Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales

Adding her notable media name of "Kate Middleton" in the lead paragraph

Hi,

I added in the intro statement that Catherine "is also referred to by the media as Kate Middleton," which is factually true. Yet someone undid by edit and told me to first discuss it here. I see in an above section that someone advised against referring her by that name as she is not really called that by family or friends. However, I think we can include the name "Kate Middleton" in the intro because the media does indeed call her that and the general public a large knows her by that name as well. As Wikipedia is not a page for representing people just by how they should 'officially' be called, but rather how they are known by the public at large for notability's sake, I think including the name "Kate Middleton" is important.

After all, just look at the headlines of most of the references in the article at the bottom of the page and many- actually most- of them use "Kate Middleton." (Simply do a Ctrl + F search for it, click 'Highlight All' and you can see how many times its used). And yet in the article itself, the name is never or rarely acknowledged! In fact, the term "Kate Middleton Effect"- which is a separate article link in itself- is used in the intro paragraph; if so, then why not just specify that the public call her that in the first place?

So for those reasons I think, as per notability, it is valid and common-sensical to acknowledge the media's nickname for her. --Rush922(talk) 18:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

[Edit]- Sorry I forgot to login into my normal account for the above comment. Also, my mistake, that "Kate Middleton effect" wasn't an article link like I thought, but the point is that they still used the name in the article so they acknowledge its importance.Rush922(talk) 18:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have worked on this talk page before: @Surtsicna:, @Doxedevenexia:, @Willthacheerleader18:, @GoodDay:, @DrKay:, @Keivan.f:. Just to clarify, I propose that the first sentence can be as follows: "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, GCVO (born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton; 9 January 1982), often informally referred to by the media as Kate Middleton, is a member of the British royal family." Rush922(talk) 20:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

References

It's so annoying when the news media keeps calling her Kate & Kate Middleton. I mean, didn't they cover the 2011 wedding? GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of covered by 'Kate Middleton effect'? It seems to be overkill to have to spell out why the effect is called that. The abbreviation of her first name can be inferred. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Seem agree with Celia, do not think it is needed in the lead, it is clearer that the media outside of the tabloids are using Duchess of Cambridge and "Kate Middleton" is becoming rarer. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with the other users. It's totally unnecessary to include the nickname in the lead sentence, especially since it's not used by her husband and family. Keivan.f^Talk 01:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It is hardly just the 'news media' that use this name. Probably most of the people on the planet that have heard of her use 'Kate'. I suspect that most of her extended family do as well, now. It is simply the name by which she is best known and is not very different, in essence, from the Queen having an 'official' birthday and an 'actual' birthday, or as the Trump might say, a birthday and a fake birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.45 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree, and many people will not make the link between Kate and Catherine, so will not know that this article is about Kate Middleton, especially given that the "Kate Middleton redirects here" is way too subtle and easily missed. Rebroad (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind something like "known in the media as Kate", but she's not known by anyone as "Catherine, Kate, Duchess of Cambridge", so that's not an appropriate option. DrKay (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ummm. you readily concede that she's known in the media as Kate, and yet argue "she's not known by anyone as Kate"... She's known by most of the population therefore as Kate. How is that "not known by anyone"? Rebroad (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. I said she's not known by anyone as "Catherine, Kate, Duchess of Cambridge". DrKay (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

And neither does she need to be. The opening paragraph lists the various ways in which she's known. It is not stating that she is known by the whole paragraph or opening sentence. Rebroad (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The only acceptable way to refer to her is as, "The Duchess of Cambridge." No Catherine, no Kate. She has no public first name anymore. Her first name is for her friends and family. It would only be acceptable to use "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" if she were to divorce the Duke of Cambridge or she were to otherwise stop being an active member of the royal family (e.g. Diana, Princess of Wales or Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.) CharlotteFaith7 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The question is not how she _ought_ to be referred to. It's how she _is_ referred to. The name "Kate Middleton" appears 150 times in the article - 147 times in the titles of referenced works and twice in the body of the article (but never actually in reference to the article's subject). Something is fishy when an article entirely avoids the name that half of its references use for its subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.225.219.18 (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Main Picture

I donno guys she is next in line to be Queen of England. Why is her cover picture so casual? She is quite regularly seen in beautiful lavish gowns and royal jewelry, why is her cover photo on wikipedia in a starter jacket? Is there any way this picture can be replaced with a better picture? Possibly something in a dress, wearing a tiara or something customary for Princesses and Queens? The future Queen in a starter jacket could that be construed as an insult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armelpeel (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If you know of a better image that is actually free to use then you are welcome to suggest it. Most images you will find are actually copyrighted and cant be used or of poor quality. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Well a picture something like this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/luxury/2018/10/24/TELEMMGLPICT000178753457_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqgT8zZtBsXoP7WFAPAlxQQOHBtqdvYK5aNB_FkHIfPfI.jpeg?imwidth=1400

