Talk:William, Prince of Wales/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Royal William (Red Rose)

Dear Subjects,

As it came to my attention, the Red Rose in the article is never to be mentioned in the name of Prince William Windsor, for it is in fact created for the King of Prussia, Fernidad Frederick to celebrate the comming of the king. Called (Royal Prussia) ie: the Red Rose.

Chief of Staff Government of Prussia

The House of Hohenzollern King Fernidad Frederick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.249.210 (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Plays polo professionally?

I looked at the citation for this and I couldn't find were it said he played professionally. Who pays him to play polo? 212.84.103.198 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (actually apepper, but not logged in!)

Golden Jubilee Medal

Are we sure he was awarded this? He wouldn't have been eligable? Stupidstudent (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bafta Academy President

There should be a mention of this, as well as the widget link. 78.146.188.245 (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hairloss

Should it be mentioned that William began losing his hair when he was twenty? (92.13.64.160 (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

*Sigh*. Should it be mentioned in a seperate section that he's getting older and older? Demophon (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All the Windsor men suffer from early baldness. Except, peculiarly, for Prince Harry, who is ginger to boot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Stewart Miller (talk • contribs) 10:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting because Charles didn't go bald that early. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.40.174 (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Cheeseman (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but I moved this paragraph from the article:

"Following his parents' examples, William took interest in various causes from a relatively early age. The late Princess of Wales' work with HIV/AIDS aid and prevention, and the Prince of Wales' work with the natural environment and the inner-city disadvantaged, directed William into those areas. He also showed a desire to focus on the needy in Africa, sometimes working with his brother's charity, Sentebale."

It is probably libel, but more importantly, it doesn't have any references. It would be nice to put this back up on the page, but we need a valid reference for it before this paragraph is ready to be re-inserted. Minimac (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything libelous or even slightly controversial about the benign paragraph above? Can you enlighten us as to your thought process?Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! While it would be better to have this properly sourced, I am amazed at the suggestion that it could be libellous to suggest that someone is interested in helping people with HIV/AIDS, or peope in Africa, or the inner cities. This could be rather offensive, impliying several prejudices in one go! PatGallacher (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Relationships

Shouldn't this be renamed seen as only Kate Middleton is mentioned? Do you think 'Marriage' would be too early? How about 'engagement' and then change it to 'marriage' afterwards?--EchetusXe 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Lulworth Army Barracks as the guest of Prince William,[53] in July she attended the Concert for Diana" should have a period after "William" and "in July" should start with an initial cap "I." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.247.41.70 (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

First commoner?

The article states "Kate Middleton will be the first commoner to marry an heir to the throne in 350 years." There are two footnotes for this claim, one to a BBC News article, another to a New York Times article. I can't find that actual claim in either of those articles, and my understanding was that Lady Diana Spencer, although the daughter of an Earl, was legally a "commoner". See also Commoners in Great Britain. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Anne Hyde's father was made a Baron in the same year she married the Duke of York (although her father's Wikipedia article does not make it clear which occurred first) and Earl of Clarendon the next year, so her status was presumably similar to Diana's - although Diana's family was already ennobled at the time of her birth, which the Hydes were not. RGCorris (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is a need to be clear on the definition of "an heir to the throne". Prince William is in the direct male line, but not first-in-line to the throne. Someone with access to the legal definition of the term needs to adjudicate, here. TheAMmollusc (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the best phrase to insert would be "in the direct line of succession". The concept that JackofOz seems to be trying to define as "heir" immediately below me is, of course, the heir apparent. Binabik80 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go to such technical lengths. It's commonly understood that there is only ever one heir/heiress at a given moment. Currently, it's Charles. Should Charles predecease his mother, or become or marry a Roman Catholic, William would become heir. So, no, Kate is not marrying the heir to the throne. She's marrying someone who might expect to become the heir in due course, on the Queen's demise. But who knows, he might fall under a truck, it's happened before. Then Harry becomes next in line, unless Will and Kate have a child. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As there are legitimate doubts about the accuracy and sourcing of this claim I suggest it ought to be removed. PatGallacher (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that Kate comes from a comparatively ordinary background to be marrying someone this close to the throne, but putting it more precisely than this could raise problems e.g. precise definition of "commoner". There is the serious possibility that Kate could be the first queen for some time not to come from a royal or aristocratic family backgound. PatGallacher (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

possible omissions

The article would be more balance if it referred to:

"Prince William was under fire again after it emerged that he had landed his £10million RAF helicopter in girlfriend Kate Middleton's back garden during an official military exercise."

"...the prince was heavily criticised for using another Chinook to fly himself and his brother Harry to a stag weekend on the Isle of Wight."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560834/Prince-Williams-30K-stunt-lands-RAF-helicopter-Kates-garden.html#ixzz15htBrFnU http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560834/Prince-Williams-30K-stunt-lands-RAF-helicopter-Kates-garden.html

86.177.27.42 (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 124.149.183.160, 19 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Prince William's ancestor Margaret Baring (25) does not have her own aricle, but there is a link that takes the reader to the article on her husband, the 6th Earl Spencer. I have never seen that before. Please remove the link.

Trahelliven (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Not done: Actually, that happens fairly often, when a topic isn't notable enough for it's own article, but is mentioned in another, then a redirect to the larger article is made. So, non-notable spouses sometimes redirect to the notable spouse (I know it's true, for example, for the spouse of the current Prime Minister of Canada), a non-notable songs redirect to the notable album or artist, and non-notable company founders may redirect to the company. The principle is that for some reason we've shown that the person/thing/concept isn't notable enough to meet our guidelines for stand-alone articles, but at least this way if someone searches for the info, they get something relevant. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Interlanguage links

There's an empty row in the list of the interlanguage links that causes the bots to mess up the order in other wikipedias' lists[1]. Please fix it. Thanks, ישרון (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully I've fixed it AnemoneProjectors 22:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the bots will make it back in the write order in the other wikipedias. (and i although hope my english isn't full of mistakes) ישרון (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

All Queens and Kings of England? Didn't Anne die childless seeing as her one son died young. She too should as be mentioned as not a ancestor of William.Saimaroimaru (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Prince William is descended from all kings and queens of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom with surviving offspring. Surtsicna (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the section is a bit confusing. The definition of "surviving" appears to be "no descendants at the moment of the monarchs death" although they could have children grown to adulthood during their lifetime, as long as they predeceased the monarch. And why is Edward 8th mentioned in that section, he had no children, is he considered surviving because he survived himself at abdication? Silly. Someone should just rewrite the section with clarity, if we need it at all. NoSeptember 23:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edward VIII is mentioned because he is one of the British monarchs who are not William's ancestors. The section claims that he is descended from all British and English monarchs except for [...] and Edward VIII. It does not claim anything else regarding Edward VIII. Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence as I just read it goes thus: "Prince William is descended from all kings and queens of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom with surviving offspring from William I onwards except for these eighteen: King Henry V, King Henry VI, King Henry VIII (their lines are all extinct), King George IV, King William IV (both of whom outlived their legitimate children), William II, Richard I, Richard II, Richard III, Edward V, Edward VI, Jane, Mary I, Elizabeth I, William III, Mary II, Anne, and King Edward VIII.[71]"

Notes: 1) The first five and the last are all Kings. The rest have no titles.

