Jump to content

Talk:William, Prince of Wales/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Extinct?

First, I wonder why, in this article, the peerage is not shown at the bottom that would show Prince William as the Duke of Cambridge preceded by Prince George? Also, why does the peerage box at the bottom of Prince George's article read "extinct" in the succession box when there seems a perfectly good Prince William to succeed him? I confess I know nothing of these matters and am here to learn. Would it have anything to do with Prince George as of the fourth creation and Prince William of the fifth? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would. William and George's dukedoms are two entirely different titles that happen to share "Cambridge" as the territorial designation. George's title does not exist anymore because it went extinct on his death. William's title only came to exist in 2011. Legally, they have nothing in common. Historically, it might be said that they do. Surtsicna (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that, Surtsicna! The peerage can be confounding at times, but I do see the logic in your explanation. Now, since there is only Prince William of the fifth creation, is that why there is no peerage box at the bottom of his article? and will it stay that way until the advent of a succeeding Duke of Cambridge also of the fifth creation? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
If you ask me, that should be the case. Why have a succession box when there is no succession yet? Some may disagree, though. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds as though it's not etched in stone. As you said, historically George and William do share the same peerage titles as well as the same territorial designation, so if "historic" were used as a defining or limiting term, then perhaps it would be appropriate to both include William as successor in George's article and George as predecessor in this article. It might be interesting to get the views of other involved contributors. Thank you again for your lessons on peerage! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
No, it's really important to understand this. The name of the title might be the same for George and William but it is not the same peerage and so there cannot be a successor - which has a very specific legal meaning in relation to the transmission of the same peerage (creation) to another. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so it is etched in "legal" stone, then. That's a good thing. Thank you, Garlicplanting, for your emphasis! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a comment from the peanut gallery. It's very likely William will not have a successor as Duke of Cambridge. His new son Prince George of Cambridge would become Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge if and only if William died before ever becoming king, i.e. predeceasing his father Prince Charles. In the ordinary and expected course of events, however, William will become king on the death of his father, and then Prince George of Cambridge is eligible to become George, Prince of Wales. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Well he'd still hold the title, even if it wouldn't be the one he's styled as. In the same way that William also has an Earldom and a Baronry that are squashed by the Dukedom, he'll still continue to hold the Dukedom when he's Prince of Wales, it just won't be the highest-precedence title. Happy‑melon 14:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It is well-noted that the peerage has been added that helps to dispel my initial ignorance and will hopefully do so for others. As an aside, our local newspaper for 23 July sported the headline...

B R I T I S H   H E I R   N O W   A   P A R E N T

Yes, I know. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Prince William" no more?

Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Princess William edit war raises the question of whether the Duke is still "Prince William". The "Prince William" part has been removed from his official page, and these Telegraph sources below discuss his change in title:

Royal wedding: Prince William asks the Queen not to make him a duke, Richard Eden, The Telegraph, 12 December 2010:
"Mandrake can disclose that the 28 year-old has, however, let it be known that he would prefer to remain Prince William rather than be made a duke.
'He says he was born Prince William and wants to continue to be known as that,' says a courtier. 'He wants Kate to become Princess Catherine.'
This presents a thorny dilemma for the monarch, however, as princesses, traditionally, receive their titles through birth rather than marriage.
If Prince William is not given a new title, his 28-year-old bride will, automatically, become Princess William, not 'Princess Catherine'."
Prince William and Kate Middleton's new titles revealed, Martin Beckford, The Telegraph, 29 April 2011:
"Buckingham Palace said in a statement: 'The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince William of Wales.
'His titles will be Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
'Prince William thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge and Miss Catherine Middleton on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge.'
If the Prince had turned down the titles, he would have remained HRH Prince William of Wales.
His wife would likely have been known as HRH Princess William of Wales, rather than HRH Princess Catherine, as she is not a princess in her own right."

This does not tally with his Wikipedia article. HelenOnline 07:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

British royals are only adressed as Prince X (and their consort as Princess X, for instance Prince Michael of Kent and Princes Michael) when they don't have a peerage title. (Making abstraction of the colloquial use of the title, for instance Prince William, Prince Charles, Prince Harry, Prince Edward,...). When they have a peerage title, they (and their consort) are adressed by that title. Such a peerage title doesn't mean they lose the title of Prince (because that's given to all grandchildren of a sovereign, reason why the Dukes of KLent and Gloucester are also princelings, as well as all grandchildren of a Prince of Wales, for instance newborn George of Cambridge). As Prince William has been given a Dukedom upon his marriage, the discussion is moot. -- fdewaele, 11:15 (CET), 2 August 2013.
Thank you for commenting. For the sake of clarification, do you consider the current article title Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and the Prince William, Duke of Cambridge#Titles and styles section to be correct as they stand? HelenOnline 09:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no objections to either. -- fdewaele, 11:47 (CET), 2 August 2013.

Indian/Asian ancestry

"It had been previously supposed that Eliza was Armenian, but recent mtDNA testing on two distant cousins of William, who share the same matrilineal ancestry, indicates that Eliza's maternal ancestry was Indian."

