This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Unlike the majority of royal brides, and in contrast to most previous consorts-in-waiting for over 350 years, Catherine's immediate family is neither aristocratic nor royal.
The timeframe mentioned just seems off to me. Is it referencing Anne Hyde, daughter of Charles IIs chancellor the Earl of Clarendon, the 1st wife of James II who was Charles IIs heir presumptive? I can't think of a single *consort-in-waiting* who wasn't of a royal line or of the aristocracy, unless we want to discount Camilla as being only the granddaughter of a baron, & possibly Catherine Swynford as John of Gaunt was Richard IIs heir presumptive (though Henry IV did honor his stepmother as the Queen Mum). Who am I missing here? ScarletRibbons (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree - the word "most" indicates that it is not a particularly useful statement and personally I think we could do without it. Deb (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Anthony Adolf
In July 2012 Adolf published a refereed paper in which he urged caution when linking the various Fairfax lines. This paper is cited in the article, but not attributed to Adolf in the text. In 2013, after further research, Adolf found another reference that proves the links of the various lines. The latter reference was removed from the Wikipedia article. I reinstated the text, but suggest that the whole section should be reworked, making it clear that the 2012 and the 2013 statements were both made by the same person. Martinvl (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed the 2013 ref I added (WP:SPS), as a result of yesterday's WP:DRN outcome related to Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. I don't have access to the other sources so I cannot rework the whole section and hope someone else will. HelenOnline 13:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Ideally all content related to Adolph's opinions and findings should be removed unless it is published by someone else, but I cannot tell exactly what the applicable sources are for each part of the text and whether they are self-published or not. HelenOnline 13:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Adolph's original paper was in the Journal of the Society of Genealogists - a highly reputable journal. The subsequent note was self-published but might well be published in the SoG journal before the end of the year. Since Adolf did cast doubt, I think that everything should stay. If nothing else, it shows the thoroughness of the related work. Martinvl (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I will stay out of this particular fray from now on as I don't have access to the sources. I have complied with the DRN outcome, it's out of my hands now. HelenOnline 13:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I have found some online sources, and have been bold and edited the section accordingly, leaving out self-published sources which I feel are redundant. I have gone through the article's history and it is clear to me the uncertainty came from Adolph's initial journal article (which is now redundant by his own account), although not clearly attributed as such. I have added a second Channel 4 source, which I assumed in good faith is considered a reliable source here. HelenOnline 10:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's as solid as Channel 4 makes out; if you look at Cracroft's exact words, he says "the Duchess of Cambridge has what appears to be an unlikely descent from an illegitimate daughter of King Edward IV ... If this descent is true..."[1]. One problem is that the parentage of Elizabeth Plantagenet is not known exactly and there is also doubt about whether Thomas Lumley was her husband (see Alison Weir's Britain's Royal Families p. 141). DrKiernan (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. You cannot use a source that says, "If this descent is true" and call it reliable. Virgosky (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, I will ask again that you (Virgosky) do not remove another editor's content without giving a valid reason in your edit summary. You are engaging in tendentious, disruptive editing. Thus far I have sought to resolve this dispute in terms of content. If you insist on disruptive editing, you will leave me no choice but to follow the conduct dispute route.
Secondly, the source (which is the Channel 4 News article, not the article's author's website which incidentally was last updated on 17 June 2013 before the Channel 4 article was published on 22 July 2013) says no such thing.
Thirdly, regarding "accuracy", Christopher Challender Child and Anthony Adolph have both publicly supported the claim but unfortunately we cannot use their statements as sources here as they are essentially self-published in a journal, a website and a letter to the editor. I have been conservative in my wording, prefacing the stated relationship with "According to genealogist Patrick Cracroft-Brennan" as one can hardly dispute he said it. I am not aware of any reliable sources that refute the claim. HelenOnline 08:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the DRN case has been closed with the following closing notes by TransporterMan:
The fact that a reliable source makes mistakes does not cause it to cease to be a reliable source. If that were the standard, then we would have precious few sources to use here. Most major newspapers, for example, are ordinarily accepted as reliable sources but they also regularly make mistakes. I stand by the idea that — again at least at first blush — Channel 4 is a reliable source for either what it says outright or for the fact that someone said something. You can feel free to challenge its status as a reliable source, but the fact that it sometimes makes mistakes or relies upon someone who isn't so much an expert as it says is not a reason to challenge it as a reliable source. When reliable sources report something, then it can — not must, but can — be included in Wikipedia so long as all other considerations such as UNDUE are met. If that is the case, and you believe the material to be incorrect, then the way to challenge it or qualify it is to find a different reliable source which says that it is wrong. But you cannot do so by researching and attacking the credibility of what it says yourself: that's prohibited original research. Note that I'm not saying that the information in the Channel 4 article should go in the article, that has yet to be determined and is beyond the scope of this particular case, I'm just saying that the article appears to cross the threshold; whether it makes it into the parlor is yet to be seen. To say this differently, you say, "when dealing with genealogy the assertion must be valid or these sorts of edit wars will continue," but the way that we determine validity at Wikipedia is whether or not it appears in a reliable source, if it does then it is verifiable and, as it says in a footnote at the verifiability policy, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." In any event, the dispute upon which this case was filed is resolved since it has been conceded that that source, as opposed to this new one under consideration, was not reliable. I am therefore going to close this case. A new case may be filed if a dispute on the new source or on some other matter cannot be resolved.
I am a little concerned that the Channel 4 reference does not at least give a citation where the descents that are described can be checked. There are a large number of generations between Edward IV and Sir Thomas Conyers and again between Sir Thomas (who died in 1810) and the present time. I would like to see the actual descent. Martinvl (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Have you read the article by Christopher Challender Child? (source, archive). See descent on page 36. HelenOnline 09:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I hadn't seen it. Thank you for the link. Given the amount of interest in the Duchess' ancestry, would it be appropriate to create an article Ancestry of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? Martinvl (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not to write an article, I think it appropriate to include the links you gave me above as citations in the article alongsdide the Channel 4 citation.Martinvl (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
It was there, Virgosky objected to it (ostensibly because it was only a single source and written by an American), I opened a DRN case to try resolve an edit war at Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and we were advised the document was essentially self-published and may not be used due to the WP:BLPSPS policy. Sorry the discussion is on two different pages but so is the same content. HelenOnline 12:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Would it be worth seeking clarity on the WP:BLP page as to whether or not discussion of one's ancestors falls under WP:BLP or under the normal Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR? I would suggest that the BLP criteria should not apply automatically in respect of ancestors who died more than 100 years before the birth of the living person concerned (or their living ancestors), unless the statement concerned has direct bearing on the living person concerned (for example an inheritance or title).