2) Most of the non-Kings, as well as King Edward VIII, are problematic. I could be wrong, but had heard that, besides Edward VIII, William II and Richard I died childless; this is part of the reason for claims that these latter two might have been homosexual. Certainly Edward V (one of the little boys who died in the Tower), Edward VI, Jane, Mary I, Elizabeth I, William III, and Mary II all did die childless. Anne, as mentioned above, outlived all her (many) children - which, by the way, qualifies her to be listed with King George IV and King William IV, and presumably to get her title back. This leaves Richard II and Richard III. I would have thought them childless too, but am not sure.

3) The sentence implicitly contradicts itself. If King Henry VIII's line is extinct, surely the alleged lines of Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I are too?

But Henry VII had children outside marriage. It is possible that Prince William is descended, through ancestors Elizabeth Knollys and Catherine Carey to the relationship between Mary Boleyn and Henry VIII. The Dictionary of National Biography assumes that Henry VIII was the father of Catherine Carey, confidante, first cousin and possible half-sister of Elizabeth 1st. So Prince William could be directly descended from Henry VIII, but not from his royal line.10:29, 23 December 2010 Pcastellina

Presumably you mean Henry VIII had children outside marriage, not Henry VII ? RGCorris (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

4) I wasn't aware that Jane was normally considered a legitimate Queen of England. It's surprising to find her thus mentioned in a page about an heir presumptive to the successor throne.

5) If Elizabeth I in fact had surviving offspring, her own page should note the religious distinction she obtained by giving virgin birth.

Looks to me like the sentence in question has been over-edited. This page has obviously received a lot of attention from genealogy enthusiasts. Someone with genealogical competence should rewrite that sentence from scratch. The only reason I'm not doing that myself is that I lack such competence and might (against the odds) actually make it worse.

A possible way to avoid this mess happening again would be something like this: "Prince William is descended from all ... with surviving offspring except for these [number]: [list]; he is also not descended from the following ... who left no surviving offspring: [list]." If the whole "surviving offspring" thing matters. I can sort of see the point of emphasising that he's descended from nearly everyone he COULD be descended from - and that means leaving out, for example, Edward V - but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. Might the distinction childless/with issue work better? (This would, of course, move Anne, at least.) Does the split in the list after Henry VIII mean the sentence actually used to be based on the distinction of childless from others?

Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com>

not a registered Wikipedian

97.113.48.200 (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

house name question

I though charles, william, harry are all from house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg due to prince philips. Then why does it list them as from house of windsor. Windsor ends with elizabeth II who is the last windsor monarch. Can someone explain or is wikipedia plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.133.108 (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see House of Windsor#Descendants of Elizabeth II. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

When Charlie ascends the throne, he can decide on which name he wants (likely Mountbatten). GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So, it can be said that there are two royal houses known as House of Windsor; the one Elizabeth belongs to is a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, while the one Charles belongs to is a branch of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, right? Surtsicna (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip & his descendants are members of a branch of the House of S-H-S-G. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As House of Windsor#Descendants of Elizabeth II states, Phillip renounced all of his royal titles and took a surname (Mountbatten) before his marriage to prevent a repeat of what happened in 1917. So even if there were no laws on the books declaring the name to be Windsor, the name of the house would be Mountbatten. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

References to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg are being added to multiple articles related to the Royal Family of the Commonwealth realms, and yet, not one reliable source has been provided. I yesterday began a discussion about this at Talk:House of Windsor#House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Input there by interested parties would be appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Duties

I think that the article is lacking information of William's two visits to Australia in 2010 and 2011, which occurred right after the New Zealand visits of the same years. He visited in order to see the effects of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires in 2010, and then to see the effects of the 2011 Queensland and Victorian floods.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.244.124 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Surname

So, if William's real surname is Mountbatten-Windsor, why is there that videotape of Prince Phillip remarking that he's the only man in the world whose children don't bear his name? What's Charles's last name (Windsor, I believe). Anyway, I'd like to see a citation telling how that Mountbatten part skipped a generation. If the piece is going to open with "surname," it should also mention "that in the case that William goes to school, he might use the surname "Wales," which is what he did. Does anyone really know what the Royal Wedding Certificate will say (or if, indeed, there is one? Have the couple applied for a marriage license (I expect they have) - and that's the name he used? Citation please, as there many people who want to verify that information. Other well known pages on the Prince do not mention this certainty (his last name at his marriage). --LeValley 03:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Descendant of Charles I

I think this part of the ancestry section may be somewhat confusing to some readers. The paragraph starts with "through his paternal grandfather" and appears to continue for two sentences before switching course to "through his mother."

This made me think, for a moment, that the second sentence - "Should he become king, William will be the first monarch since Queen Anne to be descended from Charles I." - also referred to William's paternal lineage. That would make no sense, of course, since Charles would have the same paternal lineage. Taking the paragraph as a whole, we can see that William, through Diana, is descended from Charles II and then figure out that it is his maternal lineage that ties him back to Charles I.

Perhaps the "through his mother" clause could be shifted to the beginning of the sentence regarding Charles one, and the subsequent sentence tweaked a bit to flow naturally? I hate to meddle too much, since this topic is not of great interest to me (merely a WikiTourist checking out the article prior to the wedding).

Relevant paragraph:

"Through his paternal grandfather, William is descended from Henry IV, and James II and VII. Should he become king, William will be the first monarch since Queen Anne to be descended from Charles I. Through his mother, William is of English descent and of remote Irish, Scottish and American descent. Through the Spencer family, he is also distantly related to several American presidents and British prime ministers. Since his mother, Princess Diana of Wales, was descended from two of Charles's II illegitimate sons, Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Grafton and Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, Prince William is likely to be the first monarch ever to be descended from Charles II."

Kosmo99 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

11 AM Wedding

Pr Wm aka Big Willie (his admitted offical nickname w Kate) to marry at 11 AM Greenwich time , 6 AM EST - see TV , Kg of UK (only legite desc from Hen8th) 69.121.221.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC).

Stop press, now Duke of Cambridge

Official title now Duke of Cambridge from 29 April. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.157.178 (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Officially Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus Morhange (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 207.144.55.206, 29 April 2011

In the Titles and Styles section of the page, it is reported that Prince William's full title is "The Prince William Arthur Phillip Louis" etc. According to British custom and as cited on Wikipedia's own "Forms of address in the United Kingdom" page, William is not THE Prince William until, his father, The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, becomes King. Only the children of the sovereign are addressed with a definite article before their names. Please change The Prince WIlliam Arthur Philip Louis... to Prince William Arthur Philip Louis etc. Thanks

207.144.55.206 (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Not sure by whom, but it is done. OCNative (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request : Irish Guards

The list of military titles excludes his appointment as colonel in the Irish Guards (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8481741/Royal-wedding-Prince-William-marries-in-Irish-Guards-red.html). As that dictated his choice of uniform for the wedding, it's probably notable. Chrislintott (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, it's on the list of honourable titles Chrislintott (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing word

"Prince William married Middleton on 29 April 2011 at Westminster Abbey." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.244.156 (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And "On 16 November 2010 it was announced by Clarence House that William and Middleton were to marry" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.244.156 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Army Number

London Gazette, http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/58245/supplements/2075, states William's army (officer) number to be 565841. However, this number appears to have been used before, although within RAF: http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/34986/pages/6394, by an Other Ranks, Flight Sergeant Thomas John Watkins. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

RAF and Army service numbers were issued by different authorities and therefore were not always unique across the Armed Forces. Greenshed (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.183.51.44, 29 April 2011

Kate Middleton, where it is referenced, should read "Catherine" Middleton or "Catherine Elizabeth" Middleton. Please correct these references and also you may want to add her new HRH designation and title which have taken effect with her marriage.

