Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales

I would rename the second Bibliography section as Further reading

I believe this would make it less confusing and be more in keeping with other future monarchs like Prince Charles' page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.240.92 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Biased writing

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

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

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

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

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

Get neutral editors. 70.53.34.60 (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You are someone. If you can find reliable sources, you can either edit the article yourself or make suggestions for changes on this page. Britmax (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

This is @talk's first post. Their second was the same to Prince William's talk page. But hey, welcome to Wikipedia, @70.53.34.60. New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience. Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing. Sampajanna (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ll address a few points here. The use of private jets by the royal family in their official capacity is an entirely different matter from taking private jet by a now private individual who labels himself as a climate change activist. Any criticism directed at the royal family should be covered on British royal family. After all, all members may use private jets while on official trips, not only William and Catherine. However, in their private capacity William and Catherine have mostly flown commercial. If you have specific sources that suggest otherwise, please put them forth. Also, criticism of one’s comments on social media is not worthy of inclusion here on Wikipedia. Yes, William’s comments may have been called racist, but Harry has also been called a traitor and hypocrite and Meghan has been labeled as a narcissist by social media users. Yet neither of them have been labeled as such by the mainstream media, because there is no evidence behind any of these claims. These are just unflattering and unnecessary criticism that have no place in an encyclopedic article. Keivan.f^Talk 06:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"Kiki Wigglesworth" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kiki Wigglesworth. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9#Kiki Wigglesworth until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AngryHarpy‍^talk 21:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Arranged thematically but not chronologically

@DrKay: Hello. The reader finds the subsection "Patronages and interests" problematic because it is not listed in chronological order. Do you think that the clarity of this wall of text will be improved with sub-subsections, thus letting the readers know that the text is arranged thematically? Oroborvs (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks obvious to me since each paragraph appears to start with something akin to a topic sentence, and then flows into related themes. For example, a paragraph begins with In her capacity as patron of Action on Addiction, the Duchess has occasionally made visits to its centres, spending time with recovering addicts. which is then followed by examples of such visits. This then flows naturally into other healthcare work, which is again prefaced with a topic sentence Catherine has worked extensively in children's palliative care alongside East Anglia's Children's Hospices and undertakes private visits to children's hospices and their families. Adding a sub-section heading for a single paragraph which is already neatly set out with a clear topic is unnecessary, even intrusive. DrKay (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay: Obviously, it makes sense from a thematic point of view, but when the eye focuses on the dates, it's rather disturbing (to me) to see the dates that do not follow in a section of a WP's article. If you look at the section #Privacy and the media of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex's article, there is a subsection called "Court cases" then two little sub-subsections are included inside ("Associated Newspapers Limited" and "Other cases"), and it's more clear and readable, at least to me. Meghan's section #Patronages and interests is split in half and what I also see is that it has GA status. The entire #Charity work section of Catherine's article is not visually appealing − even if that does not take away the quality of its content. That is all I wanted to say. Oroborvs (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Profile picture change

I have contacted Wikipedia by email in order to discuss changing the profile picture of Kate Middleton. This is due to the fact that I have seen many online comments that are very hateful towards this picture. The comments include bullying her about her appearance and how old she looks however it is not a 2021 photograph of her . I would suggest chasing the photo in order to stop the abuse I have seen on Twitter and updated it , if possible. 2A02:C7F:570D:F400:CC2B:E49C:C510:692B (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

We are constrained by Wikipedia:Image use policy to use only free-use public domain files such as those in commons:Category:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Duchess of Cambridge title

Hello. Catherine’s name/title is “The Duchess of Cambridge”. It’s this way on the Royal family website and on various nametags she’s worn including at Ascot and the Olympics.

The way this article has it, “Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge” is the style of a divorced woman.

For example: Diana while married was The Princess of Wales. After divorce she was Diana, Princess of Wales.

Sarah while married was The Duchess of York. After divorce she is Sarah, Duchess of York. 69.168.44.72 (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If you read through the archives you will see numerous previous discussions on this matter. One example is at Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge/Archive 7#Incorrect Title. Perhaps we need an FAQ at the top of this talk page? --David Biddulph (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

After some reading, it seems that "Her Royal Highness" is the honorific that sets apart married versus divorced royal ex-spouses. Her title should be listed as "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge". Sergeant Curious (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Main picture

Because of recent comments towards Kate Middleton on this particular Wikipedia picture I was wondering if it could be changed due to the bullying I have seen on Twitter. 2A02:C7F:570D:F400:84F4:2F18:A5AF:47B7 (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You were given an appropriate answer several times before. Please, stop asking the same question. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you contacted me at my talk page when you are discussing this here. Replacing the picture with another (which it has to be said, you never proposed any alternative, you merely expected us to replace it with another picture) will not solve this alleged bullying issue. If people want to bully Catherine, they will bully her, no matter which picture is used. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How can you name Kate's children as "issues"?