In the case of the Duchess of Cambridge, this would mean that WP:BLP protection would not automatically apply to anybody who died before 1849 (100 years before the birth of her father - all her grandparents are now dead). Martinvl (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I see it has been discussed there before although I am not sure of the outcome. Personally, I feel if the information has no implications for a living person then it should not be in their article in the first place. I also don't want to personally be seen to be trying to bend or break any "rules" given the ongoing dispute which I have found myself involved in. HelenOnline 14:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I initiated the discussion in connection with the Duchess of Cambridge. Unfortunately those who dispense with common sense managed to take over. Martinvl (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Clear as mud. :) What about adding it as further reading here, with maybe even a hidden note pointing to it in the relevant section? That's all my brain can come up with just now. HelenOnline 16:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I would place this on the Australian IP's talk page but I wouldn't know which one to choose. Re edits such as this and this, please note that Child's published research and the content of Cracroft's and Adolph's websites may not be referred to in the article, as they all fall under WP:BLPSPS. They are not admissable here. We can only use information from cited sources considered reliable sources for WP:BLP purposes. It is useful for us to be aware of this information but we cannot use it explicitly. I have worded the section conservatively (attributing the information to a person per the source cited rather than stating it as fact) to preempt edit warring, loosening the wording will only make it easier for those who want it removed altogether to succeed. This section has in the past been botched by multiple unsourced edits such that we could not tell what came from where without going through the edit history, please don't make any further unsourced or poorly sourced edits to it. HelenOnline 16:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
If Cracroft's and Adolph's websites can not be referred to or used under WP:BLPSPS then the information does not belong in the article. Using Channel 4 as a means to sneak the information into the article under the term reliable sources does not mean you have edited anything conservatively. I have added some wording (which you will rush to remove) that ensures readers understand that Cracroft is simply suggesting.
Also, please note that the DRN case has been closed with the following closing notes by TransporterMan:
You believe the material to be incorrect, then the way to challenge it or qualify it is to find a different reliable source which says that it is wrong.
Since, I cannot remove it. I will source next to it a reliable source which discusses the Lumley-Plantagenet connection and states that it is wrong. Virgosky (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, Cracroft's Peerage was updated on 13 October 2013 (uncertainty removed). HelenOnline 15:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately for Cracrofts, The Complete Peerage states, "the assertion that there were any issue of this marriage is certainly not true". The fact that Cracrofts suddenly removed (uncertainty) from his website does not make his information accurate. Virgosky (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hence my preface of For What It's Worth. It's curious how you thought it was relevant when it supported your case. HelenOnline 06:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Re this edit: As I understand it, Vol 14 overrides Vol 8 and 10 of The Complete Peerage as it is a subsequent correction. However, For What It's Worth, the editor of Vol 14 Peter Hammond has subsequently retracted the part about there definitely not being any issue in a Ricardian journal article which we probably cannot use here. HelenOnline 11:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Why not? DrKiernan (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't access it online to check (and haven't looked very hard) but I suspect it has the same constraints as American Ancestors (WP:BLPSPS). HelenOnline 12:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The article in The Ricardian is about Edward IV's illegitimate children. As far as I'm aware Catherine isn't mentioned at any point. Complete Peerage doesn't mention her either. DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Good point. HelenOnline 13:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Personally I think it would be undue to highlight the whole issue including the retraction in this article, but I anticipate achieving talk page consensus would be necessary to preempt edit warring. HelenOnline 13:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Removed the retraction. It is from a journal and not a new version of The Complete Peerage. Dispute has been resolved and I did what was asked. Please accept it. Thank you. Go open a new dispute section if you are so angry and stop filling my Talk page with warnings it is immature. Virgosky (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
You removed it without citing any valid WP policy-based reason. Please explain why "It is from a journal and not a new version of The Complete Peerage." is relevant (citing a valid WP policy-based reason). The dispute has not been resolved just because you say so. HelenOnline 19:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
According to TransporterMan the dispute was resolved and I did what he asked. Go open a new dispute section if you are so angry. You seem to have a lot time on your hands. Virgosky (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
That dispute was related to the Child's source, I don't see how that's relevant now. The next dispute will be about your conduct. HelenOnline 19:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring is futile so I would appreciate it if editors helped to build consensus here. HelenOnline 06:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The only valid rationale I would see for removal of The Ricardian is one of relevance or undueness: as Catherine is not actually mentioned it could be argued that it is original to connect Hammond's comment with Catherine. However, if this is the argument used then it would also be undue to mention Complete Peerage because she is not mentioned there either. Personally, I'd be inclined (weakly) to cut material from both sources from here (and Edward IV) but keep both at Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. DrKiernan (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, I appreciate it. HelenOnline 10:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that in an article on the Duchess of Cambridge Wikipedia quotes a typographical error from The Complete Peerage. There is absolutely no doubt that Sir Thomas Lumley and his wife had several children, two sons and three daughters, all of whom have descendants living today.
As with any reliable source like the The Complete Peerage, when there are errors found either the error is corrected before it is published or a new version is published to correct any errors. Neither has occured. Therefore, the Cracroft's Peerage website and The Ricardian journal have no relevance. As for my conduct, the dispute was settled fairly by a third party and I did what was suggested, if you are unhappy then by all means open a new dispute section.Virgosky (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
What we have are conflicting sources (Complete Peerage and The Ricardian), and in order to maintain a neutral point of view we should include both (notwithstanding the issue of article relevance/balance which applies to both). Please do not revert my edits again without reaching consensus here first. HelenOnline 20:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea if everyone cooled down and stopped edit warring (otherwise I'll protect the article). TransporterMan claimed to have resolved a dispute but clearly failed to do so; this seems to be his MO, as I have found recently to my own cost. I am very confused by the whole thing, but the picture I get is as follows:
We agree that we aren't sure whether Lumley was an ancestor of Catherine or not.
We are in doubt as to whether the source that says so is reliable.
We are therefore in doubt as to whether it is fair to quote it.
I have the following questions:
Can we really not find any compromise wording to indicate that there is uncertainty over the issue and then quote the alternative sources?
Is the matter actually significant enough to merit a section in this article?
That is not my understanding of the situation, I will try recap:
Virgosky objected to the original content about descent from Edward IV. I opened a dispute resolution case to try resolve the consequent edit warring. The upshot was that TransporterMan disallowed the original source (Child's article in American Ancestors), however I found another reliable source which he accepted and I subsequently readded the content (and further still sources were subsequently added).
I personally don't have any reason to doubt the Lumley ancestry or the reliability of the sources used.
I personally don't believe this haggling over a published error later retracted by the same editor in a reliable source belongs in this article. HelenOnline 11:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone agree with me that the whole section could come out of this particular article? Deb (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC) (I realise my personal opinion of TransporterMan's activities is not relevant here, but he does not have the ability to "disallow" a source - that should be achieved through consensus.)
My wording re TransporterMan's finding may be incorrect, as I asked for dispute resolution I was willing to accept the outcome there. HelenOnline 11:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
But at least we could limit the discussion to a page where it makes some sense. I think I'll be bold.Deb (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I would have to agree that removing the detail from here and linking to the family article is a good idea as most of it is not directly relevant or of interest to the general reader. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I am also happy for it to only be in the family article (albeit with the dispute resolved). HelenOnline 12:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
DISPUTE WILL NEVER BE RESOLVED - HAVE "IT" AS A FOOTNOTEI th
ink that it needs to be presented as a fact that Kate is a descendant of Edward IV via Lumley etc.- as is the Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mother.
I would place a NOTE underneath the ancestry section with the reference to the typo and Cracroft's Peerage information.
