Jump to content

Talk:Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dphilp75 (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 18 November 2010 (→‎Middleton's Title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jumping the gun

Isn't the creation of this article a tad soon? They've only annouced their engagement 'today'. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a future event. I suppose we could rename it "the engagement of", but as details of the wedding are announced over the next weeks we'd only get this article recreated. We've got articles on lots of future events.--Scott Mac 16:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, we can always delete it, if the engagement is called off. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's like a game to see who can be first. My question is: why the comma in the title? 138.40.149.194 (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer#Article title. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant. A comma should follow "Wales" in that case as there's one after "Charles". There should be no comma in the article title here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Chuck's & Camila's wedding article. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A TAD TOO SOON?" Wikipedia has gone from an American-founded-and-invented source of information to just another member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It is genuinely astonishing how many articles (and I do not refer to ones like this, which are directly about British events) have had their center of focus shifted (especially regarding matters in dispute; see Bloodhound) to a distinctly English perspective. What can one say? You Brits probably work harder than we do, especially considering your smaller poopulation. Let's go USA! Time to reclaim our position and viewpoint in this worldwide project! (All in jest). 66.108.94.216 (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Allen Roth[reply]
It might be "American-founded-and-invented" but Wikipedia claims to be an international encyclopaedia with content from all over the Anglophone world, not just the US. And the amount of UK-related info in the Bloodhound article seems fair enough, given we bred them and have had them for much longer than you have, so they have more of a history with us: the "centre of focus" is rightly with us. The US is notorious for not looking beyond its borders ('the world is the US and the US is the world', in its worldview: just look at your comments about "reclaiming our position"), so we're doing you all a favour educating you about things which you otherwise wouldn't learn. So just be grateful.81.129.133.227 (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. We don't look past our own borders...ya know, until we get involved in something international, then we're to blame for everything. Also, this article is seriously jumping the gun. How is this not WP:CRYSTAL? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 15:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the point of view of those people in the UK who are planning school examination timetables, this is not WP:CRYSTAL, it is solid advice when not to have the examinations. Similarly for those planning UK sports tournaments. Similarly for those planning UK business conferences. Similarly for those in the UK who might be planning their own weddings. Martinvl (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Spring or summer"

There's been good faith attempts to reword this as "mid". I can understand why. Unfortunately the announcement is "spring or summer" - and we ought to follow the announcement. "Mid" does not mean the same thing. If we translate "spring or summer" we will, of neccesity, be less accurate, since these words are not ours but those of the announcement that we are recording. In this case the MOS guideline doesn't apply - and would weaken the article.--Scott Mac 18:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the quote from Clarence House that uses the "spring or summer" phrasing. MOS definitely doesn't apply in the same way to the direct quote! Cheers, matt (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It isn't accurate. What it is an interpretation/description of the meaning of what was said - it takes the reader further away from the announcement. I wholly agree that if we were describing for ourselves when the wedding was to be "mid" is a more certain description than spring/summer - since seasons vary depending on hemisphere. But we are not describing when the wedding will be, we are reporting what the announcement has said, and the announcement said "spring or summer". Hence "spring or summer" is a more definite record of what was announced. "Mid" is not what was said, is a second level interpretation, and isn't even an accurate one - since April could be spring, but it isn't "mid" by any stretch. Where the facts are vague, best to reflect that vaguery directly.--Scott Mac 21:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, remember the MOS is only a guideline, don't impose it when it is to the detriment of the article. The quotes are better, I agree - but note as a device to please the MOS.--Scott Mac 21:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this article

Please don't.