Re the above sentence which I am about to tag as dubious, the claim in the source cited, and the media reports about it, as well as other publicised claims by the same company have been discredited as being driven by commercial motives. Here are just a few quotes:

The Times's Prince William splash linked to readers' offer, Roy Greenslade, The Guardian
"IT’S IN THE GENES: Tempted by an unlikely tale about one of Prince William’s forebears, the papers swallow yet more scientific hokum on genetic ancestry." Private Eye's "Street of Shame"
Are there ethical lapses in the Times' story on William's "Indian ancestry"?, Alex Hern, New Statesman
"Public attention is the life-blood of any commercial company and IrelandsDNA is no different. Technically speaking, it is one of the most advanced genealogical DNA-testing outfits in Europe, and shouldn’t need to attract customers by associating itself with such theories." (IrelandsDNA is a commercial DNA testing company also trading as ScotlandsDNA and BritainsDNA.) No evidence of genocide, John Grenham, Irish Times HelenOnline 11:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Private Eye elaborated on the claim's scientific validity:

"Balding told the Eye this latest 'research' about Prince William had 'never been published or peer-reviewed and is not scientifically proven'. William's ancestor Eliza Kewark is usually described in historic documents as Armenian, and living in India. So to test whether she was from India and not Armenia, researchers would require a large enough sample from both countries to see whether her DNA is only found in India and is absent in Armenia. From the scant details available, it seems this was never addressed."

(Professor David Balding quoted is a geneticist from University College London.) HelenOnline 12:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it me or I am the only one who thinks this stuff is really not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Assuming his ancestry in general is relevant, probably, but I don't think dubious claims about it are relevant. This probably qualifies for WP:BLPREMOVE but I would like to pre-empt an(other) edit war. HelenOnline 14:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have edited the sentence and removed the tag. HelenOnline 17:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal Style infobox

I would like to see the return of the Royal Syle infobox on all Royal pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.141.248 (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Duke of Cambridge's Title

I am requesting that, because of some Wikipedia editors' insistence on primary sources, the Duke of Cambridge's full title be changed to just 'His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge KG KT' in accordance with the details listed on the official Royal Website (see: http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/PrinceWilliam/Stylesandtitles.aspx).

I am bringing up this now because recently, the Duchess of Cambridge's titles were updated of Wikipedia to remove 'Princess William' because the Royal Website didn't include it in her full title. I went into rather deep discussion on the talk page regarding that and how it was actually enshirned in Common Law that the Duchess was also Princess William, though various editors appear to have came to the conclusion that because what they considered a 'primary source' hasn't listed it, it didn't exist.

In accordance with this, I'm suggesting is Wikipedia either update the Duke of Cambridge's title in accordance with what they regard as a 'primary source' and remove tiles such as Prince William, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus or you change your sources for the Duchess of Cambridge's titles; you can't have one 'primary source' for one and a different for another.

I feel the way Wikipedia deals with its sources will always be one of its biggest problems, this situation only highlights that to me. UK Royalist (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The straw man again? The titles and styles in the Duchess of Cambridge's article are supported by primary and secondary sources, while Princess William is supported by neither. This has been discussed ad nauseum there. Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is not the place to discuss Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and neither is this the place to discuss Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. HelenOnline 20:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your edit and explanation must be rejected because they constitute a classically typical, and utterly illegitimate attempt to make a POINT. FactStraight (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit-war

I don't see any reason why a clear grammatical correction and maintaining the focus of the article on its subject should be constantly undone. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

ancestry

William's paternal ancestors were primarily European royalty, English, German, Hungarian, French, and Anglo-Irish, and his maternal ancestors were primarily English, Scottish, Irish, American, Anglo-Irish, French, German, Armenian, and Indian.[1][2][3] This information is being deleted repeatedly. Lbhasa (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it is not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ancestry magazine, Nov-Dec 2000, Vol. 18, No. 6, p. 18
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference williamson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference wargs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Last name?

What is his last name? Louis? But Prince William's last name is David then??? Don't princes have last names?? 134.148.46.9 (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they don't. Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
British Royals have surnames that they can use if and when they need to, but don't technically have one. The official surname for a male-line descendant of Queen Elizabeth II and The Duke of Edinburgh is Mountbatten-Windsor, but their titles also fill the role of a surname, and their territorial designations (i.e. "Wales" or "York") are often used. Psunshine87 (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
See The Royal Family name (from the Official Website of the British Monarchy) and also Edward Iwi (for why Mountbatten-Windsor was adopted only 11 days before the birth of Prince Andrew). I quote from the first site:
  • It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor. ...
  • The effect of the declaration was that all The Queen's children, on occasions when they needed a surname, would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.
The words I've highlighted seem to suggest that the Queen's children and grandchildren have no surname at all. But the next para I quoted is clear indication that, despite this, the Royal Highnesses and/or Prince/Princesses can use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor on those occasions when they need to. It's a matter of historical record that some of them have also used Wales. I suppose they could also use Smith or Jones if they wanted to. When you're in the strange position of having no surname at all, then if you have to use something because some bureaucratic systems can't operate in a vacuum, then anything will do. So far, to my knowledge, they haven't used Smith or Jones, but hey, anything's possible. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge University

There's no actual evidence that he attended workshops and lectures at Cambridge University on agriculture; only a newspaper article from an unverified source that he was planning to do so. In that same period he took two well-documented vacations with and without his wife and son. Prove to me that he actually went to Cambridge from January to March 2014. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried searching for the information! - lots of reliable newspaper sources (and the bbc [1]) that say he started an agriculture course at Cambridge from the 7 January, google is your friend. That said it needs moving from the lead into education and a better source added, I will do it later if nobody else does. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Then where are the citations on the lead? There are none, b/c it is a dubious assertion. It is impossible to read about agriculture at Cambridge when you are in the Caribbean with your wife and in-laws. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Alopecia - Lack of hair???