209.183.51.44 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 16:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Article title

I note the move at [2] - obviously it's correct that the new name should be used over the old Prince William of Wales, but I have to wonder, why not "Prince William"?

Wikipedia:Article titles says "shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones" and "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."

The widely used name is clearly "Prince William". It's not clear that this will change in future - and if it does change, firstly we don't know what it will change to (e.g., we might hear "Duke of Cambridge" as the whole thing is a bit of a mouthful), secondly it's crystalballing - we can always change it later on if things change. Similarly, we rarely heard "Prince William of Wales".

It would only be a problem if "Prince William" wasn't sufficient to be clear who we meant - but Prince William redirects here, so evidently there seems to be no concern that this is a problem. If we decide that Prince William redirects here instead of the disambiguation page, it seems to me we might as well make it the article page.

Note even for the Queen, we go with Elizabeth II - there is no need for it to be "Queen Elizabeth II", whatever her actual title may be. Mdwh (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The relevant naming convention is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Royals with a substantive title. As you can see, the current title of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge is in line with that convention, as well as with the articles on his close relatives such as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, etc. Happy‑melon 16:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --Crunch (talk)

Did prince William ever dump Catherine Middleton?

Yes Prince William did dump Catherine in 2007 but they got back together the same year because they couldn't cope with out seeing each other!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.141.43 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The last sentences of the introduction,

On 16 November 2010 it was announced by Clarence House that Prince William and his long-term girlfriend Catherine (Kate) Middleton would marry on 29 April 2011 in Westminster Abbey, London. Hours prior to his wedding Prince William was created Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.[2][3] Prince William married Catherine Middleton on 29 April 2011 at Westminster Abbey.

Should be revised:

Prince William married his long-term girlfriend Catherine (Kate) Middleton on 29 April 2011 at Westminster Abbey. Hours prior to his wedding Prince William was created Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.

The wedding has already occurred. The way it is currently written is repetitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.98.149 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

His patrilineal family should feature more prominently

I think his family on his father's side should be included in the lead section and/or the "Early life" section as well. He is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, the royal house of Denmark and Norway. Garn Svend (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In normal circumstances, perhaps, but he is an unusual case because Prince Phillips's lineage is not as significant as the Queen's in this regard. What makes him a future king is descent in the Royal line of the House Windsor. He is only a junior member of S-H-S-G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.244.156 (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

low low ! - these low titles and lines should be justaposed to the only reel line of Melchesidek, those selected by Heaven to rule & given power of heaven; footnote China belief 1st Imp quin was SOH , son of heaven via dragon dad, a derived chakraverta path, not actual beknighting by G man, Heis de QueeZakHadaRak 13:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk)

In 1960, Queen Elizabeth II issued letters patent that her descendants would continue to be the House of Windsor (text here). This only changes if Elizabeth II or one of her successors issues new letters patent. OCNative (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth, however, is not in a position to decide who counts as members of the House of Oldenburg and who don't. Membership of that house is determined by principles more than a millennium old. Her "letters patent" doesn't even have statutory authority in the UK (let alone the rest of the world), it's merely what one person, who's not herself a member of the House of Oldenburg and merely one of their cognatic ancestors, claims. Even if the claim is considered valid in the UK, it's not considered valid by the rest of the world. All agnatic descendants of Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark are and will be members of the House of Oldenburg/Glücksburg and are considered to be at least outside the UK and by professional genealogists specializing on royal houses and by historians (Michel Huberty, L'Allemagne dynastique, Volume 7, Giraud, 1994, ISBN 2901138071, ISBN 9782901138075). If they visit Denmark, they will be welcomed as members of the House of Glücksburg, the royal family in the country. I could issue a letters patent stating that I am now part of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - but I would still in reality have the exact same parents and ancestors as I did before (the topic of this section is his patrilineal family, not letters patent silliness. Families are not changed by letters patent (by someone who isn't even part of the family)). Garn Svend (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 

William's patrilinear great grandfather and Prince Philip's father, Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark, saw intense action as a major-general in the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) and especially during the climactic Battle of Sakarya when he was commander of the Greek Second Army Corps. I think that since we are already referring to William's uncle, grandfather, great-great-uncle and matrilinear great grandfather participating in various wars as an example of William's recent ancestors' active military service, I think that his great grandfather from his father's side, major-general Prince Andrew, should also be mentioned in this respect. All the relevant references are included in the wikipedia article about Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.82.8 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign States

I see Bermuda is not listed. It's a protectorate, but surely with HMQ as head of state. Just checking whether constitutionally Bermuda should be added to thelist - making seventeen. JHB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.22.93 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it should not. Hot Stop (c) 13:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

On the Ancestry section, why isn't there a thing for Kate Middleton, as he married Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Shouldn't someone add that?--Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

His marriage doesn't affect his ancestry, for obvious reasons. If you are referring to her ancestry, it's on her page. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion she should be at least added to the ancestry to tree diagram, to be marked as a spouse. Even though she was a commoner.--Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow. How do you mean she should be added? Is she his mother or grand-mother or what? Are you sure you know what ancestry means? HandsomeFella (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I support the idea in general, but that's not what the section is for. Hot Stop (c) 02:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Middleton's ancestry obviously is irrelevant in this article. Also, Middleton's ancestry consists in its entirety, unlike William's, of completely unnotable persons. It's only his wife who is notable, and only through her marriage to William. Garn Svend (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Royal Society

I cannot find any reference for him being promoted to Royal Fellow of the Royal Society. The only references are to him being inducted as an Honorary Fellow of the society last year in 2010. I was under the impression the Royal Fellow was reserved for members of Royalty that are scientists in their own right. Can somebody please find a supporting reference for the current assertion on the article. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 19:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not many scientists at http://royalsociety.org/about-us/fellowship/royal-fellows/ but Prince William is listed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Name pronuncation

On the wedding, he said "I, William Arthur Philip Louis", and pronounced Louis in a French manner: Lou-ee. Why? Isn't Louis pronounced the same as Lewis? HandsomeFella (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, Louis is pronounced the French way. Stelmaris (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

The picture of the coat of arms here does not correspond with what the Royal family has declared it to be. On this website: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/thedukeandduchessofcambridge/thedukeofcambridge/biography/coatofarms/index.html it shows a bit of a different picture. This picture (from the website) is the picture that was placed in the wedding pamphlet (also available online, but I don't want to look for it right now). Maybe I don't understand the details, but if it is different, can someone change it to be the accurate version? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.149.121 (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

UK Oldest Realm

From the article: "...although he is resident in, and most directly involved with, the United Kingdom, the oldest of these realms."