Seems much more appropriate. I dont understand why some weird picture from a soccer game in North Ireland is the only acceptable photograph of the future Queen of England. There seems to be so many pictures of the royal family released into the public domain is this the only one you guys could agree on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armelpeel (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That picture isn't public domain. We can only use free, uncopyrighted images. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We used to have this one as the main photo, but someone objected to her facial expression. I find it better than the current one. Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the picture from 2014 that was previously installed. It's much more flattering and befitting. Thoughts? Miadaisies (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Miadaisies

Mass changes

Wowsers, @Miadaisies:. You've made that many changes to the article, I hardly know where to review. What say you @Moxy: & @DrKay:? -- GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

hello! i'm sorry, i added some sourced information from her youth. was there a mistake? i hope you're having a great day. Miadaisies (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Bettydaisies (formerly Miadaisies) : With all due respect, your edits on pages for the Duchess of Cambridge and the Duchess of Sussex usually require follow up editing. This is not suggesting that your edits are not done in good faith and lack merit. One possibility is that English may not be your first language. Otherwise, you may be proficient in more than one language. It is noted that you are based in Los Angeles, so it is understandable that you may frame British royal family matters through an American lens, which is fine. Instead of adding volumes of new data, consider editing the existing stuff first. In other words, focus on the remedial work initially, especially for consistency in the context of the whole page seeing as there is more than one editor onboard. Sampajanna (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! For the more major edits, I have tried in the past to go to talk pages for contributions, but it is difficult to get responses. I apologize if my edits seemed imposing or drastic, especially toward the contributions of other editors, and I'll definitely keep it in mind for the future. For the follow-up editing, I admit my thinking process can become quite rapid, and I forget the details of syntax and grammar. I do regret the inconvenience this causes, and will do my best to prevent it from happening hereafter. Thank you so much for your feedback.--Bettydaisies (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Improper use of Catherine's title

In the very opening sentence of this page, the subject is described as "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge." That formulation is used SOLELY for the divorced ex-wives of Dukes. She should be referred to simply as The Duchess of Cambridge, without reference to her first or last names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luini599 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"Relationship with Prince William" image and detail

Hi! The section detailing her relationship with Prince William seems awfully lengthy and detailed - I'd argue that some information regarding the privacy intrusions belong in their respective section regarding the media. Additionally, her husband's page doesn't contain nearly as much detail in describing things such as the resort where they broke up, the concert she was photographed at after, the bit about first noticing her at the university's fashion show - etc. You get the gist. Is it really imperative to the integrity of her biography to include these details?

Additionally, the image of her at Windsor Castle is of her profile only. I know it takes place at a royal residence, but is it the opinion of editors that it would better fit in the "Early life" section as it shows her before marriage, or does the setting of the photograph itself warrant its location?

Just one more thing - Catherine has spoken extensively about motherhood and pregnancy, in tandem with her work on the early years, about her personal experiences giving birth and raising her children. It seems a bit strange to include these quotes under a "Relationship", section, so would it be inappropriate to rename it a "Personal life"? Thanks. --Bettydaisies (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Public life description

Pinging User:Sampajanna. Hello! I'd like to have a discussion revolving around my recent edits on this article, as well as our reflective differing viewpoints. Personally, I believe that having details of trips and engagements serve a constructive purpose, to give distinction and meaning from a biographical standpoint rather than saying she visited ___ in ____ over and over, giving no information on the royal duties themselves. I apologize if this came off as excessive information dumping, and I've made a motion to rename a bespoke page for her and her husband's overseas trips, which I am happy with. I still think certain significant trips and visits, especially from a public or historical standpoint (i.e 2019 Pakistan tour), warrant a couple sentences of detail within the section. --Bettydaisies (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Bettydaisies As suggested in edit comments, consider starting a new separate page if you want to list or detail all her trips and engagements. Try clicking on this Wikipedia link for ideas. Sampajanna (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

As aforementioned, I did! I just want to reiterate that I do think a few details of major trips and engagements should still be included for encyclopedic and historical purposes. Thanks!--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Bettydaisies: A 'See also:' redirection link should resolve that. Sampajanna (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The nickname "Kate Middleton"

This has history been a hot button issue on this page, so due to recent edits, I'd like to pull out a request for comment. Should the nickname of "Kate Middleton" be included in the lead-in? There are other options to include this nickname, mostly attributed by the press, such as the public image & fashion section, or even the privacy & media section. I don't know if I'd personally agree with putting: Catherine "Kate" Elizabeth Middleton, since styling it that way seems to imply its a nickname she was attributed to in her personal life, but of course, it's a viable option. Thoughts? Found a few relevant secondary articles here and here if that's applicable at all.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bettydaisies: I'm glad you brought it up. In my opinion, no, we don't need to include it in the lead. There are numerous precedents about royals being known by informal names, including Mary of Teck who was known as May, George VI as Bertie, Elizabeth II as Lilibet, Princess Margaret as Margot, Prince William as Wills, and Sarah, Duchess of York as Fergie. I don't see none of these nicknames being mentioned in the lead section. Keivan.f^Talk 04:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, personally, the former styling made sense, but goes against precedent, and there's also a redirect in case anyone searches for her by her maiden/media name.--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Am I losing my marbles? Surely she was born "Kate" and changed her name to something more, er, suitable before the wedding? Isn't this widely known? AndyI 22:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"Relationship with Prince William"