This is what is occuring on the Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mother's page - you will see a note under ancestry with a reference to an author's pubication about the Queen's "true" maternity etc etc. The fact is, there are SO many published refences- online and in magazines /jounals / books - about the descendants of the Plantaganet-Lumley marriage. NO ONE has EVER written a published and supported book or article which says that there was NO ISSUE in the marriage - because one cannot support such a statement. Please quote the book "Tracing our Aristocratic Ancestors' by A. Adolph - Chapter 6. (Pen and Sword Books, Feb, 2013.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.97.230 (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother does not have an intentional content fork (separate article) for her ancestry or family, so there is no other place for it. This article does however, and unnecessary duplication here can result in redundant content in an already long article and/or conflicting articles which is best avoided especially in light of recent disputes about it. HelenOnline 12:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Sourcing
Please take a gander at WP:BLPSOURCES. We can't use The Sun, the News of the World, or the Daily Mail to source stuff on living people. --John (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I can't comment on the specifics of the other cases (as I have not been involved in those articles much if at all). It all depends on what the powers that be decide to use, and which is then included in reliable sources. Being a British princess by marriage or being eligible to be called "Princess William" does not mean that is what will be used in practice. Official primary sources and reliable secondary sources do not refer to Catherine as "Princess William". HelenOnline 14:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
None of the sources (of which there are 4) give that full style for Catherine, in fact two explicitly say she does not use it and never has. Sophie's style is sourced to her official page. DrKiernan (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Baroness vs Lady Carrickfergus
The style "Lady Carrickfergus" is of a woman whose highest title is Baroness Carrickfergus. The title itself isn't "lady", that is a style shared by marchionesses, countesses, viscountesses, and baronesses. If the couple were referred to as Lord and Lady Carrickfergus, that's fine, but William's titles as given include "Baron Carrickfergus". Catherine is Baroness Carrickfergus. The source given (royal.gov.uk) has been much discussed as at times being fraught with error. Is the website to be taken as the Queen's word? They call Harry's coat of arms a "crest", messed up the line of succession (has it even been corrected yet?), and have bungled the article on the royal family's name. Seven Letters 18:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's standard is "verifiability", i.e. what sources say, not what we think to be true. DrKiernan (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Did we have to change the line of succession on that account? Are we also not including Sophie's title of Viscountess Severn on the same basis? Two of the four references following the given titles no longer exist. I don't know what they said. Seven Letters 19:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Re your edit summary comment that "We're listing titles, not styles", Catherine does not hold a substantive title in this regard only a courtesy title by marriage, i.e. a style. As you can see from reading those wikilinks, Wikipedia often uses the words "style" and "title" interchangeably. This article says "Catherine's full title and style is...." and I think that wording is a bit nebulous and confusing. HelenOnline 21:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
William's ducal, comital, and baronial titles are peerages. He is a royal peer. Catherine is a peeress. From Wikipedia's own article on the matter: "In contrast, the wife of a substantive peer is legally entitled to the privileges of peerage: she is said to have a "life estate" in her husband's dignity. Thus a duke's wife is titled a "duchess", a marquess's wife a "marchioness", an earl's wife a "countess", a viscount's wife a "viscountess" and a baron's wife a "baroness". Despite being referred to as a "peeress", she is not a peer "in her own right": this is a 'style' and not a substantive title. However, this is considered a legal title, unlike the social titles of a peer's children." One could argue the "not a substantive title" part since it doesn't have a source. Her ducal, comital, and baronial titles are real, however. If Catherine is not a baroness must we amend the article quoted as well? Just a thought... Seven Letters 00:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it not the case that normal usage refers to wives of peers as duchess, marchioness etc., but not as baroness or peeress? No supporting source is given for ...a baron's wife a "baroness". Despite being referred to as a "peeress"...' in Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom, a statement which could be due to some editorial misunderstanding, so far uncorrected. --Qexigator (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
That very same media package has an incorrect line of succession! If they can't get that right... Seven Letters 15:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, I know some of these are peeresses in their own right but do we have a problem with the naming of articles in the British baronesses category? Seven Letters 16:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
"Reliable" does not mean "infallible" or "error-free". Also, this is not the way to achieve consensus about such articles in general. You could raise general issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility unless someone else has a better idea. HelenOnline 16:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
That is not the issue here and a straw man argument. As stated above, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge article." It is also not the only source we have used here. HelenOnline 17:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not one to ignore rules or guidelines but I see how looking outside of them for a moment can give some clarity. I do not think the media package is a reliable source. Everyone makes mistakes but major ones such as the line of succession, etc, and the fact that baronesses all across Wikipedia are titled under that title rather than "lady" seems to indicate a problem and I do not think it should be ignored. Is Catherine an exception to the known fact that the wife of a baron is a baroness? Also, of the four references appended to her given titles, only two exist still and only one mentions "Lady Carrickfergus", the same source that bungles the very simple line of succession. Seven Letters 18:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Quite simply, nothing supports "Baroness Carrickfergus". Comments at Talk:Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom show that the editors, lacking any authoritative sources, were sometimes relying on guesswork and SYN to make sense for themselves of the intricate rules and apparent inconsistencies of official and social practise connected with the use of "Lady", in formal documents and informally. At least it is indisputable that parliamentary practise is to refer to a woman life peer as Baroness, and this has become generally known. See also Barons and their Wives at Debrett's webpage[2], and note, for example, that wives are not mentioned in connection with Courtesy Titles.[3] An external link for "Courtesy Titles" was recently added to the article.[4]Qexigator (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Qexigator. The Debrett's link does suggest Baroness might be used in legal documents but if we are only listing one title/style it should be the most common one (as well as supported by reliable sources). HelenOnline 07:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Catherine is a baroness because Prince William holds a barony. As for her "title and style", it's "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge", or in Scotland "Her Royal Highness The Countess of Strathearn". And nothing else. Opera hat (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
+OR and SYN will not suffice for article edits, but could elucidate the reason for wives not normally being known as "baroness" or "peeress" (but only in certain contexts). It is connected with the laws and customs of parliament. For anyone who wishes to be better informed, note the peculiarities of English peerage law as determined by peerage cases, and particularly the Model Parliament (1295), succession to baronies by writ of summons,[5] peerage grants by letters patent (including life peerages), the wives of earls as countesses, Ela of Salisbury, 3rd Countess of Salisbury (of First Creation (1149)) (d.1261), founder of Lacock Abbey, and the originals in England of the terms baron, earl, viscount,[6] marquess[7] and duke.[8] See also "ceremony" at Changing power of English earls[9] and "belted earl"[10] --Qexigator (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
+ Authoritative information can be found in Encyc. Brit. 11th ed.: Baron (citing among others, John SeldenTitles of Honor, ed. of 1672), contributed by W.A.P.- Walter Alison Phillips, author of Modern Europe; and Peerage, contributed by G.E. - Robert Geoffrey Ellis, author of Peerage Law and History;[11] and see Earldoms in fee: A Study in Peerage Law and History (Foreword by G.D. Squibb) by the late Sir Geoffrey Ellis;[12], reviewed in The Antiquaries Journal 1964[13]; and Restoration and Reform, 1153-1165 By G.J. White p.86-7[14] --Qexigator (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
