Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Photograph of Catherine

Can someone replace the picture that accompanies this article? It doesn't even look anything like her now. I think this may be better: order of the garter Or this: trooping of the colour --109.149.50.211 (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice images, the problem both are fully copyrighted, and we, in almost all circumstances regarding a living person, can only use free images, per Wikipedia:Image use policy. Courcelles 16:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Omission in Kate Middleton article

Hello there,

I just wanted to point out that there is more than one TV movie out there relating the history of William and Kate's romance. A TV Movie is currently in production starring Alice St. Clair as Kate Middleton. The movie is titled "William & Catherine: A Royal Romance" and is featured on imdb at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1849218/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.219.8 (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in the Duchess' "title and style"

The article on Prince William's wife states that her title and style is "Catherine's full title and style is Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis,[citation needed] Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus."

This is simply not true. Her title and references are Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge. Had her husband not been made a duke on the morning of their wedding, the "Princess William..." would have been accurate but under the circumstances, it's simply wrong.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.222.244 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 June 2011

she is princess william she is a duchess only cause willian is duke upon her marriage she take all female forms of his titles apart from ones a got in the army, the catherine name is not used legally shes a princess but has no right to use princess catherine as she is not one buy birth.

HRH The Duchess of Cambrige

her name at the moment on here is like that of a divorced person sarah,duchess of york, diana,princess of wales should it atlease be catherine the duchess of cambrige. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, absolutely yes, the preceding correspondent is absolutely correct even though he/she never learned the use of capital letters. The former Catherine Middleton's present style is HRH *The* Duchess of Cambridge. She would only become Catherine, [implictly *a*] Duchess of Cambridge on her divorce (which God forbid) from Prince William. Please recall that HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was HRH *The* Duchess of York at the time of the events recounted in the film, The King's Speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.47.243 (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 royal tour of Canada

Assistance in re-editing this article please. At present, it has been nominated for AfD. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Media insistence on continuing to call her Kate Middleton

It has been noted by many that the media - specifically the American media - continue to refer to the Duchess as "Kate Middleton". An example can be found here, in which a celebrity website covering the tour refers to the couple as "Prince William and Kate Middleton". I think this is a phenomenon worth noting somewhere in the article, given it's a case of widespread media inaccuracy (using "the former Kate Middleton" is OK, but even without the Duke and Duchess titles, referring to her by her maiden name when she has clearly chosen not to use it after marriage (whether she'd be allowed to even if she wanted to is another debate) is a factual error. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it best to ignore that comment - readers of the magazine concerned are giving the editor a bashing. Martinvl (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As well they should, but here's another one: [1] . Granted, I wouldn't exactly call these the epitome of journalism, but if, say, "more notable" American media such as CNN or even Fox News pull this when the couple come to the US, it might be worth noting. (Edit: incredibly, some British media are also doing it including The Telegraph so indeed this might be notable enough since it's gone beyond gossip photo sites; Google the name Kate Middleton and you'll see quite a bit of American and British media coverage of the Canadian tour making the error. Is it possible there's some sort of weird anti-monarchist editorial style some newspapers are following that eschews "Duchess of Cambridge" and defaults to the maiden name? If Diana, Princess of Wales was still alive, they'd probably be calling her Diana Spencer. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure this is anti-monarchist sentiment since it's pro-monarchists who are interested in this tour. I noticed a Guardian style page recently called her Kate Middleton, although not normally pro-mnnarchy it does tend to be a stickler for accuracy in relation to names and titles. The Duchess of Cambridge does sound very formal, following her mother-in-law Princess Kate is a possibility, but it hasn't caught on yet.PatGallacher (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really notable or that important the journalists are just using the name that the readers will recognise nothing really for the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Given her long history of coverage before the marriage she is significantly known in her own right under her maiden name and like many people with big profiles the name they are first known by generally sticks. With Diana she wasn't in the public eye for very long before becoming princess but Kate/Catherine has been known for a long time before she gained her titles. If the coverage continues this way and more of it is as kate than catherine would that come under the wikipedia common name policy? Just thinking of it in comparison to wallis simpson/duchess of windsor where it was changed to simpson under that rationale. 46.208.26.179 (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But it's still factually wrong. Diana was widely known as Lady Diana Spencer before her marriage, and the media didn't continue to call her Diana Spencer afterwards. Hillary Rodham Clinton is not referred to as Hillary Rodham. And there have been plenty of examples where actresses have married and changed their professional name to match their married status. The Calgary Herald is doing it now, too here. I happen to know someone at the paper so I have asked if there is some weird style convention that is forcing this factual error. What she was widely known as before is irrelevant, because she will be more widely known as the Duchess of Cambridge, even if she and Will were to divorce tomorrow. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, Kate Middleton would not warrant an article in her own right due to lack of notability. However as wife of the a direct heir to the British throne, she has become notable. It follows therefore that she should be known by the name that is associated with this notability - the Duchess of Cambridge. Martinvl (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody would dispute that, Martinvl. That's not the issue that 68.146.71.145 has raised. It's that much of the media still refers to her by her maiden name, despite her marriage that the same media covered exhaustively, and whether that fact is a matter for mention in our article. An analogy would be with Bob Geldof, who is widely and inaccurately called "Sir Bob Geldof", including by those who should and do know better. The fact that he's often accorded an inappropriate title is mentioned in our article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly should be added to the article and how long will it remain there until it is removed? If the serious sectors of the British Press continue to refer to her as "Kate Middleton", it is likely that a discreet message will be sent to the editor reminding him that she is a probable future queen consort. The trashy celeb glossy magazines are hardly encyclopeadic and in my view can be ignored. Martinvl (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not much, just a brief mention that many media commentators continue to call her Kate Middleton, and it would stay there for as long as they keep on doing it. Bob Geldof has never been Sir Bob, but he's been called that ever since his knighthood in 1986, so our comment in his article remains for as long as this goes on. Just thinking aloud here: Say the Queen dies (it's gonna happen sometime) and Charles takes the regnal name King George VII, as has long been touted. Would the media instantly start calling him "George", or would he remain "Charles" for some considerable time? Charles and Camilla vs. George and Camilla. Hmmm. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Another thought Royal wives/queen consorts are often put under their original names. mary of teck alexandra of denmark etc. as they are queen ... but no numbers original names distinguish them better. We have had lots of queen catherines so perhaps the media is just using a name they plan on sticking to in line with how the various dead queens are refered to46.208.26.179 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Mary of Teck is only so known here in Wikipedia. Out there in the real world she's "Queen Mary". Alexandra of Denmark is "Queen Alexandra". There have been earlier Queens Catherine, but not for a long time, so there'd be no reason why the Duchess of Cambridge wouldn't just become "Queen Catherine" when the time comes. Also, Charles is only 62, so whenever he accedes, he'll be around for probably at least another 25 years (his father just turned 90 and is is good shape; his grandmother got to 102; his mother is 85 and hasn't missed a beat). William and Kate have that long to wait before having any reasonable prospect of becoming king and queen; in the meantime, anything's possible media-wise, and anything's possible Wikipedia-wise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a fair bit using the maiden names for them and a lot of the georges consorts and all of henry viiis ones as well though, on far more than just wiki. I think Kate will used for quite a while to come tbh, a fair bit of the media slant seems to be going for an "of the people" slant and kate rather than catherine works with that.46.208.26.179 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Good discussion above on the concerns I've raised. But it's still a case of the media perpetuating a widespread factual error. I'm a reporter and I'd be fired if I continually mispelled or got people's names wrong, yet I'm seeing media all over the place: Hollywood Reporter, the Telegraph, Calgary Herald ... all are using this "incorrect name". At this point I'm going to have to "pull the trigger" here and ask outright if OUR facts are wrong and if in fact the Duchess has chosen to keep her maiden name. If so, while I would not suggest changing the name of this article, the article may need to be revised to reflect the fact that she's the first female "top tier" royal who isn't a monarch who has ever kept her maiden name. Because I find it hard to believe such a widespread range of major media - it's gone beyond the niche gossip blogs I initially reported about - would get it wrong. Ergo, Wikipedia must be wrong? And even if we're not, the overwhelming amount of major, nontrivial media uses of the maiden name (not just during the tour, but this predates it going back to the day after the wedding) more than justifies a section, or paragraph, on this topic being added to the article. Because I can see a scenario where someone down the line might actually attempt to change this article to reflect the continued use of "Kate Middleton".68.146.71.145 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

She would be the first person in British history – and not just among the royals - to be married to the Duke of X but not herself known as the Duchess of X. Such a change of style is the absolute default assumption, and we’d definitely need to see some reliable source that tells us she has made a clear decision to keep her maiden name. If there had been such a decision, I’m more than sure we’d all have heard about it, because there’d not be much point in making such a decision but not telling the public about it. I’m not sure it’s even possible to be married to a duke but not be a duchess. (The analogy here is that Camilla is most definitely the Princess of Wales, despite the decision not to call her that. And when Charles become king, she will most definitely be queen, despite the decision to call her Princess Consort; a decision I’m sure will be revisited when the time comes) So, I’m very confident that we are properly and correctly calling her the Duchess of Cambridge. What some elements of the media do with titles is reprehensible, and should not be taken as an exemplar of anything.