Prince William suffers from Alopecia, which is loss of hair. Should be included in Personal life section maybe 182.255.99.214 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Alopecia" is simply the medical term for "baldness". That is, "alopecia" is not a condition distinct from, or more severe than, "ordinary" baldness, it is one and the same. Given that baldness is completely harmless, and affects a large percentage of men worldwide (some earlier, some later; being bald at 32 is about middling -- some people go bald as early as early 20s, some as late as 50s (disregarding those who keep their hair into old age, which is also a sizeable percentage)), I don't see any reason why it should be listed as a health issue. Now if it were for example known that William dislikes being bald or is undertaking some steps to mitigate his baldness (not that there are many, aside from a wig), then I'd say it could be included as a personal detail, but as far as I know, that is not the case. 89.102.133.166 (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

He also appears to be sporting a comb over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.26.12 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

To left align the image

Hi, Could you help to left align the image of "William and his father, Charles, after a polo match at Ham Polo Club, London"? Cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 15:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Fake news?

I am still curious about the claim that the Queen named Prince William as heir over Prince Charles, as a probable example of fake news. Here is a source: http://www.parentherald.com/amp/articles/59320/20160805/queen-elizabeth-ii-crown-prince-william-kate-middleton-england-new-king-queen-camilla-parker-bowles-bids-goodbye-royal-dreams.htm Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

But not a very good source, is it? "According to Ok! magazine (via Celeb Dirty Laundry), there will be a change in the line of succession ..." ? Maybe that's your point. Hard to tell what you want to do with it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The Queen can't simply name her heir, and the Prince of Wales can't simply forego his right to the throne. The succession is governed by legislation, and such a change would require an Act of Parliament (or equivalent) in every one of the Commonwealth realms, just like the Perth Agreement eliminating male-preference primogeniture. That's not going to happen in a hurry. Proteus (Talk) 22:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be mentioned in the article about fake news. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

British succession or not.

See discussion at Charles, Prince of Wales, relating to this article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Honorary Military appointments

Under Honorary Military appointments it lists William as Commodore-in-Chief of HMNB Clyde, since 8 August 2006. I'm not sure that is true. The appointment is not listed on Royal.UK's database of "Charities and patronages," which does list his other honorary military appointments. So, If anyone can find a good source to this we can keep it. Otherwise, it should be deleted. I didn't want to just remove it because I know it's listed on other Wiki pages about royal military appointments. Arg Matey (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

According to this article https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2017/august/18/170818-clyde-based-submariners-get-royal-reception-at-edinburgh-tattoo he is "Commodore-in-Chief Submarines", no mention of HMNB Clyde in particular. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I removed it from the article about a month ago. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Mrs. Forbesian"

Under the Ancestry section, one of William's ancestors is described as "Mrs. Forbesian". It was really unclear to me what this meant or why it was relevant so I had to google it and find another page that explained that the name "Mrs. Forbesian" was relevant because '-ian' is a common ending for Armenian surnames. I added this extra bit of information into the article to make it clearer but it seems to have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.171.164 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Does the citation at the end of that sentence mention the '-ian' ending? If not, we would need one that supported the insertion, i.e. a source linking William and Mrs Forbesian and the ending. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Intro

TBH, I prefer the way the intro was (before November 27, 2017), showing that he is the elder son of Charles, Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales & thus second in line to the British throne. PS: If ain't broke? don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What made you change your mind? Surtsicna (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I've read it over a few more times in the last hour & just ain't fully sure of your additions. I won't change it back, as I'm basing my objections on personal optics & so will leave it up to others. The additon of "...member of the British royal family" is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Interjecting here - the reference to him "work[ing] on behalf of his grandmother" is unnecessarily odd, especially for the opening sentence of such an important article. Is that really his "job"? Sources for that wording are needed. I've reverted to a wording closer to the earlier established version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
If British royal family is kept, I suppose we can change "...line of succession to the British throne" to "...line of succession to the throne", as we're already mentioning British. Also if we do so? perhaps it could be adopted to the intros of all those following William in the succession. Just a thought. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Prince William only

So his younger brother is titled Prince Harry based on constituency, but here Prince William, Duke of Cambridge must be added?

Sammartinlai (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Another RfC has been proposed at Talk:Prince Harry. Did you mean "consistency"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

infobox - children labeled as issue

hi, is this page using the wrong infobox, can children be added, they are displaying as issue? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge&diff=next&oldid=849383630 - Govindaharihari (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Its part of Template:Infobox royalty so will need to discuss it on the related template talk page, issue does seem a bit archaic but it is used in relation to royalty. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks MilborneOne I started a chat here Template_talk:Infobox_royalty#children_described_as_issue Govindaharihari (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2019

Mother is listed as Lady Diana Spencer. Should instead be labeled, Diana, Princess of Wales. 189.202.80.96 (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There's been previous discussion about this at Talk:Prince William, Duke of Cambridge/Archive 1#maiden name is standard for info box, so there needs to be a new discussion before it's changed to something not standard. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Active service?

