. Whatsmore, there are many pages on Wikipedia that refer to the notable guests that have been in attendance of highly advertised events such as this. Cpl123 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It could potentially be a long list, and would distort this article. I've no objection to you creating a list of wedding guests of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton - if anyone does then they can initiate a deletion debate. As for Martinvl comment, heads of state are not being invited. A line saying that 40 foreign royals are would seem to suffice.--Scott Mac 01:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wedding_of_Prince_William_of_Wales_and_Kate_Middleton/Archive_2&oldid=1037898031"