It has to do with the median age of journalists: people of this age and generation have been taught less, sometimes nothing at all, about protocol and forms of address, compared to what older people know about. It’s not their fault that the education system has failed them, but to base the terminology they employ on what “everyone else is saying and doing” is very far from the Parnassus of Journalistic Excellence they all presumably aspire to.

And it also has to do with first impressions lasting. She became known to the world as Kate Middleton, and in order to “relate” to their readers and viewers, papers and the media generally think it’s cool to continue to refer to her as such. They put her in the same category as movie stars and singers, who almost never change their names when they marry. To the media, they’re all “celebrities”, and all are treated the same way. It’s messy when a celebrity changes their name, and journos like things to be all nice and tidy.

And it has to do with the fact that Kate is young, attractive, likeable, the whole package – she’s just like one of us; hometown girl makes good. If she was more like Princess Anne was at that age – somewhat haughty, distant and reserved – the media would have much less difficulty in calling her the Duchess of Cambridge than Kate Middleton.

Finally, did any of the media actually ask her or the palace authorities whether she still likes to be known as Kate Middleton? I’d bet a million bucks not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

According to our rules, if a plurality of reliable sources call her Kate instead of Catherine, then she's Kate. If a plurality call her Middleton instead of Duchess of York, then she Middleton. I'm an American, and I don't even recognize the current title. I had no idea who "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" even was. If that's what reliable sources call her, then fine, since I don't know much about it. What her name "really" is (TM) doesn't matter. Look to the sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the media refer to Mr Bob Geldof KBE as "Sir Bob Geldof". By your theory, that's what we should also be calling him. I tell you now that I would be implacably opposed to such a suggestion.

As for her no longer being anything Middleton, you may have missed the news that she got married recently. Her then fiance was made Duke of Cambridge a few hours before the wedding. She automatically became the Duchess of Cambridge the moment the celebrant said "I now pronounce you man and wife". It was in all the papers, even on the telly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Today's BBC website had an article entitled "William and Kate wrap-up tour of Canada and US". The opening paragraph read "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have finished their tour of North America" No mention of the name Middleton at all. The BBC is one of the most respected British sources (alongside The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and the Guardian). Martinvl (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I also checked out some Australian sites (dead tree and online) about their Canadian trip, and there was not one mention of the word "Middleton" in any of them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

When you search for "Duchess" right now, you get 20 "Kate"s and 4 "Catherine"s. I agree there doesn't seem to be lot of "Middleton"s anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Forgot link - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

grace kelly is still known as that even though she died a princess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 139.142.181.56, 11 July 2011

her last name upon marriage is Windsor, as she is styled "Her Royal Highness"

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1960

read house of windsor.

139.142.181.56 (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: see article for Prince William, Duke of Cambridge William by custom does not use a surname, but specifically, did not use the name Windsor but Wales during his military service. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, He used wales because it is the correct term to use seeing as he was not a duke and his father was titled, but now that he is a duke he would use Cambridge as his colloquial last name. Either way, as a Prince Royal, due to the Queens Royal Proclamation I mentioned, his name by law would be Windsor. It would be nice if a royal steward were to come onto Wikipedia to clear this up, as I am sure none of us will get leave to "check out his passport" so to speak. 139.142.181.56 (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

better still - find a reliable source that says that she uses that name. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx mountbatten-windsor according to that site. If HRH accedes to the throne his name would then be "Windsor" I'd think along with Lady Catherine's last name upon being made queen? or would she remain a mountbatten-windsor? 66.222.142.166 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Along the lines of what IdreamofJeanie said - find a reliable source that states what she uses Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx is reliable. It's a .gov site. Considering that the british government maintains that site it is the foremost authority in regards to the royals and protocol concerning the royals, as it is the Official Website concerning the Royals. "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." Is the part where the the name is clarified, therefore her last name upon marriage as recorded on the marriage certificate would be Mountbatten-Windsor nee Middleton139.142.181.56 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Page shows as Mountbatten-Windsor as of right now. We should get a consensus if people want it to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Article name isn't correct

We do not seem to be following Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names with the name of this article. Kate clearly dominates Catherine. Duchess of Cambridge isn't a slam dunk either. It seems we've named this article what royal fans would like her to be called. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What is a "slam dunk"? I have never heard that expression before.

The British press refer to her informally as "Kate", particularly in headlines where space is at a premium, but the lede of any article refers to her more formally as the "Duchess of Cambridge". Since there has been more than one Duchess of Cambridge, she is distinguished from the other duchesses when neccessary by the use of the formal version of her first name. Thus the title "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" is correct Martinvl (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A "slam dunk" is a basketball expression, but it has also come to mean "a sure thing." Sure thing or not, I agree with the current title and with the comment below: "Kate, Duchess of Cambridge" would look silly, and I don't think anyone calls her that. Neutron (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In a few cases such as this there is no clearly established common name. "Kate, Duchess of Cambridge" would sound rather incongruous. PatGallacher (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia, not a gossip sheet. The article in question is about a British person, written in UK English. Examples given (or hinted at) on this page seem to consist of the quality UK press and the US celeb magazines. Martinvl (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I agree WP:COMMONNAME says that regardless of a factually accurate name, if someone/something is known by something more commonly than anything else, that's the name we should use. Also http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/6450011-418/prince-william-kate-depart-u.s. http://www.globaltvbc.com/Royal+Visit+What+Kate+Middleton+wore+today+photo/5068025/story.html show that people do call her kate duchess of Cambridge. The article for wallis simpson was renamed to that as that was her name at the most notable moment of her life when she was mrs simpson. Catherines/Kates most notable day/moment was the wedding day watched by billions when the dress was revealed etc and at that time she was Kate MiddletonRafikiSykes (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Also Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/06/prince-william-and-kate-eagle-island whatever goes after it I really think Kate is the common name.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Well, what are all our options. We've got Kate and Catherine. Also, Middleton, Duchess of York, Louis. I have a feeling it will eventually be Princess Kate, but maybe not yet. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this discussion since I am genuinely unsure what alternative title people are proposing. A lot of the articles in question just call her plain "Kate", but we can hardly make that the title of this article. PatGallacher (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest Kate Middleton as it appears many more times than the rest but wouldn't object to kate,duchess of cambridge.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kate Middleton was the most common. If it still is, that's what we should name this article, until something else become more common. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well in google news only including articles within the last month kate middleton is well in front of the present title in results. aand in a general google search kate middleton has about 80 million hits compared to the curent title with about 15 million.RafikiSykes (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a funky one. Having no surname isn't something I've encountered before. It's almost like her name is just "Kate", and we have to disambiguate it. Kate (Duchess of York) or Kate (wife of Prince William) or something might be correct according to our rules. We should probably go with Kate Middleton until Princess Kate takes over. I notice some of our other royal articles also do not follow our naming rules. Prince William for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

But what was the point of all that hoo-haa and razzle-dazzle about the wedding if we're going to continue to refer to her by her maiden name, thus treating her as if she had never married? She is undoubtedly a "celebrity", but that doesn't mean she warrants the same treatment as female celebrities generally get. Most other celebrities are actors or popular singers, who almost always keep their professional names when they marry. Kate Middleton did not keep her maiden name when she became the Duchess of Cambridge. If the argument is that we should be governed by what "everybody" calls her, then let us immediately change Bob Geldof to Sir Bob Geldof, because that's what "everyone" calls him. Eh? No, I thought not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011pnrg why not he is called it in the info box even refered to as that by the bbc. EG Lady Gaga is not that technically but is known as that and titled that. Anyway on more related items Wallis case shows that with Royal naming even when they gain and the new title with marriage does not mean the aritcle has to be called that.RafikiSykes (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

She is not a celebrity in the normal sense of the word - she is a member of royal family and the rules applying to royalty should be used rather than those applying to celebrities. Forget all the glitzy stories that appear in cheap US celeb magazines - the encyclopeadic sources that one should consult are Debretts and Burkes, followed by the quality UK press. Martinvl (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.debretts.com/the-royal-wedding/the-bride-and-groom/catherine-middleton.aspx debretts still has her as middleton there and uses kate for the most part in reference bar the title.RafikiSykes (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but that article is written in the context of her being the bride, so the use of her maiden name is quite appropriate. Martinvl (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well where does Debretts refer to as anything else then? Also When even somewhere as "proper" as debretts uses a non formal name like kate for her it further demonstrates how widespread it is that she is known as kate.RafikiSykes (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using celebrity or royal names. We should be following what is common. Although it seems like we are naming Kate, we're really just naming the Wikipedia article about her. Imagine someone goes to the search box to find her. They'd never type in exactly what this article is titled. They probably wouldn't even start with "cath..." They'd probably type in Kate Middleton. Princess Kate redirects here already, which is another thing I'd imagine they'd type. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Try typing in "Kate Middleton" and tell me what you get? Martinvl (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The most relevant guideline is not WP:COMMON but WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), which very clearly supports the convention used here. The problems raised here of disambiguating people with titles but not surnames have already been worked through numerous times across the project, there is no need to either reinvent the wheel, or needlessly diverge from a clear and consistent standard. (also)Happy‑melon 17:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There it says "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English ("common name" in the case of royalty and nobility may also include a person's title)".RafikiSykes (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It says generally use the common one, then says consider "ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles". The last one is the rub. When the other British royal articles were named, WP:COMMON NAME was ignored, and now using Kate Middleton would make this article the only one that follows it, messing up the consistency among article titles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe Kate Middleton would be more consistent. Anne Boleyn and others use their original names, I believe. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn is a bad example. Henry VIII had six wives, three were called Catherine, two were called Anne and one was called Jane. Martinvl (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the last couple DOC's wives were Sarah Fairbrother and Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sophie Winkleman is titled by the name she is known by most commonly rather than lady frederick windsor etc. 84.93.141.208 (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sophie Winkleman is titled such because that is her professional name as an actress, and Sarah Fairbrother was the Duke of Cambridge's mistress--their marriage violated the Royal Marriages Act, so they were never legally married. Kate is not know separately for anything but being the wife of Prince William, and even so, she would still likely be moved to the current title.