His active service as an RAF search-and-rescue pilot ended in September 2013.

Is it technically correct to classify this as 'active service'? In the British forces, that is supposed to be reserved for people actually going out on operations in a theatre of war. (In the US forces, it just means someone who is available to be sent out on ops.) Valetude (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as 'service in the operational work of the armed forces ... as opposed to service in a reserve or support capacity'. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
An air-sea rescue may be described as an operation, but it does not meet the criteria of a military operation in a theatre of war. The OED may need to re-word. Valetude (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It is also clear that the future Monarch would not be sent to a war zone therefore I believe that "length of service" should be removed and just the years visible on the article.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Afghanistan was a war zone. The sources (those in the article and that noted by Celia above) say "active service" is operational work and that reserve or support work is still service. I think the words "active service" are necessary to distinguish between his operational work in the armed forces until 2013 and his honorary or support service since then. DrKay (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

We will probably disagree but you have the dates of his service by why do you need to add about active service in brackets as the dates clearly indicate this already?

It does seem to be a bit of unnecessary duplication.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The dates don't clearly indicate his service. I just explained why above. That is why the clarification is necessary. DrKay (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Lady Diana Spencer or Princess of Wales?

There are two clearly different descriptions in this article (and no doubt Prince Harry's) regarding what to call their late mother.

One is Diana, Princess of Wales and the other is Lady Diana Spencer.

When I have changed the Spencer one to Diana, Princess of Wales it keeps being reverted by others, my issue is that both princes were born to her after her marriage to Prince Charles in 1981 had taken place and therefore her legal name was then "HRH Princess Diana of Wales".

After the divorce and untimely death, she took the title given to her by the palace: "Diana, Princess of Wales" - so is there any reason why the article continually has her listed as "Spencer"?

Juanpumpchump (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Her title was never "Princess Diana of Wales". She's only called Spencer in two places: the infobox parameter for mother and the ancestral table. The purpose of both is to show genealogical information. As with all genealogical tables, the maiden name or name in her own right is therefore more useful and usual. DrKay (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Should not then all her other names / titles then be specifically on her own page and just one name used in relevance to her sons on theirs?

Juanpumpchump (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I doubt the exclusion of genealogical information from royalty articles is going to be a popular suggestion. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

White’s

The article on White's states that William was entered as a member the year of his birth. As it is normally very hard to join this establishment, suggest it is worth a mention. 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:8408:3A4F:7532:F9A3 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Haha, for a moment there I thought you meant Whites. However, that claim over there is unsourced? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2020

Correct William's birthdate: -Currently: 2002-06-21 2001:48F8:3006:424:B5D3:3344:4B6D:F22A (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Using title

Isn't this wrong? "Prince William" usage? Thought titles is not used in article name. Henrymorgan92 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021

You should add Prince William allegiance. 98.114.254.117 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Correct full name to remove Mountbatten-Windsor per the 1960's Letters Patent. As William is a HRH Prince, there is no need to list a last name as one is not require.

Source: http://cuhags.soc.srcf.net/info/proclp-w.html Yellowwallpaper3 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please gain consensus for this edit before using the edit request template. DrKay (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor

His birth certificate states his name as Prince William of Wales and he graduated from university under name of William Wales, his army career built around as William Wales. You are rewriting history by adding name which they never use everyday. Mountbatten-Windsor is surname that can be used when it is necessary they don’t use that everyday or make career around that name. And I checked other European royal houses in Wikipedia they did not add family name either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 11:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Since his birth certificate is public, I have looked at it. I can not see his surname given as Wales anywhere on it. Please indicate the section of the certificate in which you can see it. DrKay (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
He does not have surname and I don’t know why we are trying to assign him one. Apparently there is a law in UK, how can we change that? And anyway his career (army and education) shapes around Wales. For example he graduated under name of Wales.(https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/jun/23/highereducation.students) Why we are trying to change that fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 12:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. What law? We do not have either the ability or the desire to change British law. DrKay (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Scotland and Northern Ireland

So in Scotland and in NI he is not Duke of Camebridge? Duke of Cambridge ia a title in the peerage of the United Kingdom. So are his other titles. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's tradition for British royalty to in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom to be adressed by their senior local title. It's a courtesy thing towards the locals which used to be separate kingdoms (thus no Welsh exception). This means that Prince Charles when in Scotland is not Prince of Wales but the Duke of Rothesay (which was the title of the heir of the Scottish kings), his brother Edward is not Earl of Wessex but Earl of Forfar, and so on. Normally on his marriage a British royal prince is given three peerage titles (a dukedom, an earldom and a barony): one with an English designation, one with a Scottish designation and one with an Ulster designation. Edward of Wessex was the exception: he only wanted to be Earl of Wessex and wanted to succeed his father as Duke of Edinburgh when that title in time became vacant (after the immersion back into the Crown when Charles becomes king as Charles upon the death of his father as his senior male heir became automatically the next Duke of Edinburgh). -- fdewaele, 9 April 2021, 18:58 CET.
When it comes to Duke of Rothesay I would say that is right. That is a title in the peerage of Scotland. And it is pertaining to the heir. But the other things seem to be not all that traditional. The idea that all the titles of Royal Princes, which are all titles in the peerage of the UK, are not used throughout the UK, but are exclusieve to certain parts of the UK seems nonsense to me. William is Duke of Cambridge whereever he goes. As he is Earl of Strathearn whereever he is. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I know that these titles represent the different parts of the Uk. And I understand the reason why that is. That’s not the problem. But the idea that Prince William is only Baron Carrickfergus in NI And not Duke of Cambridge seems somewhat wrong to me. Other Peers use these titles as courtesy titles for their sons or grandsons. And There were Royal Dukes in the relative recent past with first titles that pertained to Scottish And even Irish places (Connaught, Albany, Edinburgh). All in the peerage of the UK. Not in those of Scotland or Ireland. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Colombia is spelled incorrectly