I find this expression very offensive although it may be an English expression I ignore. 84.78.242.36 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikt:issue: (now usually historical or law) Offspring: one's natural child or children. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Likely future queen

She is described in the lead as a likely future queen (I think I wrote it) and it is easy to find reputable sources discussing her queenly future, but neither the information nor the source(s) are found anywhere in the body of the article and I am having trouble finding a place for it. Public life maybe? (On another note, the Public life sections reads too much like a diary.) Surtsicna (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I don't know how I missed this, but, better late than never. For Camilla it has been covered under "titles and styles". Mayne we should do the same for Catherine? Keivan.f^Talk 09:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Platinum Jubilee medals

I believe that there should be a citation for the suggestion that Catherine would receive a platinum jubliee medal. This suggestion has been added on most royals Wikipedia page, I’m not sure why, as there is no citation discussing it. Theeveralst (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Any further confirmation of this query is needed or else it should be deleted Theeveralst (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Theeveralst : Just because no one has responded in the last three weeks to your opinion and uncertainty does not mean that anything in the article should be deleted based on that premise. Sampajanna (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sampajanna, so I’m guessing that there is no where that states that the royal family members will be receiving a platinum jubilee medal. In that case it should be deleted as there is no citation for it. Theeveralst (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Theeveralst : It is your prerogative to guess whatever you like. Sampajanna (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Why were her golden and platinum jubilee medals removed? She has been a serving member for over a decade now and she is entitled to have received both. 72.136.95.67 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sampajanna can you please revert the changes made by 'Theeveralst' because they have no merit Stopwiththenonsense (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there any citation of her being awarded them Theeveralst (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be, she is currently a working royal and has been for over a decade, and Meghan is not. 72.136.95.67 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This website says that female royals also received the medal: https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/the-royal-family-proudly-wears-their-platinum-jubilee-medals-177620/ Stopwiththenonsense (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That website says Anyone can apply to be a blogger on Royal Central. It therefore does not appear to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, unless Jess Ilse (the blogger in this case) is an established author or expert in the field. DrKay (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean she has a bachelor's in journalism from University of King's College, she's made over 1500 posts and apparently has corresponded with various media so she's not just a random person off the street... Stopwiththenonsense (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

According to royal.uk (https://www.royal.uk/jubilee-medal-be-presented-token-nation%E2%80%99s-thanks), serving members of the armed forces having served at least five years will receive the medal. Having served as Honorary Air Commandant of the Royal Air Force Cadets since 2015, she qualifies. Also, jubilee medals can be given as a personal gift of the sovereign (normally to members of the royal family who wouldn't already qualify, i.e. Prince Charles received the coronation medal at age 4 and Prince Harry received the Platinum Jubilee medal). There is a 99.9% chance if she didn't already qualify for the medal, the Queen would have gifted her it, and also the Queen most likely gifted her the Diamond Jubilee Medal. I would bet a lot of money that if the Duchess of Cambridge were to wear a military uniform with medals, the Platinum Jubilee Medal would be on her chest right next to the Diamond Jubilee Medal.68.14.208.126 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I just don't understand why in God's name before Meghan came along this wasn't an issue and everyone had their honours on their pages but because she doesn't qualify for a medal now all the medals that all of the women in the family have received as active members now have to be removed from their pages to appease her? God.. Stopwiththenonsense (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@stopwithnonsense please don’t add your personal dislike to Meghan on this page. Wikipedia guidelines state that if it is not cited that it should not be added. Catherine may have received a platinum jubliee medal but Meghan also may have revived as she qualifies. However these can to be proven if it is not cited. People could say anything like on Wikipedia, that is why citing is important Theeveralst (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Not every single thing on Wikipedia is cited. Some things are just acknowledged and understood by the general population to be true. For example, when you go to Joe Biden's Wikipedia page, the first line states "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 under Barack Obama and represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009." with no citation. Do you want to go take that off of the page? Also, in my last post I explained that the Duchess of Cambridge does qualify for the Platinum Jubilee medal, so it needs to be placed back on her page. Quit being so pedantic. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your point about joe Biden is invalid. This is because we know that Joe Biden was the Vice President. We do not now if Kate has received a medal. We can only know if she displays it. That is why the other royal family members have the honour added because we saw it or articles were written about them having it. If you are going to put a medal for Kate put one for all the royal family members who qualify including Meghan. Theeveralst (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

We know she got it because all members of the Royal Family got it, including the Queen's cousin's children who are great-grandchildren of a monarch and are barely royal. We also know that she got it because as Honorary Air Commandant of the Royal Air Force Cadets since 2015 she has at least five years military experience and therefore meets the requirements for the medal regardless of her marriage. All I can say is I hope the Queen appoints the Duchess of Cambridge to the position of Colonel of the Grenadier Guards so we can see her wearing jubilee medals and this discussion can be settled. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Description of Party Pieces

I don't have permission to edit, can someone fix this? In the "Early life and career" section, there is a phrase "...founded Party Pieces, a privately held mail order company that sells party supplies and decorations with an estimated worth of £30 million, though accounts show that the company has lost £1.068 million since its inception." The statement "lost £1.068 million since its inception" is misleading and should be removed or corrected. It should refer to the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic, not the inception of the company Party Pieces.

The cited article does contain a similarly misleading sentence "Party Pieces, which sells decorations and food items for children's parties, graduation ceremonies and weddings, has lost £1.068m since its inception, new account filings show." However, the additional context in the cited article makes it more clear that "inception" refers to the inception of the pandemic mentioned in the preceding sentence, not the inception of the company. The title of the cited article is, "Party supplies business run by Kate Middleton’s parents lost £1m during pandemic" and the first sentence is "The party supplies business run by the Duchess of Cambridge’s parents recorded more than £1m in losses during the pandemic." Delada (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of "mathematics"

1. Why is the word mathematics abbreviated? If it is appropriate to do so, then shouldn't abbreviation be applied consistently throughout the article, to all words for which abbreviations exist? 2. The correct abbreviation for mathematics is "maths", without a period at the end of the word. 3. If the American abbreviation is to be used then a period after the word is required.

To avoid what appears to be sloppy language it is suggested to use "mathematics" instead of "math". 69.59.91.66 (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Article changed to 'mathematics'. Sampajanna (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Cornwall and Cambridge

As their official Instagram page uses "Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge" shouldn't we use the same title here? Maria0215 (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This change has been made official and outside references can be cited if needed. Sergeant Curious (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Princess of Wales

Charles just created William and Catherine Prince and Princess of Wales in his address.  — Calvin999 17:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)