Don't cherry-pick policy quotes; the rest of the sentence you quoted is "but there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles", mostly factors which weigh against using the 'common' Kate Middleton form. The guideline goes on to describe best practices in several specific cases including holders of peerage titles:

“ Articles on the wives of hereditary peers are generally headed {First name} {Married name}, {Title}... If the husband is a member of the Royal family, his article will usually have no surname; neither should hers ”

That seems absolutely clear to me. (also)Happy‑melon 20:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Generally" and "usually" clearly allow for variance when there is a for more used common name. The queen mothers article is titled differently to other similar consort articles due to her common name. Variance is already shown in titles for all sorts of different reasons in the articles mentioned.Why not put it to the vote and see what people say. do the proposed move think like with wallis simpson.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Before a vote, I'd like to know what a variety of similar articles have been named. I'm not a royal watcher, so I looked up Anne Boleyn and the last couple DOC wives. I couldn't find a nice list of names where the people are similar, to see how they are named ([[List of British Princesses[[?). I know Lady Di doesn't follow her common name, but what do the other articles do. Anyone know? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

So I just read this article.[2] Probably not a great source, but I'm trying to find some reliable sources that specifically talk about her name. It says

"The couple will be known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge following their marriage, the royal family announced shortly before the wedding -- thus avoiding giving the newest member of the royal family any title that would implicitly compare her to Diana, Princess of Wales."

and

"Widely known as Kate before her wedding, the bride has now asked that she be called Catherine, the royal family said in the run-up to the wedding."

Basically, while we're trying to decide if we should call her what most people say, vs. some fancier version, her handlers are also trying to create a specific name for her. At this point, it's still being decided. Yikes! Doesn't make it easy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Also see [3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Already on wikipedia royals arent styled as they ask to be called any way because we dont use hrh etc. so sarah duchess of york and sophie countess of wessex are titled and shown in the similar format but the former is correct title as divorce means no hrh the later having no hrh shown in front of name is then shown also in the style of a divorcee. So wiki is already presenting in a way different to the full proper titles etc. RafikiSykes (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher's reference to "Lady Di" is telling. Everyone knows who he's talking about, and she is still often called that, long after she ceased being a mere lady and became a princess. But do we title her article using the word "Lady"? - not bloody likely. It would probably have changed to Diana, Princess of Wales on the very day she married Charles, had Wikipedia been around in 1981. Same principle applies to her daughter-in-law, the former Kate Middleton, now Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Diana was publicly known for only a short time before marriage. Kate/Catherine has been in thr public eye for many years pre marriage so been in news etc as her own name for a lot longer.Given her image and effect on sales of near anything she wears she could almost be argued as having her own brand. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1345628/Kate-Middleton-brand-Exploit-royal-bride-bes-sell-dresses-sued.html The biggest proportion of her coverage does seem to be image/fashion based as well. Whilst there is the attempts to get her known by the new name "rebrand" her, coverage clearly still shows it is not taking holdRafikiSykes (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Check the date on the Daily Mail article - it was three months BEFORE the wedding!. Martinvl (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thats my point... She has star power/buying influence in her own name sufficient to get the palace working to prevent her name being used to sell things well before she used a royal name at all. Such things have not happened with other royal brides. Especially when concerned with her fashion and style she is getting referred to as kate middleton long AFTER the wedding. Another possible slant is that she worked for jigsaw as a fashion buyer as kate middleton so like sophie above she has been known for a name she used professionally.In a link to that work is her clothing choices and highlighting of certain brands and other choices she makes in that area.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry had to comment long AFTER the wedding - ten weeks! need to look at this again in 10 months or even a couple of years. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In newspaper terms it is though todays headline is tomorrows fish and chip paper, it is all very finite but this name persists.RafikiSykes (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2011/07/kate_middleton_earns_her_place.html?imw=Y&f=most-viewed-24h5 Kate Middleton Earns Her Place As a Style Icon well past the wedding illustrate my point of the contuance especially in fashion terms. There is reverance and terms of Icon etc but it as all under kate middleton.87.115.146.128 (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you visit [4]. In addition to this particuar report, I saw this in a number of other British pubications. You will be seeing a lot less of her in the press, she is busy learning the ropes of her new job and of course one cannot discount the possibility of her becoming pregnant in the next few months. All of this points to her being a fashon icon image as being merely one facet of her personality. The most important facet of her personality is that she is in line to being consort to our future king and that role far outweighs anything that New York fashion magazines might publish. Martinvl (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your wording here does suggest somewhat your preference is based on reverence patriotism etc rather than accuracy of naming. She may be stepping back in terms of official duties but that does not mean anything will neccesarily change in terms of coverage or interest in her. Plus again that link refers to kate not catherine.RafikiSykes (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this article can provide some insight to all. (Background: The Telegraph loves to cover the royals, but not in a tabloid-ish manner – always serious & formal stuff.) What I have observed in post-wedding news articles from credible British sources (incl. [5], [6]) is that they always refer to her as Duchess of Cambridge first, and then Kate for short. — Yk ʏк yƙ  talk ~ contrib 17:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-william/8620841/Kate-Middleton-and-Prince-William-to-be-the-biggest-stars-in-Tinseltown.html shows the credible telgraph does it just as much. The duchess of cambridge styling seems mostly to crop up when its talking about activities as a couple like in your example and even there immediately after using duchess the telegraph says kate middleton.If "credibility"is an issue even the bbc is using kate middleton http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0128py9 "The Kate Middleton Effect on Fashion 'Elegant yet safe’ is the Kate Middleton style and it has found many admirers." RafikiSykes (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Happy-melon is correct in that we are following the most relevant guidelines, Official names#Valid use of official names and Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). This topic was debated at length by a wide range of editors in April (and resolved) and as MilborneOne says it's far too soon for a rethink. Ten months from now sounds about right. Rubywine (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to the discussion you are reffering to? thanks RafikiSykes (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Talk:Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge/Archive_3 and Talk:Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge/Archive_4. There are numerous challenges to the article title. I haven't kept a record of individual instances, but the overall debate was voluminous, repetitive and ad nauseam! Rubywine (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for the introduction

Despite all the debate back and forth, including from those ignoring the reputable sources that indicate she is not to me referred to by her maiden name, nonetheless as we've discussed, media continue to refer to her as "Kate Middleton". Based on this easily verified fact, and perhaps also to placate those who want to rename the article (I'm rather stymied at those who want to move this off of Duchess of Cambridge. I suppose they'll be wanting to rename the Queen's article next), I'd like to suggest the following revision to wording, which I think is fair and covers off the variations:

...1982), popularly referred to as Kate, and frequently in the media by her maiden name, Kate Middleton, is the wife of ...