It suggests a eurocentric bias to suggest that the United Kingdom is older than India, Australia, and many other civilisations who populated those lands prior to the inhabitation of the British Isles.

I believe "...the oldest of these realms" should be removed, it's inaccurate and highly dismissive.

Discuss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.120.199 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• The UK far precedes other Commonwealth realms, which gained that status in the 20th century with independence. That's not to say that British civilisation precedes that of other countries, which it doesn't. Incidently, India, though a member of the Commonwealth, is a republic rather than a Commonwealth realm. The Celestial City (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite quite, UK is by fr older than Innnndia or Aussie lands, see peet bog man, etc - Queen Michelle Pippa of Kenyan Oldevai Gorge, FIRST upright ap strolla in wh hs 13:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)~

If we're talking COUNTRIES rather than inhabited bits of geography then "oldest of these realms" may indeed be correct. Australia has only existed since 1901, the Republic of India has only existed since 1950. ~ Brother William (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II isn't India's head of state and, as things stand now, William will not be either. India, and indeed any country that isn't a Commonwealth realm, therefore isn't relevant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 11:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadian artist?

Is the reference to his portrait with squirrels by Charles Pachter relevant to the article? Is this possibly self-promotion or friend promotion? I don't think this fact is important to his relationship with Kate, was official, or made any major newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningbug (talk • contribs) 02:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above comment. It's actually VERY pathetic. It is fantastic someone is very proud of this- "Chuck" but the continuous manipulation of Wikipedia's goodwill is disgusting. If Mr. Prachter is that talented, he will surely find acclaim on his own, without constantly and consistently adding his name to Prince William's Wikipedia page. In no shape or form does the mention of Charles Prachter "painting" Prince William and Princess Catherine into acrylic and an "inkjet" artistic depictions with moose and squirrel educate me any further on who Prince William is. Neither does it cast any further illumination on the monarchy itself. Janedoewalks (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... Have a read of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, please. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

William IV or V ?

If William becomes King and uses his given name as his regnal name, he would be the fifth King William of England but the fourth King William of Scotland. I recall there was some controversy regarding the proposal to name the Clyde-built Cunard liner code-named Q4 "Queen Elizabeth II" as the present monarch is the first reigning Queen Elizabeth of Scotland, hence the decision to name it "Queen Elizabeth 2" as the second liner of that name, rather than the second monarch. So would he be known as William IV and V in the way his ancestor was known as James VI and I ? How did it work in Scotland with Edward VII and VIII of England ? RGCorris (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It was decided that the highest numeral will be used. Thus, William will reign as William V in all his realms. William IV of the United Kingdom was not called William III in any part of his realm. Surtsicna (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is of no matter which number is used for Scotland, since Scotland and England were joined in the Union as the realm of Great Britain. Thus, William will be known as King William V of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.78.97 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the highest ordinal number possible from an English, Scottish, or British perspective is used. So for example, a new king who took the name "David" would be David III of Great Britain because there have been two Scottish kings by that name. 24.196.64.2 (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. Although the monarch's regnal name is his or her royal prerrogative, I once read a parliamentary question from the 1950s to the PM of the day (Churchill) about this with regards to Queen Elizabeth II. She was styled Elizabeth II in Scotland as well whereas there never had reigned a I in Scotland. The answer of the PM was that the monarch would in the future use the highest ordinal of either Scotland or England (count starting from the Norman Conquest). Of course a future King or Queen could always deviate from it if he or she wishes to do so... See http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1953/apr/15/royal-style-and-title -- fdewaele, 13 May 2011, 9:06 CET.

To quote Churchill (HC Deb 15 April 1953 vol 514 cc199-201 ):

The decision to assume the title of Elizabeth II was of course taken on the advice of the Accession Council and the form of the proclamation was approved by Her Majesty's Government. Since the Act of Union the principle to which my right hon. and gallant Friend refers has in fact been followed. Although I am sure neither The Queen nor her advisers could seek to bind their successors in such a matter, I think it would be reasonable and logical to continue to adopt in future whichever numeral in the English or Scottish line were higher. Thus if, for instance, a King Robert or a King James came to the throne he might well be designated by the numeral appropriate to the Scottish succession, thereby emphasising that our Royal Family traces its descent through the English Royal line from William the Conqueror and beyond, and through the Scottish Royal line from Robert the Bruce and Malcolm Canmore and still further back. Her Majesty's present advisers would for their part find no difficulty in accepting such a principle. From this it naturally follows that there should not in their view be any difficulty anywhere in acknowledging the Style and Title of Her present Majesty. -- fdewaele, 13 May 2011, 9:10 CET.

Isn't his last name Mountbatten-Windsor?

Isn't his last name Mountbatten-Windsor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.36.229 (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No. If you were to read the article carefully, you would know that, "As a titled royal, William holds no surname" DBD 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But yes, of course he is a Battenberg. To be found in any peerage list containing full names and titles. It should be written in full in his Royal Highness' travel passport either. Certain people seem to be ashamed to mention German relatives like Battenberg (later Mountbatten) converted to 'Windsor'. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mountbatten Compare to http://wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/wiki/William_Mountbatten-Windsor Also, the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg is and always has been involved. So, no reasons to be worried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.55.135 (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Of course" - no such rubbish. He is related to people named Battenberg, but he himself is not a Battenberg. He himself would use some combination of Mountbatten, Windsor and Wales - but never in a million years would he ever use the name Battenberg. The question was about his last name. The decision to change to Windsor was made by his great-great-grandfather in 1917, and his grandfather's decision to choose the name Moutbatten was made in 1947. William is in no position to change any of that. It has absolutely nothing to do with "shame" about any relatives. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Peerage

Is it custom that he will get a peerage title upon his marriage? It is custom that a son of the sovereign gets a ducal title, but I don't know about the eldest grandson. Would he get a title as Earl? Could somebody enlighten me about this? Diodecimus (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is customary for the second in line to the throne to receive a Dukedom, either on marriage or beforehand. The immediately previous precedent for this is Prince Albert Victor, eldest son of Albert Prince of Wales (or 'Bertie', later King Edward VII), who received the Dukedom of Clarence.