+ See also 'Peeresses or women peers?'[15], 'Women and the House of Lords'[16], Peerage Act 1963.[17] --Qexigator (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
+ Peripheral point: 'Less frequently heard these days (in HC) are "the Noble Lord, the Member for ... ", which is used for a Member with a courtesy title (e.g. the son of a duke, marquess or earl) who sits in the House of Commons, or an Irish peer',[18] By inference, "Noble Lady" has not been used in HC, because a woman MP would not have that sort of courtesy title,nor be holding an Irish peerage. Qexigator (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is very peripheral, but you're wrong: "Noble Lady" has been used, e.g. "the Noble Lady, the Member for Western Perth and Kinross" (Katharine Stewart-Murray, Duchess of Atholl, wife of a Duke); "the Noble Lady, the Member for Stoke" (Lady Cynthia Mosley, daughter of a Marquess); "the Noble Lady, the Member for Central Bristol" (Violet Bathurst, Lady Apsley, widow of the eldest son of an Earl); &c.; &c. - see the Hansard archive. Opera hat (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Not wrong in respect of "that sort of courtesy title, nor be holding an Irish peerage", but admittedly has been used in HC for women MPs in deference to relationship to a living or deceased peer as above. Qexigator (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The uncertain future: queen consort "not a given"
It would be sufficient and more agreeable with tact,[19] reason, grammar and normal usage to let the wording be "Upon William's accession, Catherine would become queen consort", [20] which allows several contingencies to be self-evidently and unpedantically implicit and tacitly assumed: that the course of future events in the present and future decades will be such that William will actually succeed to the throne upon a demise of the Crown (whether or not his father has actually succeeded before him upon the death of the Queen or otherwise); that Catherine is then living; that they have remained married; and that the status of queen consort has not been removed by act of parliament, by royal declaration, or in any other way not yet apparent. Qexigator (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
+ Now reworded. Qexigator (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
For the reasons given above, the wording "Upon William's accession, Catherine, as wife of the reigning king, will then become queen consort" is informative, intelligible, grammatical, sufficient, succinct, and avoids the needless verbosity of "expected to eventually ascend the thrones with Catherine as queen consort",[21] which fails to convey the point ("as wife of the reigning king"), could be seen as crystal-balling, and fails to explain who or why is "expecting", as if one were to say "Mrs X's pregnanacy has been confirmed and the family is expecting the new baby will be born in May, and will inherit the property (under the terms of the grandfather's will) when becoming twenty-one years of age". Qexigator (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed the whole sentence as speculative. We don't know if William will ever ascend the throne or if Catherine will be his wife if/when he does. It is not a very useful statement anyway, most people can figure it out for themselves. HelenOnline 10:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Helen, I was thinking along the same line. Better than comparing suitable wording. The Duchess of Cornwall is a special case as prospective "Princess Consort", but "queen consort" is not mentioned prospectively for the wives of others in the line: Countess of Wessex, Autumn Phillips, Viscountess Linley. Qexigator (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The wording did not, in fact, avoid verbosity because it repeated the same thing; "upon William's accession" = "the reigning king". It also did not address the issue of crystal balling, because it is impossible to know that William will ascend, or that Catherine will still be married to him at that time. On the other hand, it is correct to say that William is expected to ascend, unlike (for example) his uncle Andrew; the fact that William is expected to become king is easily sourced. Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. No further comment needed on this. Qexigator (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I am actually not sure that removing the sentence was the best solution, which is why I replied. I don't think we should leave people to figure out things for themselves; what seems logical and natural to us might be surprising to someone else. There seem to be quite a lot of articles discussing Catherine's possible queenly future. But if there is no way to phrase it appropriately... Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
South Park
Is the parody on an American cartoon programme South Park really notable enough for inclusion ? MilborneOne (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Meh. I do not have strong feelings about this, but at least on this page the South Park episode has a secondary reference. VQuakr (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Graffiti image
Can someone review this edit please? As I've explained at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimeQueen32 it seems very likely that this is a result of paid editing. That in itself isn't a reason to remove it, but WP:WEIGHT applies to images just as much as other content and there is no reason to think that this is in anyway a significant way tha the Duchess has been referred to in popular culture. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Doesnt appear to be notable with no supporting commentary in article, as a promotional image it doesnt really add anything to the article and as Smartse says undue weight. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I'll take it from the lack of other comments that the consensus is currently to remove it. SmartSE (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
looks more a plug for the artist than a notable contibution to the article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Would the image be allowed to stay if there was more people saying it should stay? Sarah1971 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC) the image was left alone until SmartSE started to attacking my work on every page I have worked on. He thinks I'm part of this>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TimeQueen32#11_March_2014 but nothing has been proven yet? please leave my work alone till something has been proven, you are taking this personal.
It wasn't 'your work' though - It was Vishal1811 (talk·contribs) who added it in the first place. I guess you turning up to replace it was just a complete coincidence! SmartSE (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I re added the image because your reason was poor, now your attacking all my work & keep talking about this Vishall811 user, again just your personal view & you keep using this as a reason to attack me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah1971 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this image does not contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and should not be included in the article. VQuakr (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is that VQuakr please explain in detail. Sarah1971 04:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There really isn't more to add to what myself and 3 other editors have said in this section. This is an article about Kate. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes this article is about Kate hence why I think the image/mural of Kate should be added, are these 3 credible web links credible HERE, HERE & HERE ? why is a very short sentance about South Park OK to add to the section but not this image? I'm sure many visitors to the page would like the image. Sarah1971 04:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't see why there wouldn't be any problem with adding the image, if there was at least some reference to it within the text. If it's just an image for the sake of image then it becomes kind of pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psunshine87 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There was text with the image look HERE, maybe the text is to promotional of the artist that created the artwork? but rather than just delete it cant someone help with adding good usable text using these 3 links HERE, HERE & HERE. Sarah1971 12:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Still need to gain a consensus that the image is notable to the Duchess before adding anything to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Before user Smartse took the image down yesterday on 2 votes? the image was on the page after 20 other users had made edits to the page, none of them 20 users felt the need to take it down when they made their edits. Sarah1971 12:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Other users not mentioning it is not is not an indication of support when the inclusion has been challenged. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you tell me the page that states "Other users not mentioning it is not is not an indication of support when the inclusion has been challenged" is correct please. Sarah1971 14:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mind the image, but I do object to persons associated with the artist coming here pretending they have no conflict of interest when it is clear that they do. DrKiernan (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to learn like everyone else new & using a subject I know about (street art), I'm not linked to this person, I'm trying to make good of my edits that are being taken down. I'm trying to walk before I run using 2 subjects only at first, rather than editing/messing up many other pages. Also please keeps your personal views on me to yourself or start another page. Talk pages are comments limited to the article's content.Sarah1971 16:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