I'd love to use the wording "and frequently, if erroneously, in the media", but that would require a source. What's needed is something to indicate that her last name is now de factor Windsor, Windsor-Mountbatten, or Wales - though it could actually be Cambridge now if the same naming convention that has resulted in Harry being called Harry Wales by the military is in place. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I like your first suggested wording, and I support that change. However, I think the added phrase "if erroneously" is unnecessary and potentially even inaccurate. Despite Kate's marriage to William, we cannot be absolutely certain that the media use of her maiden name is unauthorised. Given that it has been in widespread use by broadsheets and the BBC since the wedding, I think it is possible that the usage has been given tacit approval by the Royal Family. It could be part of a drive for the future king and his wife to appear more modern, or a deliberate ploy to discourage the emergence of "Princess Kate". Or, since she is a huge media asset for the Royal Family, to maintain a high individual profile for her online, undiminished by a name change. That's all pure speculation on my part, but it's not up to Wikipedia to insist that Kate should never be known by her maiden name. Let's go with your first suggestion. Rubywine (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be the American press that continues to use the name "Middleton" - I woudl oppose making any reference to such use in the lede - it might be appropriate later on in the article, but only once the quality reference works such as Burkes and Debretts have published detaisl of the wedding in their paper editions. Martinvl (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not accurate British press of all types also continue in the use of MiddletonRafikiSykes (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. As I clearly stated, "Kate Middleton" has been used often by the BBC and all the British broadsheets since the wedding. This can be easily verified by a Google News search. I completely fail to see what the coverage of the wedding in Burke's and Debrett's next editions have to do with this question. Rubywine (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If you were to do an analysis of which publications continued to use "Middleton", I think that the bias would be towards the tabloid press and the US press. I did my own search using the string <<"Kate Middleton" "July 2011" site:.co.uk>> - a disproportionate number of hits were from the Daily Mirror. I do not normally regard The Daily Mirror as a reliable source. If people enter "Kate Middleton", they will be directed to the correct page anyway. Martinvl (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That is hardly an accurate measure as not all the UK press automatically use .co.uk and as already shown it happens with both high and low brow publishers. Saying it is all just America and tabloids we should ignore it is skirting the issue entirelyRafikiSykes (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who suggested the change (in case a different IP is displayed with my signature, I'm not married to the "if erroneously" part - and as I say if we are to put that in it would require source otherwise it would be POV. Just as a note, today's coverage of Zara Philips' wedding by the Daily Mail here indicates that she is the first female royal to keep her maiden name after marriage, so unless the Mail is wrong, that pretty much confirms that any use of Kate Middleton by any media following her wedding (including Wikipedia) is a factual error. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The mail is correct that she seems to be the first person who is a royal family member to do that but it is making no statement there with regards to what those who marry into the family are doing.RafikiSykes (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Example from article to demonstrate "Even when they marry commoners, members of the monarchy adopt the moniker of their partners."RafikiSykes (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reputable source, it's gutter press. And you're missing the point. Obviously the Royal Family would not officially endorse media use of her maiden name since her official title is the Duchess of Cambridge. But the fact that solidly royalist outlets like the BBC and the Daily Telegraph persist in using Middleton for no apparent reason is puzzling. The BBC ignores all readers' protests about it. One plausible explanation is that the Royal Family unofficially endorse it. We do not know, and we will never know. However the fact is that the press, British and international, use her maiden name frequently, therefore it is appropriate for Wikipedia to mention that. Rubywine (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, I think the maiden name use is being purposely overlooked to seem more down with the people. Certainly when reporting in the past hasn't been to the liking statements are released rapidly.RafikiSykes (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The Daily Mail is a reliable source. Hobson (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as a followup on this discussion, is Kate the first Royal to be widely referred to by her maiden name rather than her title? As mentioned earlier I don't remember Diana ever being called Diana Spencer after she married Charles (or even after the divorce), and even Sarah Ferguson was rarely - to my memory - referred to as such while she was married to Andrew, only after their divorce. If the topic of naming is addressed in the article, this might be a superlative worth noting. Incidentally, I'm actually a member of the media myself "in real life" and I've tried to find out why newspapers I work for insist on Kate Middleton and they refuse to explain why. This is actually pushing the bizarre and, as Rubywine says of the BBC, the puzzling. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that intriguing little piece of inside information. I think that my speculative theory is somewhat validated. ;) Rubywine . talk 12:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember Diana Spencer still being referred to as "Lady Di" while she was Princess of Wales - not quite the same thing, I know. I suppose HRH still gets called "Kate Middleton" because "the Duchess of Cambridge" sounds rather pompous and "Princess Kate" just hasn't caught on. Opera hat (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're right about "Lady Di". But in Kate's case we are just talking about the press. I don't know about you, but I'm unaware of a popular tendency to call her "Kate Middleton". My theory is that maiden name usage by the press is being privately encouraged to keep her internet name recognition high (and it certainly has that effect [7]) and/or because it helps to prevent "Princess Kate" catching on. But who knows. Rubywine . talk 16:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Conversationally most people I know just say Kate Middleton or just Kate.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, I've heard some reporters say "Duchess Kate", which would be more accurate than "Princess Kate". Ragettho (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not accurate, it's entirely wrong. Seven Letters 17:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Footnote citation

I notice a footnote has been added referencing the Mountbatten-Windsor surname, and a citation request has been added. According to Wikipedia's article on Prince Philip, it was decreed by an Order in Council in 1960 (once again putting the media's factual error of using Middleton under the spotlight). The article doesn't cite a source, however I'm sure these Orders in Council are a matter of public record and are available online somewhere if someone cares to look. Alternately one of the many many books on the Queen has to reference this somewhere. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Princess William, etc?

Referring to this edit. I don't think it's correct to give Catherine "The Princess William" in her title. The editor refers to Diana and Camilla ("The Princess Charles"), Sarah ("The Princess Andrew"), and Sophie ("The Princess Edward"), but those women all married men who were "The Prince ____" If you leave out William's Duke of Cambridge title, he's Prince William of Wales, not "The Prince William". I think "The" is just for children (or daughters-in-law) of a monarch. Princess Anne was originally "Princess Anne of Edinburgh", but as soon as her mother became Queen, she became "The Princess Anne". The Queen was "Princess Elizabeth of York", but when her father became King, she immediately became "The Princess Elizabeth". And the current Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent do not have "The Princess Richard" or "The Princess Edward" in their titles. This is pure guessing on my part - I don't have a source, but I'm just using logic, based on the information in other Wikipedia articles. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can check it out? Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Surtsicna (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

pregnancy section

Has any legitimate news organization reported, or about to report, that the Duchess is actually pregnant? Since I have scoured the Internet for twenty minutes, trying to find out which news service: BBC, ITN, CBC, The Telegraph, The Independent, the Mail, The Times, The Mirror, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, has ACTUALLY reported that she's pregnant? Also I've checked Buckingham Palace, St. James Palace, and Keningston Palace's sites, and since they would likely know of it before Wikipedia, it's likely it is entirely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.120.55 (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been rumors of Kate's pregnancy ever since they were married. Whatever this person saw was probably one of those unverified rumors. Some people are so gullible that they will believe anything, even if it comes from the National Enquirer! I gather that whoever saw the line in Google that Kate was pregnant didn't even check the source! --Skol fir (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

recently handed out medals?

I think someone needs to update the "Royal duties" section. She handed out medals to the Irish Guards almost four months ago. She's done other things since then: visiting the areas of rioting in England, and her upcoming engagement in Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.120.198 (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are a "someone"; if you have the sources please be bold and do the update. Roger (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Princess William [Arthur Philip Louis]?

Okay, well I brought this up months ago when I tagged it as needing verification, but we still have no source for calling Catherine "Princess William Arthur Philip Louis" - all the sources call her "Princess William". I left it tagged for months in the hopes that someone would find a source, but as it as yet to happen, I went ahead and removed the material in keeping with the policies of WP:BLP and WP:V. If someone can find a source saying that she takes on his full middle names along with "William" please please cite it and re-add the material, but for now, we have to err on the side of caution as this is a BLP and not include any material that cannot be verified, especially after it had been tagged as such for months. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done. With the greatest respect, did you try to look for a reference? When I Googled "Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis" I got 48,600 results. Was relatively easy to grab one of those sources and re-add the information to the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I did, actually. In searching for ["Princess William Arthur Philip Louis" -wiki], the first few pages, at least, contained sources that could hardly be considered reliable (blogs, tumblrs, "tags" on websites, etc.). In fact, back when the titles were announced, and for months afterwards, there wasn't a single source that used his middle names as part of the title, which leads me to wonder if the usage has come from seeing it on Wiki as opposed to it being the actual truth. The site you added actually flat out credits wiki (and its various forum users) for its information (see here), which makes the information self-referential, and thus hardly a reliable source. I'm still really hoping that we can find something. I'll continue searching, and I hope you will join me, but until we find something that is up to standards, we can hardly include contentious information in a BLP. I'm going to go ahead and remove the information again, but as soon as a good source can be found, by all means, I certainly have no objection to the information being re-added. I just want to make sure we are adhering to the WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS policies. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about her taking on the middle names, but I'm pretty confident that she is not Princess anything yet and will not be until Prince William becomes Prince of Wales, at which point she will become Princess of Wales (as Camilla technically became when she married Charles, but out of respect for Diana she uses another title in everyday use; I doubt there will be much controversy over Kate taking on the title from Diana when the time comes). 68.146.80.110 (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Okay. In British tradition, a wife legally takes the name of her husband. It is the same for everyone: the woman who marries Mr John Robert Smith would become Mrs John Robert Smith. Within the Royal Family, this tradition is strictly adhered to, full stop, end of. I cannot understand why this is causing such a problem. All other royal ladies take the name of their husband. Catherine is Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus. Prince Michael of Kent is the son of the late HRH The Prince George, Duke of Kent. His wife takes the title Princess Michael of Kent because her husband holds no higher title. Prince Michael and The Duke of Cambridge are in the same position: they are both sons of the sons of a monarch. Catherine is Princess William, but since he is a Royal Duke, this higher title is used. I do not wish to sound rude, but this is simple, basic English tradition and I cannot understand why people are disagreeing. Please take a look at the pages of The Duchess of Cornwall, The Countess of Wessex, The Duchess of Kent, The Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Michael of Kent. Currently, the article is wrong because people do not have the slightest clue what they are talking about.