"In 2020, again as President of the English FA, he voted against the joint Australia–New Zealand 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup bid and instead voted for Columbia." This should read "Colombia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.69.92 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

67.22.26.178 (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

a distant relative through his grandfather

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Baron or Lord Carrickfergus

Yesterday I was reverted by Surtsicna here after I tried to change "Baron" to "Lord", who stated That does not apply to princes. I'm not disputing that the title is Baron Carrickfergus; that's clear as day. But barons are conventionally called lords except when referring to the title itself. Examples include Lord Mandelson, Lord Fowler et al. As Debrett's states:

baron is always referred to, both verbally and in correspondence, as Lord (Poole) rather than Baron (Poole). The title baron is never used, except in formal or legal documents.

Given that Debrett's is an expert and reliable source on the peerage and baronetage (and the popular media is notoriously terrible at these things), I propose changing it back to "Lord". I will be notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty, Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage in an effort to garner more experienced editors in these matters. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Instead of researching what he should be called in Northern Ireland, I suggest finding out what he is called in Northern Ireland. Everything else is original research. Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a Northern Irish source? The current sources we have seem to be based in England. Or a source for the princely exception enjoyed by the Duke of Cambridge? Sdrqaz (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I do not have any sources. The princely exception is what I gather from the fact that his uncle the Earl of Wessex and cousin Viscount Severn are never called Lord Wessex or Lord Severn, respectively. Surtsicna (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I see. The difference here is that as Debrett's put it above, the convention applies to barons, not viscounts and earls. However, The Irish Times has referred to the Earl as Lord Wessex here, while the BBC referred to James as Lord Severn here (as did Hello magazine). There is no princely exception. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
You said that the popular media is not reliable on this matter, so I am confused by the references to them now. Either way, we do not yet have any source confirming that William is called Lord Carrickfergus. Surtsicna (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
We have an expert source (and considered reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES) on the peerage, Debrett's, that very clearly points out that barons are known as lords. There is no "princely exception" to that convention; that was just original research. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
It's original research to say Harry is called Lord Carrickfergus if there isn't a source saying so explicitly. Besides, if it's so difficult to find such sources, it doesn't belong in the article anyway. Material should be covered with due weight as found in reliable sources. If something is not found in any source or only found in one source, it doesn't belong in the article because it's too unimportant and trivial. DrKay (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The quotation from Debrett's does not support your argument, rather the opposite. When is the Duke of Cambridge's Carrickfergus title actually used? Answer: never, except in formal or legal documents. Opera hat (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Opera hat! Can't believe it's been over five years since we crossed paths! (Reminiscing over). The problem with the section as written is that it states that William is styled "Baron Carrickfergus" in Northern Ireland. If we follow the Business Insider and Country Living sources, it states that that is what William is known as there; not just formal or legal documents.
I've made an edit in the spirit of compromise that makes it less explicit (using deliberate ambiguity) whether he is known as "Baron Carrickfergus" or "Lord Carrickfergus". I hope it'll be acceptable to everyone. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Public Image and Controversy page

I noticed that there's no section on Prince William Wikipedia page, for public image and controversy. And he's been in the news a number of times, over controversial things he's said or done. The only thing, I saw listed was his Ski trip alongside a model, sourced from Vanity Fair. However, there have been many more controversies that have popped up, surrounding Prince William. For example, according to Vanity Fair, there was controversy surrounding his friendish with Rose Hanbury, his wife's former friend.

Sourced Vanity Fair Link: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2019/03/kate-middleton-rose-hanbury-feud-marchioness-of-cholmondeley 

In the second example, I didn't see anything posted about the backlash he received over his Coronvirsus joke. A solid source Time Magazine did an article about it.

Time Magazine link: https://time.com/5795398/prince-william-dublin-guinnness-coronavirus/ 


At least, these need to be added, to Prince William Wikipedia page.
The first article primarily highlights Hanbury's feud/unfeud with his wife, with little emphasis on William. It also originates from The Sun, a nonreliable source according to WP:RSPSS. A case could be made for the second,[1][2] what do other editors think? However, I think it should be filed under "Privacy and media", as an entire section for one incident is unnecessary.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Prince William jokes that he and Kate are spreading coronavirus". CNN. Retrieved 1 July 2021.
  2. ^ Barr, Sabrina. "CORONAVIRUS: PRINCE WILLIAM JOKES ABOUT 'SPREADING' COVID-19 DURING IRELAND TOUR". Independent. Retrieved 1 July 2021.

Hi, the original source for the other Vanity Fair Article listed, on Prince William's Wikipedia page covering his Ski trip, is also connected to the Sun. And it was still allowed to be added. Also, I think this source needs to be include on Prince William Wikipedia page, Daily Beast Prince William's Lawyer Tries to Suppress rumors. An according to WP:RSPSS Daily Beast is a reliable source.