On the content issue then, in my opinion this is not a notable image, and the "In popular culture" section is essentially trivial. So, the only remaining arguments for the inclusion of an image are either aesthetic or additional educational value. I have difficulty seeing any educational value in this particular image. On aesthetics, I think the part of the article between the "Patronages" and "In popular culture" sections is bare of images, and one there might serve to enhance the article's look. I do, of course, realise that aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder, and that other editors may not share my views on image placement. If an image is introduced there, I would prefer one that is devoid of promotional material, i.e. one that shows no company logos or names: the image shown should focus on the Duchess and her cultural/societal impact rather than on a commercial company, or it should help to explain a point made in the text or make a new educational point not made in the text. DrKiernan (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Twins in DT
The Daily Telegraph fills space by mentioning that if the Duchess has twins, the firstborn will precede the second in the line of succession.[22]. Would that be too obvious to put in this, or another, article if it is later reported that she is in fact expecting twins? Qexigator (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
As the press release explicitly uses the singular, I think this is unnecessary. DrKiernan (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not even a correct statement; a younger brother would precede an older sister for as long as the old law is still in effect. Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
True, but with the right ultrasound (one of each), maybe they'd speed up finalizing the intended changes, instead of pretending they've already gone into effect :) - Nunh-huh 21:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Britain has no control over the changes, as they're waiting for some of the other realms that are requiring legislature for the changes to go into effect. Given as these realms didn't see need to speed things up when Catherine was pregnant with George, I can't see why they would do so for this pregnancy. Either way, there is no reason to believe that she's pregnant with twins - the Cambridges have not said as much - so this article really just become unnecessary filler, and not entirely accurate at that. Psunshine87 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There never was a need to get it done before the first child, as the first child, male or female, would always have been the heir at birth. The issue only becomes really urgent if they have a female child, as only a female child's position would change under the new legislation. I think the idea was to avoid a "Sweden" situation where a child drops down in the succession when the law is changed, and that can be avoided if the law is changed before the child who comes next after a female. - Nunh-huh 02:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Then, guided by all those helpful comments, we are well prepared to edit according to events as they happen. Qexigator (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
In any case, why stop at twins? What if she has triplets? Or octuplets? Surely we need to say what would happen in that event. <sarcasm/> -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 23:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
With octuplets, the corgis will have to vacate the kennels and fend for themselves. - Nunh-huh 02:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
the Duchess' Coat of Arms
The coat of arms shown here is incorrect. This one uses a normal shield shape; women always bear their arms upon a lozenge shape, as exemplified in Catherine's arms before she married. Zacwill16 (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I cannot find mention of the subject's height anywhere in the article. Google must be displaying info from somewhere else. --NeilNtalk to me 02:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Proper title?
I think this page is likely titled incorrectly. "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" should probably instead be "The Duchess of Cambridge", which is how she is referred to on the official website of the British Monarchy. The first style, which is currently the page title, seems to be that of the former wife of a royal duke, indicating that the couple is divorced. For example, HRH The Duke of York's ex-wife is Sarah, Duchess of York (as opposed to The Duchess of York as she was titled during their marriage) and after her divorce from HRH The Prince of Wales, Diana became Diana, Princess of Wales (as opposed to The Princess of Wales). Thus, referring to HRH The Duchess of Cambridge in the same way seems inaccurate, misleading, and disrespectful to what is hopefully a happy marriage.
Unless someone can clarify why Catherine is addressed as she is on this page and where I have gone wrong with my understanding of British royal titles, I suggest that we consider changing the page title.--140.254.237.234 (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
While I cannot speak for British titles, it appears from the examples given on http://canadiancrown.gc.ca/eng/1396374445442 that "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" is her correct Canadian title. Note that this is an inference from what is provided there, not a definitive citation. --Rob Kelk 23:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
As Duchess of Cambridge redirects here it is not really an issue, wikipedia doesnt have to use the offical titles just ones that help the reader find the right article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
it is incorrect. It implies that she is the divorced or widowed wife of a peer.VictoriaGates1 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Only according to the protocol of the Court of St. James's, to which Wikipedia, as a global encyclopedia in English, has no obligation to adhere. We do have an obligation to our readers to maximize clarity, and using "Duchess of Somewhere" alone to refer to an individual is unhelpful, when inclusion of the given name immediately clarifies which "Duchess of Somewhere" to whom we are referring: the intent isn't to violate British custom, but to avoid the Anglocentrism of deferring to it when, as here, it disserves a global readership by not employing a reader-friendly designation. An article titled "Duchess of Cambridge" properly refers to a position which has been held by multiple women (e.g., Caroline of Ansbach, Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel, Kate Middleton), whereas "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" distinguishes the present holder of that title from her predecessors at first glance. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in Wikipedia...FactStraight (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The page looks great to me--thanks for good work. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Picture
Can't We Get a Picture of Her In Color? 35.2.143.142 (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we can, but to be fair, this one shows her face better than any of the color photographs we have. Surtsicna (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps someone in the Graphics Lab can add colour. I've made a request.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I created this version. I find it more appealing. If we have a consensus to change it then we can change it. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The Graphics lab is working on a full colour version.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It's fine as it is. Black and white photo portraiture is also an art form. It may not look as good in colour. Let's se what Graphics Lab comes up with. Qexigator (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
After at least 2 days, this is what they've done. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Better b&w as is. We do not know the true garment colour, nor the skin tone. Qexigator (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The graphics lab has found images from the same day and has revised it.
That's more authentic colourwise: and now we know it's his hand with the brolly, and an aeroplane in the background. Can those details be mentioned if uploaded to Commons File? But retain there also original b&w. Cheerful pic., let's use it. Qexigator (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the work that has gone into colourizing the image, but shouldn't we be concerned at applying such a heavily enhanced imaged to a BLP, just in terms of the impression to the reader as to encyclopaedic veracity? --Fæ (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it would only be concerning if we were not sure of the color of her hair, dress, skin or eyes, etc. But it all seems to be shown in an authentic color. DrKiernan (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, this does increase confidence and avoids worrying about raising this for wider consensus. As the filename indicates enhancement, that is a good way of alerting reusers that what they see is not original.