It's already been established here that her name is Princess William. The only question is whether she also takes William's middle names, i.e. whether she can properly be called Princes William 'Arthur Philip Louis, or only Princes William.Mattmatt1987 (talk)

• See British princess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.106.98 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked more closely at a reference that was provided by 68.33.102.251 in their edit here. Although on the surface this website appears very flashy and well organized, the information provided by a handful of editors with only nicknames to identify them, seems rather dubious to say the least. None of the articles are backed up by references and the credentials of the contributors are impossible to ascertain. I would put this source in the category of a Blog, without editorial supervision or screening of the content provided. See WP:BLOGS for the unreliability of such sources. Particularly relevant here is "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." So, that leaves us with Zoeydahling's very astute observation that in the full title we can put only "Princess William", without the middle names of William tacked on. Until some reliable source says otherwise, that is our only choice. People are trying to insert themselves into this debate on very shaky grounds, and this needed to be said. I have thus removed the reference in question, which is not usable, especially in a BLP. --Skol fir (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• When the titles were announced, Catherine WAS NOT (I REPEAT WAS NOT) Granted the title or Style Princess William. Per the official announcement on their wedding website: 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. [8]

• She was not granted the title "Princess William", it was automatic in the same way that if Miss Smith married Mr Jones, she becomes Mrs Jones. It should be noted that she was not granted the title "Duchess of Cambridge" either, she automatically became "Duchess of Cambridge" on her marriage. Martinvl (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Last name controversy

The original discussion on this as been archived, but I still think some discussion needs to be added to the article as to why the media continues to refer to her incorrectly as Kate Middleton, despite the indisputable reliable source - the Royal Family itself, via its website - indicating she is not so named anymore. With celebrities, we use maiden names - and married names - only when they are used professionally (i.e. Roseanne Barr became Roseanne Arnold professionally during her marriage to Tom Arnold, later reverting to Barr after she divorced; Portia De Rossi is legally Portia Degeneres following her marriage to Ellen, but she continues to use De Rossi professinally; Michelle Robinson became Michelle Obama and is never referenced by her maiden name; and of course some like Hilary Rodham-Clinton (and at one time Courtenay Cox-Arquette) go the double last name route. But none of this applies with Kate, yet the media insist on perpetuating this factual error - I actually got into a dispute with the editor of a magazine I contribute to regarding this; she insisted on "Kate Middleton" despite it being wrong "because that's the style" I was told. I nearly asked for my credit to be changed to Alan Smithee as a result of that. Anyway, I am hardly the only person who complains regularly about this, so surely some media has offered a rationale that can be used for a source citation by now. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Portia De Rossi is not Portia Degeneres following her marriage to Ellen in 2008; she's Portia Degeneres following her name change in 2010. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We could speculate forever about why the ignorant decide for themselves what public figures' names are, but it gets us nowhere in the end. The important thing is that we use her correct title - and we do. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article still refer to her as "Middleton" thoughout, then? Orlando098 (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

See section "Middleton or the Duchess?" further down this talk page. Martinvl (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

incorrect link

fyi - just reporting that The Art Room link in patronages does not work. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.41.212 (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Only because nobody has created an article on The Art Room charity yet, when it is created then the link will go blue and will work. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

HTML comment

In the article there's an HTML comment saying:

Yes, her full style DOES include HIS names. It may be weird, but it's not WRONG

In what situation is this right?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Charities

Someone has reverted some thinning here with the edit summary:

Please notice！Those charities are close to William & Catherine hearts and reflect the experiences, passions and values of their lives！

Possibly, but does make them encyclopedic, particularly at this level of detail? This is an encyclopedia not Court & Social. Britmax (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Far to much detail for this article, a one para summary is all that is required but they should be an article on The Foundation of Prince William and Prince Harry which can include anything notable about the gift fund. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

title

Would it be possible and suitable to mention that in the time between 29th April 2011 (Royal wedding) up until 26th May 2011 that Prince William's dukedom did not become official, therefor The Duchess of Cambridge would not hold that title until the 26th? In between then wouldn't she have been Her Royal Highness The Princess William of Wales? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.126.122 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think she is still entitled to be called "The Duchess of Cambridge" because it was announced by HM the Queen's press release, and the Duke became so at 8 a.m. She may still technically be Princess William of Wales, given the pecularities of the peerage system and the fact that William remains the son of the Prince of Wales, thus making him a Prince of Wales (not THE Prince of Wales, of course). 74.69.6.182 (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing that should be mentioned his that her full title is HRH The Princess William,Duchess of Cambridge and so on all Royal brides have carried HRH The Princess Charles (Diana, Princes of Wales & Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall) HRH The Princess Andrew (Sarah, Duchess of York) and finlly, HRH The Princess Sophie (Countess of Wessex). Just a thought.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.23 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure this first statement is correct, we would need a reliable source. PatGallacher (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

update

Someone needs to update section after the Duchess' marriage and duties. Both her and William's pages I think need to be organized more sensibly, as they are going to be doing A LOT in the next few years and from my view, it seems choppy and disjointed in places. I think it needs to be more linerally organized. I'm not sure what the defintion of "recent" is, but she handed out medals to the Irish Guards in July, over seven months ago. There's no need to say B.P.'s announced the Cambridges would tour the United States after Canada; they did it i July. Now that it is past, who cares when it was announced? She carried out her 1st solo engagement stepping in for the Prince of Wales on October 26th at Clarence House. The sentence that she toured the Canadian Museum of Civilization probably belongs in the royal tour page itself. She and the Duke attended the British premiere of "War Horse" on her 30th birthday, and she's begun a series of solo engagements visiting her charities. And on a personal note, she's 30 yrs. old for God's sakes. Most women her age are married and have children, and aren't splashed about every time they have small talk with some fuddlyduddy at a charity or a public event. There's no reason to baby them for God's sake. She's a 30-yr-old woman, she ought get on with it! 74.69.6.182 (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction of Date Needed

There needs to be a correction made regarding when the Duchess of Cambridge presented shamrocks on St. Patrick's Day. The article uses March 14, 2012; it should be March 17, 2012.

Thank you, JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.13.123 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 23:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Name

Per WP:Common Name surely this page should be set as Kate Middleton, not Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. I mean, I only call her Kate and who ever calls her Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? Dontforgetthisone (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are endless reams of discussions in this page's archives about why this is not, in fact, the consensus. WP:NCPEER is the primary, and more specific than WP:CN, guideline covering the names of wives of British nobility and royalty. Happy‑melon 21:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2012

her style and title in full should be - Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathern, Baroness Carricfergus

69.177.32.249 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source. Pol430 talk to me 21:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Catherine must be the Princess William etc... since, she does not posses the titles in her own right but through her husband.

Burkes Peerage from 1937 states: "There have been nine duchesses in their own right from Margaret Duchess of Norfolk, so created by King Richard II on 19 September 1397 , to H.R.H Princess Arthur of Connaught, who is Duchess of Fife of the creation of 1900(Burkes Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, 1937, p.6)".

Further under the title Duchess of Fife: Duchess of Fife (H.H. Princess Alexandra Victoria Alberta Edwina, Louise) and Countess MacDuff, co. Banff in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, Dame grand cross of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, has royal red cross, b. 17 May 1891 m. 15 Oct. 1913 H.R.H. Prince Arthur of Connaught K.G., K.T., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., only son of H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught. Her Royal Highness Princess Arthur of Connaught (Duchess of Fife), who s. her father in the dukedom by special remainder 1912, has issue (see Royal family connaught, D.)(Burkes peerage etc..., 1937, p. 967) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.167.91 (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

unicef

When the Duke and the Duchess were in Copenhagen, Denmark, they visited UNICEF. It is mentioned, but I think it should be mentioned that they were accompanied by the Crown Prince and Crown Princess of Denmark. It may not be the most notable thing, but since it was a royal duty for all parties, it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.151.126 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Catherine and William toys

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: On the occasion of first anniversary of marriage , the famous London toy shop Hamleys put on sale two dolls that show Catherine Duches of Cambridge and Prince William in wedding robes. The price is about 100 pounds. Most collectors buy them and are not intended for play. A good way for the popularization of the Royal family.93.137.44.29 (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

IF Prince William became King?

I noticed it said that if Prince William became King, Princess Kate would be queen consort. This is wrong. Prince William, who is my first cousin once removed, is second in line, therefore will be King. Because his dad Prince Charles(who is my great-uncle), if Prince Charles became King, he would only be King Charles III for a little while, then there would be King William V or VI and Queen Catherine or Queen Kate. Signed, Savannah Philips, granddaughter of Princess Anne, Princess Royal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.157.52 (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Two points. The obvious first: Savannah Phillips is an infant, so clearly this is a fake persona. Second of all, until it happens, anything is likely. William could (heaven forefend) be killed in an airplane crash, a helicopter crash, a deadly disease, a successful assassination, etc. Since the last two male heirs-to-heirs were not on the throne for long or at all (Edward VIII abdicated, Prince Albert Victor died very young and left Prince George, Duke of York to become King George V), it is entirely possible that William will not become King. Not likely, but possible. It MUST be adhered to. 74.69.126.89 (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

His current occupation is fairly hazardous so it is reasonable to not engage in reckless soothsaying. Roger (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Or he could be outlived by his father, or his grandmother, or Britain could abolish the monarchy before he acceeds to the throne. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources

This article relies heavily on citations to thepeerage.com, and wargs, which have been discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN and determined not to be a reliable source, and should not be used as references in articles.[9][10] The article also cited various other self-published sites and blogs, none of which can be used as a source in a BLP per WP:BLPSPS The citations have been removed, but not the associated text, and tags inserted for the former footnotes. Better sources must be found for this text; text that is not supported by in-line citation to a reliable source may be removed.Fladrif (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted - the WARGS research into the Duchess of Cambridge's ancestry was not self-published - it was published posthumously by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, a respected genealogical society - see William Addams Reitwiesner for more details. Martinvl (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wargs is self-published. If it is reproducing Reitwiesner's research, which is separately cited in the article, it is a copyright violation. You can cite the NEHGS publication, but not Wargs copyright violation of it. You've provided no rationale whatsoever for restoring thepeerage or the other blogs and fansites. WP:BLPSPS is unequivocal about such sources not being used in a BLP. Fladrif (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The charge of "copyright violation" is absurd. For a variety of reasons, the simplest being that WARGS, published first, can't "violate" the copyright of Reitwiesner's book, published years later. You should redact your accusation, and be more careful about making such claims of wrong-doing. - Nunh-huh 19:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that these sources should be kept out. It is worrying how many BLPs they are used in.RafikiSykes (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Could I suggest that "The Peerage" references be reinstated, but flagged as "unreliable". At least this way people will know where the information came from and won't "discover" the information next year and reinstate it. For the record, I reinstated the entire change, but I would like the WARGS reference to stay. Martinvl (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sute that WP:BLP is applicable to this discussion - WP:BDP is probably more applicable as none of the people being discussed are living or are "recently deceased". Martinvl (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a better suggestion. Find a source that meets Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source and insert it. At least that way, the information will be sourced to something other than Randy in Boise, and it won't get deleted for lack of sourcing by this time next year. Why would you want to cite Wargs, which is a self-published site and cannot be used in a BLP no matter how expert the author is, when there is a published document that is already cited in this article that contains the identical information? This is mind-numbingly baffling. Fladrif (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP rules do not apply in the case of most of the information from WARGS. If you read the WP:BPL site you will see the following:

"Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning deceased persons. However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy."

The area of controversy surrounds people who died many centuries ago. Moreover, I do not think that the actions of those ancestors has any implications on the current generation. Martinvl (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The subject of this article is a living person thus everything in the article must comply with BLP. Roger (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have raised this question at Biographies_of_living_persons#Distant_ancestors. Please contine the discussion there. Martinvl (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry chart

An edit was has broken out about the use of a chart showing the common ancestry of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. This chart has no place in this particular article as it covers both partners. However there is scope for a new artcile "Common ancestry of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge". May I respectfully suggest that the chart be moved to that artcile and that it be explained there and that the article contain Wikilink to all parties named. Furthermore, could the author of the chart modify it so that the link to Charles is horizontal, not sloping upwards. Martinvl (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 May 2012

In the section captioned "Public Appearances" it states the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge "handed out" medals to troops.

The Royal Family do not "hand out" medals they "present" them!

94.172.220.141 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Although if 'handed out' was in the reference, I'd have commented and waited for further input. Dru of Id (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing her Titles

So I've been looking at the available sources for Catherine's titles, and I'm not entirely sure we have it right. We know for sure that she's Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus because we have good sources for those. However, we don't have a single source that she becomes Princess William Arthur Philip Louis... or even just Princess William. Every source I could find calling her "Princess William" was pre-wedding speculation saying that if they don't get dukedoms or other titles (which they ended up getting), she would be Princess William of Wales. Since that is not what ended up happening, are we sure that she is Princess William at all? As best the sources show right now, it would seem that she is just Catherine Elizabeth, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus. Unless we can find sources to support Princess William [Arthur Philip Louis], we really shouldn't have those titles on the page at all. Can anyone find sources, because if not, it really seems we should remove the information? --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree to an extent: if the taking of her husband's first names is so obvious, we should be able to find a source for it. On the other hand, in the absence of a source, the lead sentence needs to say something, and the question of what would be least controversial is not trivial. "FemaleName, Duchess of Wherever" seems to be the more common style amongst the princesses linked to in the infobox in the article; with the only exception being Princess Michael of Kent, the wife of the younger brother of the Duke of Kent. So I would venture that "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" would be the most 'obvious' style. Happy‑melon 09:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree too, and I have removed the "Princess William..." before. I've removed it again. Opera hat (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• PLEASE SEE British princess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.106.98 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you were trying to show with that link? All I see is a bunch of claims that need citations and speak nothing about whether Catherine herself took any specific titles? --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Although the article British princess needs citations, however it does explain the matter with examples, as under:

The wife of a prince of the blood takes her husband's Christian name in her title as do all married royal women. For example, upon her marriage to Prince Michael of Kent in 1978, Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz assumed the title and style of "Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent". Similarly, upon her marriage to then Prince Richard of Gloucester, the former Birgitte van Deurs assumed the title and style of "Her Royal Highness Princess Richard of Gloucester".

The situation is slightly different when a woman is married to a prince who happens to be a peer or the Prince of Wales. Upon marriage, the wife of the Prince of Wales becomes "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales". Upon marriage, the wife of a royal duke (or earl) becomes "Her Royal Highness The Duchess (or Countess) of X". When Prince Richard of Gloucester succeeded to his father's dukedom in 1974, his wife became "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Gloucester".

Whilst it has been traditional, as is still technically the case, that a princess by marriage cannot be called Princess and her first name. However, Diana, Princess of Wales, was so consistently referred to as "Princess Diana" that by frequent usage (at least in her case) it has come to be accepted occasionally by official sources such as the Royal website and also in the media.

• Specific example is that of Birgitte van Deurs, who, on marriage to Prince Richard of Gloucester, assumed the title of "Princess Richard of Gloucester" but, when her husband succeeded to his father's dukedom, became "the Duchess of Gloucester". Based on this precedence, Catherine would have been "Princess William of Wales" if her husband had not received the dukedom. As he did receive it, her proper title is "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge". Even if the exact technical term is "H.R.H. Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge", better to use her own name in an encyclopedic setting. However, in the absence of specific, authentic reference, my comment should be taken as speculatory. Hrishikes (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Without the Princess William, or indeed Catherine, it is currently showing she has no name, it goes straight into The Duchess of Cambridge with no immediate first title and no name. She is not a princess but is allowed to use it as a courtesy with William's name, like any royal wife is styled. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, not long ago, it was added, with a source from the BBC. See the edit history. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The full title for Catherine Elizabeth (née Middleton) would be, unless proved otherwise: (Catherine Elizabeth,) Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Phillip Louis of Wales, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus. Since she is married to a Royal-Duke rather than a noble Duke, the dukedom takes priority with regards to her shortened style, and thus that is HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. The Princess of Wales is (usually) an exception to that tradition, but b/c of public sensitivities the royal-duchess style is also being applied to Camilla. William's peerage was announced the morning of his wedding. However, the peerage only became official on May 26 that year, the date of the letter patent. Therefore she briefly did hold (or rather, was eligible to use) the style HRH The Princess William of Wales. That would have presumably remained that way if William had never received a dukedom.

The fact that William now holds a peerage does not mean in and of itself that the "Princess William" portion was ever removed from his wife's full title. Women marrying into royalty, nobility, and (until recently) commoners virtually all took on their husbands full name and titles (including 'middle' names) upon marriage. As many were recently reminded when the new (private) order of precedence came down with Catherine having to curtsy to different people depending on if she was with William or not, these titles are not her own. If widowed, she would retain the HRH and be titled HRH The Dowager Duchess of Cambridge. It is only in the event that they divorce would she be known as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, with all her other titles (and HRH as well, per a 1996 letter patent) stripped, as happened to Sarah, Duchess of York, in the style also afforded to all widows of peers (not including princesses- Diana being the sole exception). Exceptions may be granted for styles, as was the case for Princess Alice when she became widowed, although her official title remained the same. So the name of this article is currently titled as if the woman is divorced and without a child as direct heir to the throne (the latter being true for at least a little longer). While styles may change through convention, common use, verbal permission, etc. the method by which official titles may be created, granted, modified or revoked must be expressed through a written royal decree, in the form of a letter patent. One of two relevant letters patent has been copied to the top of this article, and the other (granting William his peerage) is published here.

Also worth mentioning is the page for Sarah, Duchess of York, which acknowledges the "The Princess Andrew" part of her title. I'd think we would want to maintain some consistency amongst these pages. If you don't take my word for it, this video may be worth watching (the relevant bit being in the first couple minutes, the rest being mostly fluff) is a CBS interview given by this man during the wedding- it seems like he should know a thing or two about these rules. Therefore, given the titling rules ostensibly in place, I believe the burden of proof is on those who wish to exclude the "Princess William..." bit from her formal title, which they can meet by finding and citing the letter patent that would have done that. Given the persistent use of "Princess Kate" and "Kate Middleton", the lack of use of "Princess William" by mainstream media sources should not be relied upon as evidence that that is not part of her full title- we need evidence the rules were changed, or that an exception was granted in her case.

While I may not necessarily agree with it, I understand the idea that official titles, styles or continuous portions (used exclusively) thereof may be disregarded for the sake of integrating the common name of the individual. Therefore, may I suggest the article be titled Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge? This would subtly distinguish it from the (currently employed) style of a divorcée, integrate separate but continuous portions of both her Christian name & style (Catherine Elizabeth and HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, respectively), and help bring consistency across the pages for British royal consorts, like Sarah, Duchess of York (as a divorcée) and Princess Michael of Kent- her style minus the HRH. Although I suppose the latter case would become "Marie, Princess Michael of Kent", after we applied the subjective threshold for that, if she's commonly known as Marie. Camilla's would be "Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall", etc. I don't think this proposal violates any of these rules. I think (nay, hope) that if decided upon in the affirmative, this would be a simple enough change to enact? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

We did, briefly use the form Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall for a while more than five years ago. The discussion prior to overturning that practice is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 18#Current royal peeresses here. I for one remain convinced that The is un-necessary and should continue to omitted from article titles. DBD 15:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I figured this must have been brought up somewhere before. Having read through that, I don't see there being much of a consensus either way, and certainly not one decisive enough to overturn the old (pre-2007) one. I agree with you that including "the" is not ideal, as it sounds more choppy. However, I have an even bigger problem with using the exact same diminished style left to a royal peeress after divorce, to describe a relative newlywed no less. I suppose it is a case of which option people consider to be the "lesser of two evils." I can't think of another alternative at the moment, and apparently neither could people a few years ago.