Talking of which, I have removed the reference to the Duke of Connaught as a possible candidate for Prince William on his marriage. It is specific policy not to use re-create titles referring to the Republic of Ireland (Connaught is one of the three Provinces of the Republic, the other two being Leinster and Munster). Ds1994 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ow okay, I didn't know that. Diodecimus (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there's anything legally preventing the Queen from granting him such a title... The Telegraph mentioned Connaught as a potential title. - MichiganCharms (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't believe everything you read in newspapers. It would be extremely unlikely that the Queen would grant the title Duke of Connaught, as it specifically refers to the Province of Connaught in the Irish Republic. Having gone down the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement, it would be foolish to aggravate the Irish people by granting a Dukedom referring to a Republican country whose Kingdom was finally abolished in 1949. I have again removed the reference to this title. I have also removed the reference to St Andrews, as this already exists as a royal title, the Earl of St Andrews, who is currently the heir to HRH The Duke of Kent. You cannot have an Earl of St Andrews and a Duke of St Andrews at the same time. Ds1994 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

More recently than Edward VII, George V married in 1893, having being created Duke of York the previous year. His situation is more proximate to that of William as he too was then second in line to the throne (after his father, Edward VII). However York is already taken by Prince Andrew ... IXIA (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

George actually married the intended bride of his elder brother, Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, who had died the year before. George's position would be more proximate to that of Prince Harry if William should die young. RGCorris (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince Charles has a numbe of subsidiary titles . Subject possible to the consent of the Queen and his father, as the eldest son he could possibley use by courtesy one of these. Either Earl of Chester or Earl of Carrick would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trahelliven (talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not list his subsidiary titles like in the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington article? (scroll to bottom) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.156.35 (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Constantine II of Greece

Okay, this isn't very useful, but the bit at the beginning of the article about William's christening names his godparents, including Constantine II of Greece, who is described as his "paternal cousin". I incorrectly interpreted this to mean his first-cousin, and was surprised, but then I wikied Prince Philip's family and found that Constantine II of Greece was actually Prince Charles's second-cousin. So I think it can't hurt to add this extra level of precision, from "paternal cousin" to "father's second-cousin". Can someone do this, as I'm not allowed to change the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.214.119 (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Paternal cousin means a cousin on his father's side. I don't know if anyone would assume this meant necessarily a first cousin. But anyway, what is the exact change that you are suggesting? --Crunch (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume first cousin too. I support changing it to father's second cousin. Hot Stop (c) 05:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, "second-cousins once removed", or "second-cousin of his father". HandsomeFella (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that "cousin" is ambiguous and misleading. It should be changed to something less confusing, but can't really be changed to suit the exact degree of kinship since, for example, Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy (another of his godparents) is stated as a "paternal cousin" when technically she is a "paternal second cousin once removed and maternal cousin twice removed". The latter is too long-winded, obviously. OlliffeΦObscurity 09:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter (KG)

His Royal Highness was installed as the 1,000th Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter by The Queen, however it is not used in the lead of the article. I have taken notice of the relevant Wikipedia rules surrounding post-nominals Wikipedia:POSTNOM and conclude that it is permissible to use the post-nominals after William's name and title as of marriage as it does not contravene the rule "In special cases where an individual (e.g. Charles, Prince of Wales) holds a large number of post-nominal letters and/or seldom uses their post-nominal letters (for instance because they hold a much "higher" style), that individual should be considered exempt from this practice.." - as Prince William does not hold as many titles or post-nominals of honours' as the Prince of Wales.

Furthermore, on the official British monarchy website on Prince William's page, the Prince's style and title is listed as 'HRH Prince William of Wales KG' (although I think they have neglected to update that particular page as of HRH's marriage to Catherine Middleton) and so the authority for royal titles and styles I would think would be those who possess or are in the greater knowledge of them. I just thought I would instigate a discussion as I have previously added his post-nominal but it was speedily removed, ergo I thought I'd better explain my reasoning behind re-adding it. PoliceChief (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Canadian royal standard

It seems that William's standard for Canada keeps making its way into the template for his coat of arms in the UK. This is entirely inappropriate, since, unlike his other standards, the Canadian standard quite obviously has no relationship with the UK arms. The Canadian standard could well do with a better way of being presented in the article; but, putting it in the template is just not on. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Following on the above: Perhaps someone with a little more vexological/heraldic knowledge could say whether the Canadian standard should be in the "Arms" section at all. I know personal standards are typically the banner form of a coat of arms, but, in this case, I see no arms from which the banner derives besides the Royal Arms of Canada, and those belong to his grandmother as sovereign. So, I'm a little confused. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Duke William not Prince William

If he is the Duke of Cambridge, why is he still called Prince William, shouldn't he be called Duke William?Racingstripes (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Because he did not cease being a Prince of the United Kingdom when he became Duke of Cambridge and because, in the United Kingdom, peerage titles such as duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron (and their feminine counterparts) are never used in conjuction with the holder's name. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a little misleading. Most earls, viscounts and barons have titles that are exact copies of their surname. Now, one could argue that their titles are not the same thing as their surname, but are just sometimes coincidentally spelt the same. That is, when we talk of Baron Smith, that's a different Smith from the Smith that was, and remains, part of the name William Victor Smith (as he was known before he became Baron Smith). But that would be a very fine and not particularly useful distinction. None of the foregoing applies to the titles held by marquesses and dukes, which are always named after a place, not a person. As to the central part of the question, I agree with you that it would never be Duke William. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just popular usage. Charles is always and mostly called Prince Charles and less (but definitely not rarely) as the Prince of Wales.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

He still is Prince Charles, so it's not wrong to call him that. But it would be wrong to call him "Prince Charles of Wales", just as it would be wrong to call his elder son "Duke William". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal interests additions

Since the article is locked to unregistered edits (understandable), I'd like to suggest the following be added under the personal interests, perhaps under an "Other" subhead. While they seem trivial, the fact they have become known in a public forum (the just-completed tour)is another sign of how the Duke is changing the rules of the openness of the monarchy:

Candid moments caught on video and reported by journalists during the Duke and Duchess's 2011 tour of North America revealed additional insight into William's personal interests. During his visit to Inner City Arts in Los Angeles, he expressed knowledge of and a liking for the cartoon TV series Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles during a discussion with the youth.[3]. During the same visit, Catherine told some students about William's love for computer games [4]. Several media outlets such as the Telegraph reported that the Duke and Duchess "made a beeline for" actor James Gandolfini, star of The Sopranos, during an event hosted by BAFTA, over other A-list celebrities at the event [5]. During a portion of an event hosted by Service Nation Mission Serve, in which William participated in assembling care packages for military families the Daily Mail and other media reported that he expressed interest in one of the items - an Uno card game, indicating that "I used to play this a lot."[6]

68.146.71.145 (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Cornwall

Upon Prince Charles ascendance to the throne, would William be both Duke of Cornwall and of Cambridge?--Coquidragon (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland (my personal favorite of the titles) too, as those titles pass automatically to the heir apparent (though if Charles predeceases the Queen, he couldn't be Duke of Cornwall). Hot Stop (c) 05:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What would he be known as? Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge? Cambridge and Cornwall? Just one or other, but which one, and why? Or would Rothesay be part of the mix as well? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume Cornwall, because that's an older title (but he would likely be invested as Prince of Wales, which would take precedence over both). Rothesay would be used in Scotland either way. Hot Stop (c) 06:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