It would be interesting to know how many of our BLP images on the English Wikipedia have been enhanced in significant ways, i.e. beyond simple cropping, contrast, or linear saturation. It may say something about our perception of how acceptable photo-shopping photographs are. Anyway, it's a question for another place. --Fæ (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
While I am impressed by the uploader's image editing skills, I do not think this type of image manipulation is acceptable per Wikipedia:No original research#Original images. Especially not in a BLP. Perhaps the photographer could be asked on Flickr if the photo was originally shot in black and white or if he could provide an original in colour.P. S. Burton (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
If there are no unpublished ideas or arguments raised by the image, no facts are distorted by the image and the image is not "false or disparaging", then "original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research". DrKiernan (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I am sure we can find another image of her rather than use a made-up one, I appreciate the work done to add colour but it is still a best guess and really we can use another image from commons instead. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The current image of her is very dark and shows her looking quite older than she is. Surely there is a more acceptable photo that is not a blatant violation of NPOV? 66.67.32.161 (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
As of this date, the color version is at the top of the article herein. Looks good to me, except for the fact that the face does not look like Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Other than that (and potential removal) it looks fine. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Infobox
Until William & Catherine's daughter is named, she's Princess NN of Cambridge. Please stop reverting that fact. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
That proposition or surmise is not a fact of any kind. It has no source or sense. There is no Princess NN. The cipher communicates no information, and has no place here. When known, the name will be used. Please stop pushing this here and on other articles. Qexigator (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
We've used NN before, as abreviation for Nomen nescio, which means un-named. Furthermore, she's a Princess of Cambridge from birth. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
She is a princess from birth, but will never be a "Princess of Cambridge". We should have the patience to wait on the passage of time for the name to be disclosed. Qexigator (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, she's HRH Princess 'name' of Cambridge since birth. Stop being so stubborn about it. Her name certainly isn't Daughter of.... GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
One of the two issue identified in the infobox is described as Princess, second child of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and that is indisputably correct, just as young George could be described as Prince, first child of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. If more is needed, they can also both be described as of the House of Windsor. But, of course, when the name is known we use it instead of the description. Qexigator (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Ever since Catherine married William the media have insisted on calling her Kate Middleton, despite the Royal Family's own website indicating at one point that this is incorrect. Although she was entitled to continue using the name, she announced upon her wedding that she would take her husband's name. Hence, media that wish not to use the honorifics should be calling her Catherine (or Kate) Mountbatten-Windsor. It should be indicated somewhere in this article, perhaps under Public Image or some similar header, that four years after her marriage, the duchess continues to be incorrectly -- and widely -- referenced by her maiden name. My main concern is that given how almost universal this error is (seriously, CNN is the only major media reporting on the birth that I have seen this morning that isn't using the Kate Middleton name) that someone could make a compelling case for renaming this article under WP:COMMONNAME. It doesn't need to be a big section; a single sentence in the lead to the effect of: "Although she took the surname Mountbatten-Windsor upon her marriage to Prince William (insert a link to one of the 2011 news stories about the marriage that references this), she continues to be widely, if incorrectly (insert applicable link to the surname page on royal.gov.uk) by her maiden name, Kate Middleton." We don't need to go into great detail beyond this.
68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm dissapointed in the route you've taken. However, unlike yourself, I can't afford to remain in this kinda dispute. Therefore, make the changes you prefer. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I don't agree with your preference. GoodDay (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment noted. Qexigator (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I like Princess NN better because it is shorter and because we used it with the Danish royal children until they are named. Prince or Princess NN is not unheard of. But there is no need to go back and fourth as unlike Denmark the royal names are announced quickly in Britain. Also I don't think NN is common usage in the UK as opposed to Denmark where NN or little prince/princess is used in the media to describe the unnamed child. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"NN" is not something I have seen used in British English and it just look wrong as if somebody has made a mistake, that said we will know here name soon, I think the Queen has to give her approval first so probably wont happen until she has seen her great-grandaughter. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Its proper use is as hidden on the edit page[26] ready for instant action when the name is known, first putting the name in place of NN then unhiding to appear on the page. Qexigator (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
We should atleast change it to Princess of Cambridge. The daughter of... stuff is redundant as it's obviously her daughter, per it's being in the issues section. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I've made the modified change, this time leaving our the N.N.. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added indefinite article, "A Princess of Cambridge". I agreed with your previous edit (properly linked to the Latin, to clarify for those unfamiliar with the term), since it was only to be used briefly and only to be visible in the info box where, in the format standard for its use, it was helpful to the curious reader. But without that clarification, it is anomalous, resembling a substantive title. FactStraight (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I know in the American press that it's common use to call females by their surnames in news articles - ie, Middleton - but prior to the marriage, the reputable British press always referred to her as Miss Middleton (tabloids of course went for Kate). Since Wikipedia defers to common use - ie, 4 May 2015 rather than May 4, 2015, or use of British rather than American English spelling when warranted - I'm just wondering why the American media style is used in referring to people from countries that don't do that (particularly irksome in historical articles - ie, Robsart for Amy Robsart, as an example, when historians generally use titles or 1st names if untitled). Seems a bit contradictory/confusing. ScarletRibbons (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
PS. How is Autumn Phillips next in precedence after the DoC? Peter Phillips has no title. I'd think it would be either Sophie, or perhaps Andrew's daughters. ScarletRibbons (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Given that it is not being written as a magazine article but encyclopedically, and that plain surname is usual for works of an encyclopedic or directory genre published in Britain for a British readership, and for biographical dictionaries and obituaries, this is how it should be.
PS precedence is based on generation and children; for women it goes the Queen, the dowager Queen (if there is one), the Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay, the wives of the monarch's younger sons, the monarch's daughters, the wives of the monarch's grandsons, the monarch's granddaughters, the wives of the monarch's brothers, the monarch's sisters, the wives of the monarch's nephews, the monarch's nieces, the wives of the monarch's cousins, the monarch's cousins. Each level is determined according to either the husband's precedence or primogeniture. Sophie's precedence comes between Camilla and Anne, and Andrew's daughters come after Autumn but before Louise (who in turn is before Zara). Autumn comes before Andrew's daughters as she's the wife of one of the sovereign's grandsons, but after Catherine as Catherine's husband comes before Peter in the line of succession. Psunshine87 (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
??? Maybe, but the article is not about Precedence, and this section is headed Common Use/Order of Preference. Qexigator (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
photos??
Is it necessary to have five photographs of her in the section after she got married? I think it clutters the page too much. If this is overruled, it's fine, I just think those particular photos are not more notable than others that could be utilized. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
A personal opinion: my selection for removing some would be these four: 'Middleton with Prince Harry, June 2008', 'Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge supporting British Olympic Team at a dinner in countdown to the 2012 Olympics in London, 11 May 2012', 'The Duchess of Cambridge during the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, 5 June 2012'. Qexigator (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The Duchess of Cambridge is Princess William
As the wife of Prince William, the Duchess of Cambridge's formal title is Her Royal Highness The Princess William Arthur Philip Louis (followed by the other titles); a comparable style is that of Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent.
For some reason, the sources I have given for this are not good enough, even though they show clearly how and why the Duchess is indeed a princess, which was given as her ‘occupation’ on the birth certificates of Their Royal Highnesses Prince George and Princess Charlotte. Anybody interested in genealogy, hereditary titles, and the monarchy will know this.
Why are my edits to reflect this in Her Royal Highness's full title being undone?
She would be "Princess William of Wales" if she was not a royal duchess. However, as she is a royal duchess, her title is "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge". She is not "The Princess William" or "Princess William Arthur Philip Louis" or "The Princess William Arthur Philip Louis" and neither of the sources you provided uses such constructions. The use of "The Princess X" is restricted to daughters and daughters-in-law of the Sovereign and no princess-by-marriage ever uses every forename of her husband. Of the two sources you provided, one is a tabloid (a source which is generally not used on a biography of a living person) that says she is entitled to be called "Princess William" but does not use it and the other is a self-published blog. DrKiernan (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
But her formal title is Princess William of Wales; her formal style is not. I made the edits on her formal title, not her style.
Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty, says she is a princess; Kensington Palace has formally stated that she is officially Princess William of Wales in addition to being the Duchess of Cambridge; historian Marlene Koenig has said that a woman always takes her husband's rank (and the Duke of Cambridge remains Prince William of Wales regardless of his dukedom; being one does not cancel out the other).
For that matter, the Duchess of Cornwall is officially titled the Princess of Wales, but not styled thus; the Countess of Wessex has a stall plate at the Queen's Chapel of the Savoy that reads: “HRH The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex"; when the Queen Mother married the then-Duke of York in 1923 she was described as having the rank of Princess.