All things considered, I don't think Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge is that bad really. Ignoring the HRH (and I don't think anybody wants to restart that debate for awhile), she can be and is referred in two shorthand ways- one being the Duchess of Cambridge, and the other simply Catherine, rather than "Kate" (which she shys away from and doesn't use even among friends, as I understand it) or "Catherine Elizabeth", which is used as often as most of us use our middle names-almost never. So this is simply combining the two. Since the option to stick strictly to her title (or rather, a portion of it) has already (I believe) been ruled out, going the other way would leave us with Catherine (Duchess of Cambridge), which I think makes the title appear as an afterthought that is there just to distinguish her from all other people named Catherine, which it isn't. For the rest of her life as a royal, her use (as a public figure) of her common name 'Catherine' and whatever title she styles herself by at the given time will be balanced, if not weighted toward the latter. They are separate but equal as far as notability is concerned, so if viewed in that context saying "The Duchess of Cambridge" is better than more curtly referring to her as "Duchess of Cambridge". 68.58.63.22 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You might find these and these thoughts interesting, from Camilla's talk page. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article is not supposed to reflect her style as princess (yes, I remain convinced that she is both a princess and a duchess as the wife of a prince and duke). The title of the article is supposed to include her name and the title she uses. The article about her grandmother-in-law is not titled Elizabeth II, the Queen, and the article about her father-in-law is not titled Charles, Prince of Wales. If anyone gets confused by the title (which, I believe, is rather unlikely to happen), the lead sentence clearly says that she "is the wife of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge". The Duchess of Cambridge would make a better title than Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, which is simply odd. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"The title of the article is not supposed to reflect her style...the title of the article is supposed to include her name and the title she uses." That's what a style is- that derivative of the full title that is chosen to be the one most commonly used. I don't agree that the title of an article in this category is 'supposed to include' the name (by which I assume you mean her Christian/common name, rather than her legal/royal name)- again, see Princess Michael of Kent. At some point, a subjective decision was made to do so in her case. As I said earlier, "While I may not necessarily agree with it, I understand the idea [behind it]." That idea being, I assume, to avoid confusing casual readers, and to bring WP closer in line with other media sources. There is also the assertion that Catherine needs to be distinguished from the two other Duchesses of Cambridge, one of whom never really used the title, and the other, who is better known by her German title. To those who believe the royalty naming conventions are unbreakable rules, I would give a reminder that they were meant to just be guidelines to reduce ambiguity and increase consistency- there is some flexibility that can be had for special cases, particularly where there is little ambiguity. I would argue that just as everyone in conversation knows who they mean when they say "the Pope" (in the present tense), the same large proportion would know who "the Duchess of Cambridge" is. Once she is dead, I could see an increased need for an additional identifier, even though the title will likely have merged back into the Crown at that point. It could be modified then much like The Queen Mother's page was. But I'm not even arguing for such a change right now, because I see that people are still getting used to her not being 'Kate Middleton'. My proposal incorporates both her common name & the more proper form of her style (everything minus the verboten HRH), all while avoiding a conflict with an official courtesy style granted for a currently non-existent circumstance. This would utilize no more than a modicum of the flexibility afforded to us.

For the British monarchs, because ordinal numbers can and are used, their regnal name is sufficient. Before she ascended, as a married woman she was styled HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, with the "the" going before the highest rank, as she was a princess in her own right, and the married title tacked on at the end. Neither Charles nor Catherine yet have the simpler regal name they'll get as King or Queen Consort. Technically, it should be Charles, the Prince of Wales or better yet, HRH The Prince of Wales (which would have to be paired with the now forbidden 'HRH'). However, since Charles holds all his titles by his own right, his style didn't and wouldn't change with a divorce. Therefore, Wikipedia can afford to be a little looser with the name of his article and those of other peers and princes by birthright. I'm primarily discussing royal consorts here, who hold their titles only through the marriage, and therefore are dealt with differently in situations like divorce or becoming a widow. She is indeed a princess, but only as "Princess William..." which most everybody agrees looks awkward, and is never used to address her. She'll have to wait a bit for the tidier title HRH The Princess of Wales, which Diana held before she divorced, after which she became Diana, Princess of Wales (as the first and only non royal British princess). That title is, of course, currently lying dormant with Camilla.

While I hope this discussion continues, I don't want to get distracted from the main point of my initial comment- that Catherine's full title should be added back into the article. Are there any objections to this? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Back away from your article title soapbox there, IP. It is simply not going to happen. We are quite happy with our current policy – it makes perfect common sense. I personally am a precise person (particularly when it comes to official styles, and obviously more knowledgeable than you because I know that William is Prince William but not The Prince William :P), but I honestly believe regardless that there is little merit to using "The" at all. Speaking of reinstating Princess William A P L (but not of Wales!), I am fully in favour, because that's how it works. However, what actually needs to be done is a reliable source needs to be cited which tells us exactly that that is the way that it works. (And, more challengingly, I suspect, that it still works like that in HRH's particular case.) As ever, if there are certain users who want to oppose something enough and know their Wiki bureaucracy and policy well enough, it'll be a pointless battle. DBD 23:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(aiee trying to post at the same time) Before HRH's "full title" is added back into the article, some sort of reliable source will have to be provided to show what this "full title" is. At present the Court Circular refers to her as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge or (in Scotland) HRH The Countess of Strathearn. The only time when any more expanded style would be used would be in something like a Royal Warrant or Letters Patent, and she hasn't been the subject of any yet, so speculation as to how she might be styled in such a document is WP:OR/WP:Crystal. Regarding the title of this article, this is an encyclopaedia, not Debrett's Correct Form: her title is Duchess of Cambridge; the Christian name by which she is known is Catherine ∴ the article title is Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. No, one wouldn't write it on an envelope, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be the best article title as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Opera hat (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, DBD, I'm not sure how one mistake led you to believe that you were "more knowledgeable" than me. We ought to avoid personal attacks, so I'm not going to respond directly to that. However, since you brought up Prince William, I would agree with you that he is not The Prince William, because only children of the Sovereign are styled in that way, and of course William is her grandson. I apologize for the typo, and have removed it. Please tell me why of Wales would not be part of her title- it's still part of his (see here). I will grant that the "full title" listed there is not complete, but I'm not sure why what is there shouldn't be considered valid.

Regarding the proposed article move- "this is an encyclopaedia, not Debrett's Correct Form: her title is Duchess of Cambridge; the Christian name by which she is known is Catherine". I never challenged that was her Christian name- I first called it that here. That doesn't change the fact that the articles of all royals do not include their Christian names- at some point the decision was made to do so for her, but as I said, my proposal does not challenge that decision. Her title is not "Duchess of Cambridge". Her style is The Duchess of Cambridge. I have never heard any print or tv media refer to her as just 'Duchess of Cambridge'. I agree using her full title as the title for the article would be unwieldy and unneccessary. A style, however, is purposely designed to be a quick way to refer to these people, and I don't see the harm in using it. There needs to be a good reason for keeping it the way it is (particularly in light of it's conflict with the different style of courtesy granted to a divorcée). "Because it sounds better", "that's the way 'we' like it", and "because that's the way it is" are not valid or logically sound reasons. The latter two in particular never are for anything. Consensus can change.

Neither of you are addressing the point I made regarding the inclusion of the full title. Instead of just reiterating what it says in the hidden request in that section, explain why you think putting in the full title would be original research. My point is that the burden of proof ought to be on those who wish to keep it out. As written now, the article implies that the title, as is, is her title. At the very least, there ought to be a note that there is much doubt that that is the case. For example, if someone wished to take out of an article on gravity that gases are effected by it (i.e. "All solids, liquids, and plasma are drawn to one another by gravity"), they need to provide evidence that that is the case, because there is plenty of evidence that it does. At some point, "Princess William..." was part of her title on this article, but was then taken out. I'm glad, DBD, that you agree with me that "that's how it works." It is evident that is the case, as it currently applies to every other royal, as I showed with my links to other royals' pages. I have linked to some pertinent letters patent, and I have found a video of a member of the royal household affirming a question of a reporter who asked about this after, mind you, they were married and she had been declared a duchess. The preponderance of the evidence is clearly in favor of restoring her full title. Those who wish to continue to exclude it need to provide evidence the rules were specifically changed for her. What the Court Circular says is irrelevant because it is clearly choosing to use her style, not her title. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(First, "of Wales" is in neither of the Cambridge's full titles because that part, the territorial designation is for the children of royal peers, whereas William is now one himself – essentially they are now "Duke & Duchess of Cambridge" rather than "a prince of Wales"). Where's this video? It might be the source we're looking for. DBD 08:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see. So because the 'Royal-Duke' outranks the 'Prince' part with respect to styles & titles, the "of Wales" part gets completely cut rather than, as I thought, just obfuscated? Becoming a peer doesn't change the fact that he's the son of a different peer with a different territorial designation, and these things tend to stack. If you're correct, then it would appear the monarchy's website needs to be updated. I'll look some more into this, but if you can find a source that that's how it works I'll also remove that from the title I posted in my first comment.