Daily Beast source link: https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-williams-lawyer-tries-to-suppress-rumors-of-affair

The ski trip sources focus on the press backlash from the event, rather than the event itself, originally reported in The Sun. The Beast article poses more of an issue BLP wise. I think it's possibly fair game, soley because of its alleged response from his legal team, though it would be nice to find other sources specifically on any response from the palace, especially since it was "off the books", per say. The rumor itself shouldn't be portrayed as verified fact, especially since it was unofficially denied by so-called Middleton "sources" and the alleged legal response that makes it notable originated was toward deleted tweet and an In Touch Weekly report, a celebrity gossip magazine. On the other hand, due to the Daily Beast's reliability, it's probable that the legal pressures did occur. Regardless, since its largely a guessing game, it definitely requires further discussion in order to include it anyhow.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m not really serious about this. In my opinion, the best idea to write this down is to write it with neutral point of view, so I don’t recommend this source/new because the writer may said badly about William and that breaks BLP so just pick better source or new. (E.g. Hello, BBC etc.) Ethan2345678 (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

His affair with Hanbury was never confirmed in any shape or form. I haven't seen it being reported in any reliable sources and no biographers have backed it so far. Then comes the issue surrounding the COVID joke. I don't know if that can be considered controversial. You also mentioned yourself that he didn't receive backlash for it, so it's pretty trivial. The ski trip is also trivial and I'd rather have it removed due to the unreliability of its sources. Though it can be kept if the palace's response were to be added to make it more neutralized. It is not as trivial as the COVID joke, or as unverifiable as the affair allegations after all. Keivan.fTalk 01:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

Proposed change of infobox image from the 2016 photograph to this 2021 photograph. Both are essentially of the subject doing the same thing, in the same pose, but IMHO the recent one is of slightly higher quality. --Bettydaisies (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  • A.
    A.
  • B.
    B.
  • C.
    C.
  • D.
    D.
What do you mean by "burned"?--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

When your skin is kind of like brighter and crispier. Ethan2345678 (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

People who are pale-skinned (A) do get quite tanned (B) in the sun during warm seasons, on holiday, etc. I don't see how this interferes with the quality of the photo.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

But in my opinion, A is still the best of these pictures. Ethan2345678 (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place for discussion and deliberation. It's difficult to hold a discussion if your reasoning is that the subject has a tan.--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

B and C are the same picture, C is just cropped, maybe let’s change my opinion to D. It’s the best quality picture of the 4 pictures you’ve listed. Ethan2345678 (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

D was switched to A based on photographic quality and flattery of the subject. Physically, it's of slightly poorer quality than both B and C. I still don't understand if your opposition is truly based on a suntan.--Bettydaisies (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

So I agree with you that B is the best, can you invite other users such as Sampajanna, Sergewoodzing, etc. Ethan2345678 (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Going on degrees of baldness, I would say D or A to be most representative of William's usual recent appearance and skin colouring. Sampajanna (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
We're all 7 years too late, folks: Which celeb hairdo suits Prince William best?. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
William's noriety for his baldness is so great I didn't even notice the apparent discrepancy, which you may have a point over. But I still think the more recent picture is of higher quality and recognizable appearance. I'm not sure anyone is going to go "oh, look's like his hair's grown back!" after that.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Prince William has been criticized for not defending Meghan Markle against racism

In the news, it's being reported that Prince William is receiving lots of criticism over his recent comments, about racism. Prince William spoke out Monday on Twitter about the violent, racist insults hurled at three Black English soccer players after their team was defeated at the Euro Championship final. However, Twitter users are pointing out the incongruence, noting that Prince William refrained from publicly defending his sister-in-law, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, after she disclosed the racial abuse she endured as part of the royal family.

Source The Los Angeles Times link: [1]

Also, here's another solid source reporting on the coverage Newsweek. Some also criticised Prince William for speaking out against the abuse of England's players but not in defence of his sister-in-law.

Source Newsweek link:[2]

I think this latest news should be added to the Privacy and the media section. Purplebrown43 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-07-12/prince-william-euro-cup-racism-twitter
  2. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/racism-england-fans-meghan-markle-comparisons-jadon-sancho-marcus-rashford-bukayo-saka-1608772
Including the thoughts of Twitter users in Wikipedia articles, which is what the source is alluding too, isn't particularly encyclopedic, unfortunately. According to WP:RSPSOURCES, Newsweek is "generally unreliable".--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times is a reliable source and can be used. In regards, to an article covering response from Twitter. Prince William posted his response, through his personal royal Twitter account. Hence, why numerous articles have been written over the backlash he's gotten, on social media because of his comments. I think it should be noted, that he spoke about the racist fallout surrounding the UEFA euro 2020, and received a negative response.Purplebrown43 (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times isn't criticizing William - it is reporting that various, unnamed, Twitter users are. Twitter users aren't reliable sources. Please find sources that support your claims of substantial backlash to be considered for inclusion (sans Twitter).--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
If we were to give weight to what anonymous social media users said, then all Wikipedia pages would be filled with gossips, allegations and conspiracy theories by now. Not to mention that if such information about William were to be included it would result in a green light for including social media comments on Meghan, where she has been labeled as a “social climber”, “liar” and “narcissist”. None of this is worthy of inclusion and they should be avoided especially in biographies of living people. Keivan.fTalk 07:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

If we're putting his 'surname' in note-form in the infobox? Why aren't we doing the same at his grandmother's infobox? GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

White’s Club

The White’s page says he is a member. If this is so, it should be included in the article. 2A00:23C7:E287:1900:E4A4:1AD:92BA:5D46 (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Not any more. Unsourced, so I have removed him. Do you have some source(s) perhaps? Editors might also wish to note that the entire section on Notable members (two long lists) at White's does not have a single source has a total of three with sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Biased Wiki writing

The difference between how William and Catherine are written on their Wikipedia pages, and how Harry and Meghan are written is concerning. There is clearly a lack of neutrality in writing, which id disturbing.