I think the confusion comes from Prince William's royal dukedom. Perhaps unexpectedly, royal dukedoms trump the style of Prince, which is also why the Duke of Cambridge is not officially styled as Prince William any more. By contrast, Prince Michael does not have a royal dukedom, so his wife is just Princess Michael, or in full Her Royal Highness Princess Michael George Charles Franklin of Kent.
The Duchess of Cambridge's full, formal title (not style) is: Her Royal Highness The Princess William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales, Duchess of Cambridge followed by Prince William's subsidiary titles.
No, it isn't. I've explained why not above. DrKiernan (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
She's not The Princess William, because the The is reserved for only children of the sovereign, not grandchildren. Morhange (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, so without the definite article; she remains "Princess William" followed by Prince William's subsidiary titles. Prince Edward is a royal earl and his wife is still Princess Edward as well as Countess of Wessex. It is unprecedented for a woman marrying a prince not to take all his titles formally. The Duchess of Cornwall is still Princess of Wales too.
So, where are your citable sources for any of that? Qexigator (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a difference between titles and styles. That's why the section "titles and styles" is a confusing one. She is a Princess by courtesy (not in her own right) because her husband is a Prince. I fully agree with Vabadus91 about that. Both of them however are not styled with that title. Her husband's article on Wikipedia however is called Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. He didn't stop being a Prince when he became a Duke. HRH the Duchess of Cambridge is not her title. It's the way she is styled. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, "Duchess of Cambridge" is her title, as her husband is titled "Duke of Cambridge". It just happens to be that she is styled with this title, just as the Princess of Wales is styled, contrary to convention, as Duchess of Cornwall. I agree with everything else you have written, though.
While she is "Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge" (no "of Wales" as William ceased to be "of Wales" when he became Duke of Cambridge) by convention, there is a lack of credible sources that refer to her as Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge. For comparison, on the Countess of Wessex' page on the British monarchy's website she is referred to as "Her Royal Highness The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex." On Catherine's page, however, her title is listed as "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn and Lady Carrickfergus." No mention at all of Princess William. Psunshine87 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes Psunshine87, you are right about that. It's problematic to find sources, but the wife of a Prince is a Princess by courtesy, even if she's not styled as such. I think we should stick with how she is styled. Also mind that the website of the Royal family is an informative outlet, not a scholarly work. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Duchess of Cambridge - education?
I wish there were more information about Catherine's university education. You mention St. Andrews only as the place where she met her husband. Did she complete her degree? What was it in and what was it? Did she use it?
It's lovely that she's pretty and stylish and well-behaved. But she's, equally, educated. Aside from the fact that it's part of who she is - and an integral, interesting part - perhaps readers will try to see past the glam.
Lovely selection of photos, by the way, and nicely edited piece. (With noted exception.)
Many thanks.
Victoria Medaglia, who did a year at St. Andrews back when John Cleese was Rector. My, those were the days!
USA
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:843:C000:6CFE:A8FD:D370:F78A:7663 (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The "Early life" section says she "graduated in 2005, from the University of St Andrews in Fife, Scotland, with an undergraduate MA (2:1 Hons) in the history of art" and then describes her subsequent career. DrKay (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Ancestry chart
Unlike other royal articles, this article doesn't have a section titled "Ancestry", instead some information about her ancestors are included in the section "Early life". Why? Wasn't it better in that way? To have another separate section for her ancestry like other royals? I think the paragraph about her ancestors in the section "Early life" is meaningless. As far as I know "Early life" should be about her childhood, education or early career and a little about the family's background, not the whole family's background and ancestors. Keivan.fTalk 17:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Violations of privacy and Popular culture section
Does anyone think these two sections should be removed, they don't seem important and other royals don't have it.(Monkelese (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a mistake to cut material that is not covered in any other article and replace it with barely relevant trivia about her ancestry that is already covered in a sub-article. The article should be about her not her very distant relations who died long before she was born. The length of the current section is consistent with the lengths of other sections in the article, but the article seems to be going in the direction of placing too much emphasis on other people and too little on her appearances in the media. DrKay (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@DrKay, Violations of privacy did not read neutral, like it was pointing out just negative and embarrassing things reported about her in the media, popular culture section I agree, i shouldn't have remove that. Perhaps you are right, those two sections made her article different from other articles.(Monkelese (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The privacy section should probably be broken up and the neutral constituent parts placed in other sections. In particular, the £10,000 damages she got in 2009 need not be mentioned twice, in two different sections, as it is at the moment. DrKay (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
It has been stated on other pages of wives of Prince's of the Untied Kingdom are as follows.
HRH Camilla, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and so forth that she is also "Princess Charles" as the female version of her husband's name.
Sarah, Duchess of York.. While she was married to HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York, she too also in her formal styles and titles was also known as HRH The Princess Andrew.
HRH Sophie, Countess of Wessex also carries the formal style and title of "The Princess Edward"
The Late Diana, Princess of Wales. The first wife of Prince Charles and the mother of HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge while she was married was had the formal title of "The Princess Charles" as well.
This shows a precedence historically that the Duchess of Cambridge's full style and title upon her marriage to the Duke of Cambridge is as follows. "HRH The Princess William, The Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn and Lady Carrickfergus"
Even if she is not The Princess William, she remains, nonetheless, HRH Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge, etc. I see no reason why this should not be included in her full title.
Because she's never called it, it doesn't merit any greater mention than it gets in footnotes 146 and 147. DrKay (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I was confused by the "nee" since no other name, until I saw footnote 1. I think putting Catherine Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor nee Middleton with the explanation footnoted that she does not need to use a surname would clarify things. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
first trip to the US
Is the fact that her trip to California was her first trip to the US significantly more important than the fact, if it is so, that this was also her first trip to Canada? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It says "first royal tour of Canada" a couple of sentences before California. DrKay (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Order of Merit
It is listed under the section of Honours that she received the Order of Merit on 23 March 2017, yet I do not see a source cited. If this is true, shouldn't she have the postnominals "OM"? -- 003FX (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It's the Order of Merit of Tuvalu.[27]DrKay (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Still, shouldn't there be a source cited? How would the reader know this? -- 003FX (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Someone has added a souce, and I have changed the wording (here and for the Duke) to make it clear that this is the "Tuvalu Order of Merit", not the "Order of Merit". It may be open to question whether an award which isn't worthy of a Wikipedia article is worthy of listing here. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Evidently there is some edit-warring and contentious editing going on on Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Could use some more experienced eyes to help sort things out. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Change it she looks unfairly manic in that one!79.77.196.229 (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I like the current photo. It's good quality, fairly recent, and a nice headshot. I don't mind her facial expression. So if there isn't a photo of comparable quality, I wouldn't change it.Arg Matey (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
image
wouldnt it be worth mentioning how she was criticised by some after she left the hospital all glammed up a couple of hours after giving birth for putting pressure on other new mums. I havent got any sources, its just a suggestion if anyone wanted to look at it in more depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.120.106 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
No its not worth a mention, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Everything needs a citation. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Unaware edit war going on but possible compromise
I saw this article and immediately went to correct the incorrect way The Duchess of Cambridge is referenced. Using a woman's given name before her title indicates an ex wife of a peer.