He would be "HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge" (cf. HRH The Duke of Cornwall and York) in England and "HRH The Duke of Rothesay and Cambridge" in Scotland. Surtsicna (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So if/when the Duke and Dutchess have their first son, will the little fellow rate the courtesy title of "Earl of Strathearn"? It's a valid Wikipedia question since the boy will certainly have his own page the moment he's born. 24.196.64.2 (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In answer to the various questions posed, one can look at the precedent set by Edward VIII who was born while his great-grandmother was still alive. In reality, the Palace will establish the titles by which he is to be known. Wikipedia editors will just have to be patient, but it is probalbe that any preferred title will be published simulatneously with teh birth announcement. Martinvl (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Normally a male line grandson (from any of the soverein's sons) or a greatgrandson in the direct line of succession (as a son of WIlliam and Kate would be if born during the Queen's life) is entitled to the title Prince N. of X (title father). The notable exception to this rule is the son of Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex, whose son (at his request) was given the style of a son of an earl and is thus styled Viscount Severn after his father's junior title. But there is discussion wether a press release of the Queen has the necessary legal force to do it and the boy's real legal style should be HRH Prince James of Wessex. -- fdewaele, 13 May 2011, 8:46 (CET)

Good point, looking at the articles for Edward VIII and George VI, it seems that any children born to Kate and Wills while the Queen and Charles are still alive will be known as Prince/Princess X of Cambridge. When the Queen dies, if Charles and Wills are both alive, the children will then become Prince/Princess X of Cornwall and Cambrige, when Wills is made Prince of Wales they will then become Prince/Princess X of Wales. I understand that it is not normal for the royals to use courtesy titles, although this is happening with Viscount Severn. PatGallacher (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A courtesy title is normally not used for persons who are Royal Highnesses. For instance, as male line grandsons of George V, the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are entitled to HRH and Prince Richard and Prince Edward. Even The Duke of Kent's younger brother is known as HRH Prince Michael of Kent. But the duke's sons, being merely great grandsons of the sovereign are not RH and are styled Earl of Ulster and Earl of St. Andrews, the courtesy title befitting of children of a Duke. -- fdewaele, 13 May 2011, 14:45 CET.

As a matter of fact, wouldn't otherwise the Prince himself have been a "Prince William, Baron Greenwich" or the like prior to his elevation to peerage? --91.34.245.12 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the above is incorrect. Prince William is a grandson of the Sovereign. Under Letters Patent of 1917 children of male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign are styled as children of Dukes (even if their father isn't actually a Duke, e.g. Lord Frederick Windsor) - except the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, who is still HRH and Prince. So if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a daughter, she would be Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor. If they were to have twin sons, the elder would be HRH Prince Y of Cambridge, and the younger would be Lord Z Mountbatten-Windsor. Opera hat (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

We need to change it where it says he will be the first monarch since Queen Anne to descend from Charles I and Charles II. It makes it sound as if Anne desceded from Charles II. GBS 82 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In his ancestry there is no mention of his Scottish ancestry from his paternal great grandmother "The Queen Mum". As it stands now he inherited only German, and English from Charles and some Scottish from his mother who is considered mostly English. Lotfinia (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not heir to the position of head of the Commonwealth

At least according to the Telegraph (which tends to be right on matters of arcane royal technicalities), William is not 'heir to being head of the Commonwealth'. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7398887/Prince-of-Wales-could-lose-out-on-Commonwealth-leadership.html and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8169583/WikiLeaks-Commonwealth-official-says-Prince-of-Wales-does-not-command-same-respect-as-the-Queen.html. Although it is often assumed that the head of the Commonwealth must be the monarch of the UK, and this has always been the case (since there has only been one head of the Commonwealth, Queen Elizabeth), there is no official stipulation that the offices must coincide, and will be put to the vote when the Queen dies - Charles being the least controversial candidate, presumably, and William after him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.103 (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right. But he's not even heir to the throne yet, so I'm not sure what the Telegraph's purpose is in discussing this issue when William is still a generation removed from the action, as it were. I suppose it's not impossible that King Charles or George or whatever he calls himself could defer to William as Head of the Commonwealth, but it will still be decided by vote, not appointment. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This "Charles (or William) won't inherit the position of Head of the Commonwealth" bit seems to be a myth. Elizabeth inherited the post from her father, why wouldn't Charles, in turn, inherit it from his mother? Was there some change to the London Declaration? Do the laws of 16 countries that make the sovereign's title in each include the words "Head of the Commonwealth" mean nothing? Someone at the Commonwealth offices either made an error or their words have been misinterpreted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that those are personal titles that apply only to the current monarch. Charles III/George VII will most definitely not be called "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God ...". Not in any realm. Now, did she "inherit" the title from her father, or was she simply the next appointee? Where does it say that the title Head of the Commonwealth has now merged with the Crown and will always ipso facto be held by the monarch? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It says quite clearly in the London Declaration that " the King [is] the symbol of the free association of [the Commonwealth's] independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth." I know of no subsequent amendment that removed that provision.

Then Head of the Commonwealth needs fundamental revision, as it currently says: "The first Head of the Commonwealth was King George VI, who was succeeded by the second and current Head of the Commonwealth, Queen Elizabeth II." (Note that it doesn't say she got it because she inherited it merely because she was the king's daughter and heiress presumptive.) "The office is personal to Queen Elizabeth II and there is no agreement concerning whether the office will continue to exist after her death." Let's assume it will continue; the London Declaration was an agreement among prime ministers and it can be superseded by later agreements. It is not enshrined anywhere in the law that it can only be the monarch. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If the present Royal Style and Titles Acts apply only to the current sovereign, what is it, then, that Charles will be called between the time he acceeds to the throne and when new legislation is passed? Charles Windsor? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I was waiting for that. I don't know the answer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Official Commonwealth site] says "When the Queen dies or if she abdicates, her heir will not automatically become Head of the Commonwealth." "The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth in a personal capacity and the position is not an inherited one." The Commonwealth Society says "Queen Elizabeth II's heir will not automatically become Head of the Commonwealth." DrKiernan (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Royal Monogram of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge

Under the 'Titles, Styles.....' section a Royal Monogram is depicted for Prince William. The relevance for the file used must be questioned as the wrong coronet is being depicted in the monogram (the coronet depicted is the Type II Princely coronet reserved for the children, brothers and sisters of the Sovereign, as opposed to the correct Type III coronet reserved for children of the Heir Apparent, differenced by two strawberry leaves either side of the coronet in place of the crosse-pattee). Can someone replace the file with the correct version please (as depicted in the official website)? If not, I will delete it. Ds1994 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Interests Request for change

article is incorrect in stating that HRH Duke of Cambridge is an F.C. Barcelona supporter, which is incorrect, he is in fact an Aston Villa F.C. suppo rter as stated by the supporting article MattDBCUK (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)MattDBCUK

 Done Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Younger than Catherine

Is the fact that his wife is older than him by almost 6 months worth mentioning? Roger (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No. It is trivial and irrelevent. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

foreword notable?

Is it really notable that Prince William wrote the foreword to a book? Does anyone actually care? He's not likely to become an author and I think it's trivial and ought be removed. Should it noted every time he plays polo as well? 74.69.127.200 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect not notable he is likely in the future to write many more for charities and subjects related to his military connections. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Initial concerns of tensions

I guess this page is not kept much up to date...

In the lead it says "There were initial concerns that Prince William's service [in the Falklands] would raise tensions"

...?!?