The video I referred to was posted in my first comment, third paragraph. The relevant portion is near the beginning, 0:45-1:40. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That video is a good reference for Princess William. Nice one. As for Arthur Philip Louis, precedent is the best we're going to get for the foreseeable, and if that's unacceptable to the community then we'll just have to cope with the wiki being wrong/incomplete. (Re: of Wales, see the royals formerly styled Prince Richard of Gloucester, Prince Edward of Kent and Princess Alexandra of Kent) DBD 13:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem. I cannot find any uses of the form "Princess John Paul George Ringo" since 1714 (I haven't looked further back) in either the London Gazette or Google Books search. AT this point, it looks a lot like we have essentially made up the idea that Prince JPGR's wife becomes Pss JPGR (alongside whatever else titles). I think we can source Princess William (and Princess Charles, Andrew, Edward etc.) but not Princess William Arthur Philip George or similar. At all. DBD 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For both Prince Richard & Prince Edward of Kent, they just became Duke of X rather than Prince {name} of X. The prince territorial designation dropping off because different ranks are never linked to the same "area"; it would be redundant (i.e. there's no "Prince of Edinburgh", since that's taken by a dukedom). They were not peers created independently of their father's peerage. Nor can there be, I don't think, two territorial designations for the same rank. Do you know of any other examples like William's- a father/son who are each independently granted peerages with a different rank & territorial designation?

Regarding the wife taking her husband's middle name(s), you're right. It's hard to say if WP "made it up", but it does seem to be the convention used across the pages for many other royal consorts, including Sarah, Duchess of York, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, and Katharine, Duchess of Kent, and I have no idea how it started. Most of those titles don't seem to have sources. Or if they do, their source is the royal.gov.uk site which, as we've established, doesn't seem to list actual full titles, or is out-of-date. All I can say is that traditionally, a wife took all her husband's names (i.e. Mrs. John Edward Smith). Whether this is formally still the case, I don't know. Shouldn't we find when and how that custom would have changed? A quick Google search just turns up a bunch of informal blogs or yahoo answers-like sites that are clearly citing Wikipedia, so are of little help. It'd be nice to hear from the editors who first added the middle names to the titles on those other royals' pages, and see if they had a good reason for doing so. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(of ofs: when Queen Victoria gave her grandsons peerages in 1890 & 1892, they stopped being Prince Albert Victor of Wales and Prince George of Wales and became Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Prince George, Duke of York. It makes not a jot of difference whether one's peerage's and one's father's territorial designation are the same or different, the principle is the same – one who has a peerage drops their old territorial designation.) Lets us do some investigative work. While we do, remember that the royal.gov.uk site has never been very reliable – there are and have been several long-standing glaring technical errors. DBD 09:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

New navbox photo

Hi there. I think that the photo used in the navbox is not ideal; it's a little blurry. It seems to me that the photo of her at the Countdown to the Olympics would be more appropriate. It's a smaller but clearer and more recognizable photo. Thoughts? Thanks. RMJ (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Middleton or the Duchess?

Some parts of the article refer to her by her former surname Middleton, while others use Duchess or The Duchess. Is there a consensus? Spelling Style (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

References to her prior to marriage need not call her "the Duchess", but subsequent ones should. FactStraight (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Change of footnote to incorporate common use of designation.

I think the only footnote on the page, the one that states Mountbatten-Windsor is often used as a surname should be partially edited to explain that it is often the case that they'll use their designation, e.g. Wales or in this case, Cambridge. I am also sure that the Mountbatten-Windsor Letters Patent is not relevant here as it is more likely they'd use Windsor rather than the double-barrelled name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinkp (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nude.

So, what's the stance on this? Should a piece be added on the recent pics of Kate and her boobs being published in a magazine? :D --Τασουλα (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

May I draw attention to an extract from the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP:

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Therefore, unless this incident become the trigger for something of consequence, it should be ignored. Martinvl (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel it is in the publics interest to know what other do, while choosing to call their action an act of public interest. It is also interesting to know which part of Europe you are the least likely to be photographed on a private property. By two reasons or more, Las Vegas is the wrong answer. --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

They are considering legal action according to this, so maybe a mention of it if that happens. I think whatever is written though has to be done so tastefully. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"and with regard for the subject's privacy." - I can see publishing the photos here would be a violation. Also, with the news of them taking legal action...--Τασουλα (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia, not a tabloid. We should wait until a writ is served before anything is written in Wikipedia about the this incident. The writ itself would be of great significance as the British Royal Family normally have the maxim "don't explain, don't complain", so any discussion would centre on the writ rather than the invasion of privacy. Martinvl (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The royals' barristers are suing the publication over this matter. Check the Daily Telegraph. 74.69.8.195 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Time to look at this see if its worth mentioning now....Royal Family to sue over topless Kate photos.... Moxy (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd support including it, without the pictures. The controversy has received enough media attention to be notable. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, this matter is best forgotten. People make mistakes every day. It's pathetic but not notable that another editor at another tabloid printed something that should not have been printed. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Not notable do not include. 94.242.211.90 (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be included somewhere. Perhaps add it after the bit saying how both her and her family have had troubles with the press.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed how the Irish Daily Star website is suddenly showing a Service Temporarily Unavailable message? 86.135.40.232 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me reiterate, WIkipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We need to wait for the bigger picture (for example the courts clarifying privacy issues) to emerge. If no such picture emerges, then this is not encyclopeadic. Martinvl (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I have to say I think this story has become sufficiently significant to be included, now that legal action is being taken over the pictures. It would be quite inappropriate for us to link to the pictures themselves, but we could add a line referring to the story and linking to reliable sources about it. There's no need to rush though, and it would be fine to wait a few days to see if it looks different with a little perspective. Robofish (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Before we write anything we should know:

• What legal action is being taken
• What the respondent's stance is.

It must be remembered that legal action woudl probably be taken in the French courts under French law rather than under English law so whoever writes anything needs to ensure that they understand sufficient of the French legal system that what is written makes sense. Martinvl (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of non-confirmed editors who are adding information, often poorly written, about this incident I have requested that the artcile be semi-protected for a week. This should not affect our work. Martinvl (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been done. Martinvl (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Good move, Martinvl! However, on the issue of whether this story should be in an encyclopedia at all, I lean in the direction of NOT! My main reason for saying so is that an encyclopedia should not contribute to scandalous behavior of the Mainstream Media, but rise above it, and withhold information that could be embarrassing or damaging to a person's image. Of course, the extent of the damage is a matter of discussion, since it depends on how much you value your own personal privacy. However, as any good lawyer knows, it is the "intent" to cause damage which gets the most mileage out of any lawsuit. Since Wikipedia would rather not get into that realm of "doing harm", it would be better to stay out of it altogether, and let the tabloids fight over publishing or not. --Skol fir (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The publishers of an Irish newspaper, the Irish Daily Star, have begun proceedings to shut the newspaper down because their editor decided to publish the images. That's getting to the point where the discussion of the photos is important, although perhaps in their own separate article. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Where are you getting your facts on a newspaper being shut down? After some simple fact-checking, I found that this incident is not at all remarkable. "...but Richard Desmond, chairman of co-owner Northern and Shell, said he was taking "immediate steps" to close down the joint venture with Ireland's Independent News and Media, which runs the paper." So that is closing down the joint venture between two companies, not the newspaper itself. Ireland's Independent News and Media can probably find other sources of funding, as it most likely will, to stay in operation. See -- Kate privacy row deepens as Irish Star prints topless photos.

This is a typical example of why these Talk Pages cannot be relied on for correct information. Also, it shows why a story might have legs, even if they are only made of clay. I suggest that a newspaper losing partners is not a newsworthy story in itself, and certainly does not warrant its own article on Wikipedia. That is just silly. --Skol fir (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparing this event to other recent royal nude events (such as the Prince Henry discussion regarding his nudity), it seems that not to include a discussion is unwarranted. It is clearly notable. It has been covered by something like 4900 news stories. [11]. These reliable sources (such as Huffington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etcs). Discussion can be done neutral; and does not appear to violate the avoid harm policy. 04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.80.19 (talk)

Agree with 68.106.80.19 this event is totally notable, not that she was caught on camera nude, but that it is very rare that a Royal sues, it's only happened like what? 5 times in the last 30 years or something. That a member of the Royal family is suing a media outlet is very notable in my opinion due to its rarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.138.33 (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There are still no proceeding towards shutdown, so anyone can ask what is the big holdup. Northern and Shell owns a nudie magazine called Asian Babes, and yet they call O'Kane indecent....? --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• OPPOSE INCLUSION Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.DoctorLuther (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• What's the difference? Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is quite arrogant from royalist that this should not be included. This has been big story for the past few days.

I have put together a sub-section User:Martinvl/succession which I will update later today (17 September) once the French courts have responded to the initial applications. I am not sure whether this should be a 2nd level section or a 3rd level subsection of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Royal duties. Comments please? Martinvl (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have bitten the bullet and added the above as a sub-section under the heading "Privacy".