I hope I added an acceptable compromise by adding the following sentence to the article after the first paragraph
"The Duchess of Cambridge's name at the start of this article is used incorrectly to distinguish her from previous Duchesses of Cambridge. Properly speaking, using a wife's given name prior to a title indicates divorce and, as she and Prince William of Wales The Duke of Cambridge are married, using her given name in this manner is incorrect. She is simply The Duchess of Cambridge."
I am of the opinion that Wikipedia should educate people not "spread" incorrect information. And not addressing the incorrect way her title is presented at the start of the article seems to make it misinformation.
Also I fixed her title under the Titles & Styles section to "The full version of her title and style are The Princess William of Wales Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, and Baroness Carrickfergus" I debated leaving it as Lady Carrickfergus but while wives of barons are addressed that way [as Lady (insert territorial designation)] this is listing her consort titles so Baroness is more appropriate. Also "fuller" is poor grammar, "more complete" would have been correct usage if worded in that manner. Also the comma between Strathearn is required to show not a dual title.
SECONDLY
I have made no change but when she was Catherine Middleton and now that she is The Duchess of Cambridge, her family and friends DO NOT call her Kate. The media called her "Waity Katey" (even though among English Catie would have been more common as a nickname) during her long relationship with the Prince prior to marriage. As a result the public has latched on to calling her Kate but using it in the opening paragraph is incorrect just as calling the late Diana Princess of Wales "Princess Diana" is incorrect, no such person really exists. Her actual nickname is Squeak after pet guinea pigs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS 1967 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Apparently someone is blocking or undoing my edits, however please at least correct the Titles & Styles section both grammatically and to show the actual full title since "Princess William of Wales" is actually part of her title.
If the issue with the first (added) paragraph is referencing the article, it could start with "Properly speaking..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS 1967 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
"The full version of her title and style are The Princess William of Wales Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge, The Countess of Strathearn, and The Baroness Carrickfergus"
Actually, you still have this slightly incorrect (by many accounts). Her full style is actually closer to: Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales, The Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, and Baroness Carrickfergus. But by (long) tradition, the "Princess" part is usually left off when her husband has a peerage title of his own, "Cambridge" and the others in her case. "Wales" is the title of William's father, not William himself. L.Smithfield (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
By British tradition, the princely format of her husbands name is placed before the style of Royal Highness for a consort. Or at least that is how I have always seen it. I did however forget the definitive article "The" before the secondary peerages. Wales is part of Prince William's proper title and style BECAUSE it is his father's title. Grandsons of sovereigns use their father's territorial designation after their titular dignity and given name. It serves to differentiate between princes with the same first name (as does the peerage). That is why The Queen's son is The Prince Edward ("of the United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is implied but not stated) and her first cousin is Prince Edward of Kent (although having inherited his father's dukedom he is commonly just known as The Duke of Kent).
I've never seen what you're suggesting. Please provide sources. The territorial designation is always dropped for royal dukes in my experience, so the Duke of Kent is no longer ever called Prince Edward of Kent and his wife is never Princess Edward of Kent. DrKay (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I've also never seen this, and I believe if a prince becomes a royal duke in his own right, it supersedes his father's designation, as he now has his own. So while it may be HRH Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge etc. etc. It's not "Princess William of Wales, Duchess of Cambrige", because her husband has his own peerage. Moreover, "Princess William of Wales" never comes up in ANY legitimate source, including from the royal family. And no princes from history who were born Prince X of Wales have that in their title after receiving a royal dukedom. Doxedevenexia (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Intro
The intro is way too bloated, mentioning that William will one day be king & thus Catherine will one day be queen-consort. Much better to say that William is second in line to the British throne & leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
But that is about William. This article is about Catherine. It should make her position in the royal family clear. Surtsicna (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
If longevity is passed on from Elizabeth II? William won't be ascending the throne for possibly another 15-25 years. Check out Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall's intro. Nothing there about Charles one day being king & her being queen consort (or princess consort). Such heavy loaded info, isn't required in the article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The article does not say when she is expected to become queen, nor should it. It's not loaded to state what the subject is known for.[28][29][30] In fact, it is required by MOS:BIO. There may be a better way to put it, of course, but it should be made clear that Catherine is expected to become the first lady of a nation. That is her claim to notability. Surtsicna (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Camilla is also expected to become the first lady of a nation. Consistency is required here. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not. There is no template for Wikipedia articles, and removing info from one article simply because parallel info is not found in another article is no way to improve an encyclopedia. Are we supposed to remove the mention of Catherine's impact on fashion simply because Camilla's fashion sense is not mentioned? Surtsicna (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Mentioning that her husband William is second in line to the British throne is enough. This whole 'future king', 'future queen consort' stuff un-needed. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Full support for GoodDay's position here, no way do we need likely Queen consort - Surtsicna has also edit warred the content back in, sadly. See wp:brdGovindaharihari (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Govindaharihari, BRD suggests that those seeking a change of long-standing and sourced content should gain consensus for those changes, not the other way around. Please acquaint yourself with the policy you cite. Surtsicna (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
bold is you add it - revert is somone else removes it - discuss is the next move. Anyways. although I think your addition is poor indeed I would never edit war it back out, I will simply comment here in discussion that I oppose it, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
But in this case it is Bold - GoodDay removed it, Revert - I restored it, followed by Discussion. We are not debating a new addition. Surtsicna (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, whatever you say, I notice you have been blocked before for edit warring, best is to operate a wp:1RR style to avoid that, regards Govindaharihari (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern. Surtsicna (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with GoodDay here that "William is second in line to the throne" is sufficient. Brevity is a virtue in writing, and stating that her husband is second in-line makes it quite clear that she is too. —Compassionate727(T·C) 23:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Not every second in line is meant to ascend the throne. Princess Margaret never was. Not every wife of a second-in-line is considered a future queen. Wikipedia:Writing about women explains quite nicely why articles about women should focus on women, not their husbands. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect Title
The title 'Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge' is incorrect. The practice of placing the first name before the title belongs only to Dowagers, whose spouse has died and a title has moved to a married male relative, creating two ladies with the same title. In that instance only, the widowed lady has her first name placed in front of the title. The article contains a do not remove notice by this name, but it should be removed as it is absolutely wrong to use this to represent The Duchess of Cambridge. 84.93.54.73 (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not bound by court usage, however. That is why we do not refer to her as "Her Royal Highness" either. Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually whoever wrote this originally is incorrect, use of the given name prior to a title denotes divorced not dowager. A dowager is address as The Dowager Duchess of Norfolk for example. The way Catherine is addressed in this article would be proper only if she and Prince William of Wales divorced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS 1967 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
He's not Prince William of Wales anymore. He's formally the Duke of Cambridge now. By the way, William and Catherine are not the only individuals who have held these titles, so in order to distinguish between them and their predecessors, it is necessary to include their given names in the titles of their respective pages. That is also the case for the rest of the royal or noble families, such as the Norfolks. Keivan.fTalk 03:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Unless we went with "Duchess of Cambridge (Catherine)". Assuming no other Duchesses of Cambridge have been named Catherine. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 03:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the