It HAS raised tensions! ("Argentina lodges formal protest with UN" - that's pretty tense)

Though no single news story that i have personally seen makes a direct link, one has to be pretty disconnected from reality to misconstrue the facts. It could be mentioned in the article, even without highlighting a causal link, that a) William is in the Falklands; b) HMS Dauntless is in the Falklands; c) Cristina Fernandez is getting upset. BigSteve (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal Monogram of HRH The Duke of Cambridge

As previously mentioned in the first archive page (and which now seems to have been deleted), I have deleted the Royal monogram in the article as the incorrect coronet for Prince William is being depicted. Both HRH The Duke of Cambridge and HRH Prince Henry of Wales are entitled to the 'Type 3' coronet as confirmed by Royal Warrant of KIng George V in 1917, (children of the Heir Apparent) and not the 'Type 2' as depicted (as currently used by HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, HRH The Duke of York, HRH The Earl of Wessex, and HRH The Princess Royal) . Please do not re-insert the Royal monogram until a source is found for the correct version.Ds1994 (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have once again deleted the Royal monogram as the incorrect Princely coronet is being depicted in the monogam. To make it clear the TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are entitled to the Type 3 Princely coronet as laid down by Royal Warrant of King George V of 1917, where two of the crosse patte are replaced by two strawberry leaves. Please refer to the Coat of Arms of HRH The Duke of Cambridge provided in the article where the correct coronet is depicted. Until a source is found for the correct Monogram, please do not re-insert, as it is both misleading and incorrect.Ds1994 (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Protection needed on this article

Please provide auto-confirmed only protection for this page. I'm not sure who or where to ask for this. Some one with only an IP address keeps deleting the Joint Service Achievement Medal from this article. Personally, I believe that only confirmed users should be able to make changes ANYWHERE on Wikipedia, but until that happens, I guess we need to protect the articles that are edited by people that don't know what they are doing. Thank you. Emt1299d (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bermuda

Bermuda was listed as one of the Commonwealth Realms. I deleted that comment since Bermuda is a UK dependent territory and not a Commonwealth Realm. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Why delete/ Why not just fix the error? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I just deleted the word Bermuda from the list (plus a remark about it being the oldest Commonwealth country) and thereby fixed the error. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Navboxes for Catherine and William

I started a discussion at Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Separating the Duke and Duchess's navboxes., regarding the potential separation of William and Catherine's navboxes. Please see the discussion there and weigh in if you have an opinion. Thanks! --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Arms box

I removed the mention of the Strathearn title from the text about his standard for Scotland. Unlike his father, who is known by an alternate title in Scotland (Duke of Rothesay, being the heir), the Duke of Cambridge is not. The Strathearn title is additional, to be carried by his eldest son as a courtesy title when one is born. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As already outlined below, you are quite wrong. The Duke of Cambridge is known by HRH The Earl of Strathearn in Scotland. Indeed, when he was installed as a Knight of the Thistle in Edinburgh, he attended this ceremony as HRH The Earl of Strathearn. All three titles held by Prince William are substantive titles. Ds1994 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source for what you're talking about? Because from what I understood from the royal wedding website, Strathearn was an alternate title, not an additional one. But I don't know a lot about this, so I'm interested to see a source for what you're talking about. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not true, Gerard. Subsidiary titles of a peer are carried by the peer and are only used by a peer's sons as a courtesy. A peer does not hold his subsidiary titles "in trust" for his offspring, he holds them fully. A peer's children, although called "Lord" or "Lady" by courtesy, are legally commoners until they actually inherit a peerage when their predecessor dies. As a matter of fact the forthcoming baby will be a commoner if a daughter and if her great-grandmother the Queen is still alive: the rules so far provide that only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales is a Prince and a Royal Highness. Whether a female baby becomes HRH by Letters Patent is another matter altogether: until then she will be "Miss (or"The Lady", by courtesy) [X] Mountbatten-Windsor".

There is also some confusion regarding the succession: papers proclaim that the baby will be a future sovereign regardless of sex: this is actually true in that the baby's rights will automatically supersede those of Prince Harry, as British royal sons and daughters always come immediately after their parents in the line of succession. This is why Prince Andrew's daughters precede Prince Edward even by the current, i.e. the old rules, which may seem counterintuitive but isn't. The true question to be settled is whether an elder daughter of Prince William will precede her younger future brother in the line of succession from now on. This has supposedly been agreed by all Commonwealth realms, but will probably have to be written in law some time in the future as well, as the rules of succession have been set by Act of Parliament and therefore can only be changed by another Act of Parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.103.253.221 (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It is being changed by Act of Parliament - the Bill in question is currently being drafted and will be presented to Parliament shortly. A similar process will also take place in other fifteen Realms in which the first child of TRH's will be King or Queen.Ds1994 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Royal Duties

Under Section: Royal duties and career, Subsection: Royal duties, at the end of this section, can add, "The oldest Prince of Wales (as the English and British heir apparent) at the start of his tenure was George V who was 36 years, 5 months and 6 days old when he assumed the office. Prince William will surpass this record if he is created Prince of Wales any time after 16 November 2018 (two days after his father's 70th birthday)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.7.221 (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sir name

What are their sir names? Why just "prince william, duke of wales", etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.247.23 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Royals don't use surnames. Now the Royal House is called Windsor. So for Royals (HRH's) the default surname if they want to use them seems to be Windsor. For male line descendants of the Queen and Prince Philip who do need a surname (because they are not peers or HRH's) the surname Mountbatten-Windsor applies.At this point there are no people around whom that would apply to. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Prince Wiliam- named for whom?

I've inserted a {dubious-discuss} tag on the claim that William was named in memory of his father's cousin, the late Prince William of Gloucester. The source cited for that claim is a breezy Daily Mail article which is all speculation and contains no reliable sources. In a quick Google search, including Google Books, I can't find any backup for this idea, but this website cites a 1982 Times article at the time of Wiliam's christening, quoting the Prince of Wales as stating that the name was chosen because there were no living relatives by that name. I don't have access to the Times myself, but perhaps another editor can find the article and reference it here, revising the dubious claim. Textorus (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

Most infoboxes for royality, monarchs, heads of state, etc. list a specific denomination, not the broad term "Christian". Regardless of the hair-splitting semantic argument that "the Church of England is a denomination not a religion" (itself a matter of opinion), there is no reason this article should be an exception to the prevailing consensus throughout Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to say 'Church of England' than by all means do so as 'Denomination: Church of England'. It's not really a hair-splitting argument e.g. OED has 'denomination' as 'recognized branch of a religion'. I would go so far as to state that all the info-boxes listing religion as a specific denomination are wrong and should be changed. Murray Langton (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

An infobox parameter cannot be changed; so the parameter "Religion" cannot be changed to "Denomination" unless there is consensus on the infobox's talk page and the code for the infobox is changed. To many people, it's hair-splitting. So far, Murray, you are the only editor trying to thrust this exception for this article. Specific denominations in similar infoboxes are the general rule on Wikipedia. If you want to change all of the infoboxes, take it up on the talk pages for the infoboxes. But please don't continue to slow-motion edit war this issue without a clear consensus here. Cresix (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Why does this article have such a bad picture of the Duke as the main photo? Surely we can find a better one. Akwdb (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you suggest one? Surtsicna (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Speculation over gender of expected child