William's comments were criticized in 2 separate years for being racist and tone deaf, not for not considering "resource use". If this were another couple, you would have reported this.

In another example, and agreement with another comment, "reputable mainstream papers criticizes everything about them, the helicopter rides, the wealthy lifestyle, preaching too much etc. Yet, the same editors who edit William and Kate’s page never mention those articles." This is true.

Both William and Catherine have championed climate change and the environment, and now with Earthshot, similar to Harry. And they have all been criticized for using private jets for travel, yet somehow this only appears on Harry's wiki and is included in Meghan's Wikis. Meghan has never spoken on climate change.

It appears as if tabloid gossip is considered a legitimate source, and a legitimate source for one couple but not another.

Get neutral editors. 70.53.34.60 (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well, and have mentioned this would be seen as perceived bias, for visitors reading Prince William Wikipedia. I think, I even commented on this very same topic, a couple of months ago. Also, oddly enough on Prince Harry Wikipedia has a Public Image and Controsvery section William's lacks one. Even though clearly he's had lots of backlash over his obvious belief in limiting the number of births of African children. Instead, this is what's listed for him, William has occasionally commented on the effects of overpopulation on the wildlife of Africa, but his remarks have been criticized for not taking resource consumption and population density into consideration, both of which affect wildlife in rich and developed countries. I don't think that accurately captures the backlash he received from the public, over what many saw as racist and harmful comments. It comes off dismissive to the serious allegations that were being levied at Prince William's continued support of Eugenics. I suggest using another news source, for this topic and listing it under a Controversy section similar, to his brother. Here are other sources Prince William has been accused of racism [1] and Experts critique Prince William’s ideas on Africa population [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebrown43 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@talk : Welcome to Wikipedia. New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing. Sampajanna (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I’ll address a few points here. The use of private jets by the royal family in their official capacity is an entirely different matter from taking private jet by a now private individual who labels himself as a climate change activist. Any criticism directed at the royal family should be covered on British royal family. After all, all members may use private jets while on official trips, not only William and Catherine. However, in their private capacity William and Catherine have mostly flown commercial. If you have specific sources that suggest otherwise, please put them forth. Also, criticism of one’s comments on social media is not worthy of inclusion here on Wikipedia. Yes, William’s comments may have been called racist, but Harry has also been called a traitor and hypocrite and Meghan has been labeled as a narcissist by social media users. Yet neither of them have been labeled as such by the mainstream media, because there is no evidence behind any of these claims. These are just unflattering and unnecessary criticism that have no place in an encyclopedic article. Side note: if by William’s tone deaf comments you are referring to his remarks on human overpopulation, especially in Africa, those have been covered under the section about his charity work where the Tusk Conservation Awards is discussed. I suggest everyone reads the article before jumping on the talk page and commenting for the inclusion of stuff that is already there. Keivan.fTalk 06:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/prince-william-accused-racism-over-african-population-comments-tusk-harry-meghan-oprah-1653271
  2. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/30/experts-critique-prince-williams-ideas-on-africa-population

Why is there no controversy section?

It has been pointed out and noticed by visitors to both Prince Harry and Prince William Wikipedia pages, that how the brothers are reported on is being perceived as possibly biased. Partly because it might appear as if any public slight, backlash, or misquote on one brother is added promptly and pushed forward immediately to his Wikipedia article. While the other brother's page public mishaps or backlash is woven into the body of his article, to the point readers barely notice it was listed. I suggest, to appear fair and balanced by creating a Public Image and Controversy section, for Prince William, Wikipedia page. Or to simply edit Prince Harry's Wikipedia page similar to his brother's, by removing the controversy section, and entering that bit of info throughout the article. In addition, I thought according to Wiki rules, All controversial material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article (including sometimes in Notes or footnotes), and in the various daughter articles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism and also raises significant WP:BLP concerns. If so, why does Prince Harry have a controversial section listed on Wiki article? When neither his father Prince Charles nor Prince William has no such section on their Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebrown43 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the article on Prince Harry should be discussed at that page. DrKay (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Understood, but will a controversy section be added for Prince William's article, to reflect neutrality for visitors, to his page.Purplebrown43 (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

No. DrKay (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Just for clarification, the word "controversy" violates the neutrality of the article. Further explanation with regards to this matter has been given on Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex#Removal of Controversy section. Keivan.fTalk 00:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Mother