Ordinarily, a section detailing someone's relationship and marriage would be listed under the "Personal life" section, or occasionally the "Marriage and children section", etc. I do have the sneaking suspicion that it might've been first named during her pre-wedding days, when her primary notability first began as William's girlfriend. Other royals in long term relationships, for instance, Jack Brooksbank, Sophie Wessex, etc. don't necessarily have similarly named sections, although Catherine's courtship period was, I assume, more widely covered. I'm definitely not vehemently opposed to the naming of Catherine's section, but it does feel unusual and unique with those in her category.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Now that I've thought about it, it seems a bit ridiculous to have this be the title of the section. It could be relabeled "Personal life" with the first section retitled as "Early relationship with Prince William". The title for the section was designed as early as 2005 (see here) and seems a bit outdated now. I'm curious to know what others think on this matter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• CatherineSignature.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: section renaming

Regarding the "Early life" sector: I feel it would be better if it were re-labeled "Early life and education" or "Early life and career"(while her employment status was an object of discussion around the time of reporting during their courtship, she did technically hold down jobs at her family business + at the article Diana, Princess of Wales, it lists the same heading above information regarding her part-time work in nannying, assisting teachers, housekeeping, etc. Thoughts?--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Prince William and Duchess of Cambridge at Olympic Gala to Mark Countdown of Olympics.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Upper-Middle Class?

The article, and a good bit of sources, state that Kate Middleton is in the upper-middle class. How somebody who grew up as a multimillionaire in one of the wealthiest families in the world and can still be called "upper-middle" class seems like an absurdity no matter how many people commit the error. This is called successful marketing. Middleton has this popular image of being relatable, supported by popular literature, but this perception could not be farther from reality. She is rich, upper-class, and has been her entire life. Seeing that an objective of Wikipedia is to be objective, I will make an edit to the page and invite discussion on this point. Milkael Shakestein (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC) EDIT: I can't edit the page, haha. Milkael Shakestein (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I doubt they're one of the "wealthiest families in the world" - regardless, to my understanding, social class in the United Kingdom has specific criteria. Families of David Cameron and Boris Johnson, for instance, are described as such, coming from substantially wealthy backgrounds. Wikipedia draws information from reliable sources. If you can find multiple reliable sources that describe her family to the contrary, that's definitely worth a discussion on the talk page.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Wealth is not the sole criterion of class in the UK. Opera hat (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a better understanding of it, as I don't live in the UK. However, as I mentioned before, if reliable sources could be found to support the matter, it would beneficial.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the term refers to their position outside the landed gentry. And of course you can still be rich, and upper class, and relatable. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

The infobox image was recently changed from a 2019 photograph to a 2018 one - while I prefer the higher-quality portrait to a previous one, it might be of note to consider that the subject was pregnant at the time the image was taken, and might be considered to not be the best BLP representation of her. There area few suitable and available pictures of her for the lead used previously:

• 
  A.
• 
  B.
• 
  C.
• 
  D.

The second image was longstanding, but again of a lower quality, while the third and fourth images are flattering but not as recent. I'm curious to know what other editors think.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bettydaisies: I think C is low in quality and the hat covers her hairline and overall it doesn't show her face properly. B has a better angle but it also has a lower quality compared to A and D. D was also once used as the lead image, but since it's now from 7 years ago and I think it's better to toss it away. I think A is both recent and of acceptable quality and thus it's currently our best option. Keivan.f^Talk 23:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Charity work

Hi! As I've been reviewing this article, as well as other articles relating to the British royal family, I've noticed in an upstanding effort to maintain the currency of the sections "Charity work" and "Public life", the organization of such sections is sometimes difficult to analyze, and it occasionally comes off as a mere sourced listing of such events. But I digress; in relation to my personal opinion, I've recently reworked the "Charity work" section of this page in my sandbox fairly extensively, sorted by topical relevancy in a hopefully more digestable format for those unfamiliar with the subject. As this revision (primarily the upper section) contains substantial changes, and Wikipedia is a collaborative project, I wanted to inquire if other editors had any qualms, disagreements, opinions, suggestions, etc. to ensure a stable page before editing it myself. Thank you!--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2021

She is not Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. She is only to be referred to as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. People incorrectly believe that because Meghan is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex that the same applies to Catherine. This is not true. Refer to the official website of the British Royal Family to see for yourselves her title and the correct way to refer to her. 2601:4A:C103:160:AC61:FA13:8CD9:56EC (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Meghan is called The Duchess of Sussex. DrKay (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

minor edit

The "D", in Death Of Princess Diana, isn't capitalized. If someone could change that, thanks.