Is this a topic worthy of inclusion in the article, particularly in view of the decision by the couple not to discuss the matter in public. Or does it depend on the quality and/or reliability of any sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No it is not relevant or notable, this is an encyclopedia and we are not in a hurry we can wait for the birth and official announcement. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As the speculation has been very widely published around the world then I would like one of those who removed it to explain why it cannot be added to the article. Bo.Clive (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid and we dont do speculation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The source given (The Telegraph website), which has an embedded video clip, does not seem very convincing. Personally I don't accept that the content of the video soundtrack there actually supports the speculative claim made in the text of the article. Is there any better source? In general, however, I agree with MilborneOne above - it's just unnecessary. Wikipedia generally deals in established facts. Not all births are successful, alas. We need to avoid WP:CRYSTAL Martinevans123 (talk)

I can understand and accept that we should not add our own speculation, but please explain why we can't add this reliably and widely documented speculation by others. Omitting it leaves a gap in the the encyclopaedic account of the facts. It isn't our job to judge the quality of reliably sourced facts. Bo.Clive (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think The Telegraph is guilty of worthless tabloid journalism. Do you have any other source, since you say it is "widely documented"? It is very much "our job" to judge the quality of all sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It's on many mainstream online services including: CNN, ITN, the Telegraph, Hello, The Week, NBC, LA Times, USA Today, ... Bo.Clive (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

And it all stems from this one, coincidently recorded, slip-of-the-tongue? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Put that in then, if that's what the sources say. Bo.Clive (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If you read WP:CRYSTAL you will see "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content". I believe that a simple way of looking at future events is to ask "How will this statement be changed after the event - what will still be significant?" I believe that since speculation about the gender of the Prince's first child will be scrapped, it is not appropriate in the first place. However the article 2014 Tour de France will build up as further details of the tour are announced and then staged and will eventually look something like 2012 Tour de France.

BTW, it is usual to indent your comments by prefixing them with colons and using the {{unindent}} temnplate when statements are too deeply nested. I have taken the liberty of updating everybody else's comments in this manner. Martinvl (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No-one has yet reasoned as to why we are not allowed to include the sourced speculation and why they think that part of the history of this event should be omitted from Wikipedia whilst it is included in the history by others elsewhere. Bo.Clive (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that you do not have a consensus to add speculation to the article, sourced speculation is still speculation. MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet no convincing reason has been provided for why it should be excluded, just stonewalling. Bo.Clive (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

OK lets put this simply - you added content to the article it was challenged it is up to you to gain a consensus on this page to add it, those opposed dont actually have to have a reason (although a number of reasons have already been mentioned above not to include speculation) so it is up to you to make a convincing case for addition and gain a consensus. As you have failed to gain support for the addition so far then the status quo prevails and you cant add it, sorry thats just the way it works. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course those opposed have to have a reason. They cannot oppose just because they don't like it. Obviously, there are a lot of reasons here. Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

- how many do you recognise/ support? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Earl of Strathearn in Scotland?

Is this really his style in Scotland? Is there a source for that? It's certainly not a practice which has ever been used before. The Duke of York, for instance, isn't called "HRH The Earl of Inverness" in Scotland. john k (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the reference to the royal family web page, but that entry does not call him "HRH The Earl of Strathearn." It calls him "Prince William, The Earl of Strathearn." And the official London Gazette entry calls him "The Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Earl of Strathearn, KG." I certainly don't think there's any basis for saying that "HRH The Earl of Strathearn" is his style in Scotland. john k (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Article on first child

If you wish to contribute towards the article about the Duke's first child, please do so via Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Birth of baby. This will ensure a centralized discussion. Martinvl (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In the lead: countries in which William is heir

In which way should the lead of this article mention William's place as heir in 16 countries:

1. He is second in the line of succession, behind his father, to the thrones of sixteen independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms: the United Kingdom, 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.
2. He is second in the line of succession, behind his father, to the thrones of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms.
3. He is second in the line of succession, behind his father, to the thrones of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms.

• Option 3 It is unbiased towards any one country (reflecting the equality of the Commonwealth realms established in 1926) and most brief (best meeting the quidelines of WP:LEAD). (The argument that "it's the UK as well as the other 15" may be technically correct, but is as correct and as biased as "it's Jamaica as well as the other 15".) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But we're a thoroughly inconsistent lot around here. The Line of succession to the British throne is described as "the ordered sequence of all those people eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom and the other 15 Commonwealth realms". Curiously, this issue doesn't arise in his father's case, as all we need to say, and all we do say, there is "the eldest child and heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking for brevity, then "His paternal grandmother is Queen Elizabeth II. He is second in line to succeed her, after his father." shortens the lead further without introducing complicated terms of art, thus meeting more requirements of WP:LEAD. DrKiernan (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That is tidy. Does Jack agree? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos

I'm surprised there are no photos in this article of a young Prince William, particularly photos of him as a child with his mother, Princess Diana. Is there a specific reason for this exclusion? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The reason is that there are no such suitably licensed photographs. Such a photograph would have to be free. If you manage to find free photographs of the Prince with his mother, please feel free to include them - they would certainly improve the article. Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I wondered if it had to do with what was free and available. And then I thought that with the zillions of photos there must be out there, surely there are some available with licensing that would allow them to be used here. Guess I was wrong. Too bad, they certainly would enhance the article. Thanks for the reply. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

HRH

At the top of the page it should be made clear that the Prince is refered to as "His Royal Highness." This style should be included in his full name at the top of the page.151.230.133.20 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternate title for Scotland

I just noticed my deletion in the titles and styles section has been reverted by DBD. I would like to challenge that deletion. The title Earl of Strathearn is a subsidiary title of the Duke of Cambridge. All his titles are in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It is not however officially his alternate title for use when in Scotland. There is only one of those and that is Duke of Rothesay for the Prince of Wales. This is for historical reasons because it was the title reserved for the heir to the throne of Scotland. Also the source for the Strathearn addition is hardly conclusive. It just mentions him as Earl of Strathearn, but does not explicitly say that it is the way he is called in Scotland. The official website of the Royal family only explicitly states that for Duke of Rothesay, but is silent about Earl of Strathearn in the "titles and styles" section there. Peers are called by their highest peerages throughout the UK. Earl of Inverness is also not the alternate title for Scotland where Prince Andrew is concerned. I think that at the very least a new authoritative source for this is needed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a courtesy to the Scots. If you look at the formal press release (New appointments to the Order of the Thistle, 29 May 2012) regarding Prince William's appointment to the Order of the Thistle, you'll see that it adresses him as Prince William, The Earl of Strathearn. -- fdewaele, 24 July 2013, 15:23.

Yes but that in itself doesn't mean it has a similar status in Scotland as Duke of Rothesay has. Another source has now however been added by DBD. Also a press release. (I worry about press releases in matters like this), but from the website of the Duke and Duchess. So I'l leave it at that for now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree Hebel using a lesser peerage in place of a senior title is without royal precedent, I can't find anything of meaningful authority for our present article (The royal website is not reliable). Interestingly the Edinburgh Gazette (the UK Government Newspaper for Scotland) lists his creation as a Knight of the Thistle as His Royal Highness The Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Earl of Strathearn, KG, to be a Royal Knight of the Order. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)