Shouldn't Diana be listed as Princess and not Lady Diana? 86.188.32.158 (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all she was never 'Princess Diana'; she was the Princess of Wales and then Diana, Princess of Wales. But to answer your question, no. All mothers are listed by their maiden names to show the person's matrilineal ancestry. Keivan.fTalk 05:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I never said she was Princess Diana, but in the U.K she was actually known as Princess Diana. Thank you for your reply. 86.188.32.158 (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


I for one have never heard her referred to as anything but Princess Diana (occasionally The Princess of Wales.) But I'm sure someone from another country knows our culture better than someone who is actually from the U.K. 109.150.156.97 (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, she was indeed commonly referred to as "Princess Diana", or just "Princess Di". But that was never her formal, correct title. A lot of people refer to a certain "Sir Bob Geldof", but that's equally wrong. He's not entitled to the "Sir" part, no matter whether 10 gazillion people call him that. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

family subject

Hi how are you? I worked with your mother, Princess Dina, at the Haleh Trust Institute in Afghanistan for several years. I wanted to call your mother but I could not find their address. We are in Afghanistan with our family Please, I ask for your help. please please please 103.28.132.2 (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

IP 103, this Talk page is not a means of contacting Prince William. As far as we know he never reads this page, or the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference to future Regnal name?

Should there be an inclusion of future regnal name options under the titles and styles subsection, as there is same on the page for Charles, Prince of Wales? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.199.225 (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It's only in Charles's article because there's long been speculation elsewhere that he might choose a name other than Charles III. We report such things where reliably sourced. But there is no such speculation about William, and it's certainly not up to Wikipedia to get the ball rolling. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 13:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Dubious

William attended the State Opening of Parliament today. He's wearing the Diamond and Golden Jubilee medals. No sign of a Platinum Jubilee medal. He's not mentioned in the source cited. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

"The medal itself may not be worn prior to 3 Jun 22 (the date of the official Platinum Jubilee Service of Thanksgiving), unless at a Jubilee related parade with Her Majesty in attendance after the 6 Feb 22". [2]. Peter Ormond 💬 16:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Except miniature medal [3]. "When can I wear the ribbon and miniature from? - Those who qualify may wear the ribbon on their uniform on 7 Feb 22 onwards".[4] Peter Ormond 💬 16:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I can see it here. DrKay (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Change section of Coat of Arms for Duke of Cambridge from "3rd, Azure, a harp Or stringed Argent (Ireland)." to "3rd, Azure, a harp Or stringed Argent (Northern Ireland)." As is described on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Standard_of_the_United_Kingdom 201.182.150.108 (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done It's the coat of arms of Ireland not Northern Ireland. DrKay (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Heir

Mention that he's now first in line 2001:8F8:1125:AC9F:6506:3D3:4CC:8C70 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (2)

Prince William is not Prince of Wales yet (it's not automatic, he needs to be invested as such explicitly by the King), so please correct the article accordingly. Mill haru (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

This needs to now reflect that he is the Duke of Cornwall. Angeliquenh (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we have an official source? Being the Monarch is instant, but do all the other titles cascade down instantly or do they need to do paperwork for it to happen? - David Gerard (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Certain titles are automatically granted to the heir apparent (only males to date) of the British monarch: Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. The titles of Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester have to be specifically granted and are done in conjunction with each other. Metheglyn (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

YOU LEFT OUT INFORMATION ABOUT HIS MOTHER DIANA. WHY???? THE ROYALS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ERASE HER FROM BRITISH HISTORY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE TOO. VERY DISAPPOINTED!!!! 67.52.26.126 (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Most information is at Diana, Princess of Wales, but there are many other articles on her too. DrKay (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


Why are you shouting? You might have a bee in your bonnet, but the use of capital letters where they are not needed is unnecessary in this instance. It has been quite rightly ignored by DrKay

RASAM (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

Change: "He is the elder son of King Charles III and Lady Diana Spencer." to "He is the elder son of King Charles III and the late Diana, Princess of Wales." 104.54.35.2 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This change has effectively already been made by another editor. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022 (2)

Prince William of Wales, he is now the prince of wales 2A00:23C8:2004:CF01:117B:F1EE:ABF3:9626 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DrKay (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
☒N - No he isn't - at least, not yet. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
And if he were, his style would be “William, Prince of Wales”; “Prince [name] of Wales” would be his son. —Tamfang (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
King Charles III has made him in his speech to the nation Prince of Wales. Gelbphoenix (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince of Wales

Did Charles say Prince William will be Prince of Wales? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes ~~ Downton Geographer (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022 (3)

Change "Wiiliam" to "William" in page title 219.74.63.103 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince of Wales

Title verified by his father's speech. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Noted. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince of Wales

King Charles III, in his address on national TV has just confirmed that William is now the Prince of Wales. 2A00:23C6:761C:AF01:9C81:831A:FA40:C93E (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022 (3)

Change header 'Wiiliam' to 'William' Ranatopi (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022 (4)

2601:3C1:C300:3950:ECF7:16FD:15B8:DAE0 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, the article has been edited. Happy now? —Tamfang (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Article tittle is spelled wrong, it says "Wiiliam" with a double i...

As mentioned, the spelling of William is incorrect 2806:108E:13:16E4:3C8F:F4BC:973C:4FE9 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It's been fixed. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022 (5)

Change to WILLIAM (not WiiLam) and remove Prince of Wales, as that's not his current title 207.81.160.12 (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William,_Prince_of_Wales/Archive_3&oldid=1242369998"