It may seem like a good idea, and you may be right. But this article has been moved, retitled and moved back eight times since its creation. It is getting very annoying. If you want to move it, state why and to what here and please wait until there is clear consensus. (Waiting a day or two won't matter. Let people have their say.)--Scott Mac 08:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we get an admin to move-protect it, just for good measure? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be very happy for that to happen, but I think I'd take stick for being "involved". BTW I'm not saying renames should not be considered, just that they should be discussed first. "Bold, revert, discuss" is normally fine, but after the sixth move in 24 hours, a little less boldness wouldn't go amiss.--Scott Mac 10:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it was rather naughty of you, as an Admin, to be moving this page, knowing it would be contentious. The article clearly doesn't belong in the namespace 'Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton' – that would be too much of WP:CRYSTAL. In any event, I have applied for move protection at WP:RFP— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohconfucius (talk • contribs)
    • Well we can discuss what namespace it should be in. But I just point to 2028 Summer Olympics and United States presidential election, 2012, and ask should these not be moved also?--Scott Mac 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2028 Summer Olympics and United States presidential election, 2012 are bad examples, for convention dictates those namespaces. Moreover, there is a near 100% certainty these will take place, unlike the impending royal wedding... therefore, the current namespace is speculative and inappropriate. Notwithstanding, I don't really care so much if it stays here until the event actually takes place, but I do care that it doesn't continually get moved again. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we can agree that it should not be moved again without consensus. I'd suggest that there's a element of doubt as to whether an Olympic games will happen in 18 years time. I think what makes those articles appropriate is that there are current verifiable acts which relate to them. Bids are in place, candidates are making statements about running. The same is true here. The announcement is a verifiable fact, and there's already verifiable comment and reaction to it, over the coming weeks there will be plans announced and controversies will doubtless occur. We could call it an "engagement" for now, I suppose, but you'd only have a problem next week when more details are announced since that don't really relate to the engagement. Under that argument you'd insist in speaking of The dissolution of the United Kingdom Parliament, 2010 and not creating an article on the election for parliament until it had actually occurred.--Scott Mac 14:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There seems to be some clutching of straws. Bad examples/arguments again. Short of another world war, or the end of the world before then, the 2028 Olympic Games are sure to take place; the chances of the US Presidential election in 2012 not happening is even less remote. The only certainty about the next UK parliamentary election, however, is that it will take place before a given date... as the PM of the day has the prerogative of calling a snap election at any time. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Olympic games have been cancelled before. I know of no royal wedding that has been. Indeed the 2010 the cancellation of the Commonwealth games of 2010 was seriously mooted this summer, yet we've still got articles running all the way up to 2022 Commonwealth Games. It is entirely possible that those will not happen, or that the Commonwealth will not exist by then. It is also quite conceivable that, at 84, there won't be a Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II.--Scott Mac 15:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a precedent for a royal wedding not taking place, in 1892. Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, likely future king as oldest son of oldest son of Queen Victoria (like Prince William) and aged 28 (ahem) was engaged and a date for the wedding had been set, but he died suddenly 6 weeks before the wedding. So it could happen. Having said that, I think we should exercise a degree of common sense, the bulk of publicity so far has been about the engagemnt but we are likely to get more details about the wedding in the next few weeks. PatGallacher (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging as future event

I'm not experienced with en-wiki templates, but should we not add a "future event warning" template to alert readers that this event may or may not happen, something similar to Template:Current ? DGtal (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have such a thing on the next Olympic games, or next Presidential election, etc?--Scott Mac 13:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't, but there is a difference between an event that needs a really big change, say USA becoming a Monarcy or a World war canceling an olympics like the 1940 Summer Olympics, and a wedding which can be canceled due to relatively common reasons. DGtal (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: page title

Should this article have a title referring to the wedding or the engagement of these two people? 15:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from TreasuryTag

None of the sources are about the wedding: not one. They are all about the engagement. There was massive coverage of the engagement, but only a sprinkling of press speculation about the wedding. We can make a new article for the wedding when references emerge, or we can rename an "engagement" page. But for now, the article obviously has to refer to the engagement. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 15:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wedding the engagement is simply the announcement of the intention to marry. Facts beyond speculation about the wedding have already been announced (it is happening in London, it will be in spring-summer 2011). More facts will be announced in the coming days. Yes, we could move this to engagement right now perhaps, but we'd only be moving it back to wedding in a week or two when even more announcements are made, since the details of the wedding would look strange on an engagement article. When an election is announced, we start an article on the election itself, not on the "announcement of the election".--Scott Mac 16:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wedding. Obviously. Silly question. otherwise as per Scott Mac. Physchim62 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, really silly question. I almost wonder why there's been such widespread disagreement about it it's so stupid. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 16:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Engagement, as they've yet to be married. We can always 'move' the title to Wedding, after the event. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, when the venue, time, place, dress, guests, and details of the wedding are announced, should they all go on an article on the past event of the engagement?.--Scott Mac 17:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once the wedding occurs, the engagement falls into the article's history section. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but before the Wedding occurs, where do we put what will be the growing number of announcements about it (and perhaps notable controversies and commentary)?--Scott Mac 17:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they happen during the period of the Engagement of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton then I would presume in the article entitled, "Engagement of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton." ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dispite the fact that they relate to the wedding of Wills and Kate (as does the engagement, for that matter)? Physchim62 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviously no guarantee that the wedding will take place until it has actually taken place. I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of an engagement being broken off. Also obviously, the chance of any cancellation becomes the closer we get to the wedding. Since the engagement has definitely happened, and will always have happened, it would therefore seem sensible to have the article on the real-world encyclopedic topic until there is a more up-to-date title regarding the wedding. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 17:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wedding - The probablity that the wedding will happen is high. This article will metamorphose over the next few months until it becomes a historic record of the wedding. Meanwhile planners of sports events, school curricula, business seminars will be affected by the wedding and at least some will refer to this article to confirm their planning and most will look up "wedding" rather than "engagement". Martinvl (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For all we know, William might be Duke of Cornwall & Prince of Wales, by the time of his wedding. Maybe even King. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Massively hope so... ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 07:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Careful! Mind the Treason Felony Act 1848! In all seriousness though, I can't agree with that opinion but you have to bear in mind William will be King eventually. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image is needed

An image is needed of the couple for this article. Hopefully we can obtain a free or fair-use photograph.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best one to use would be where's they're standing infront of the fire-place. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly not a free image. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 17:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we don't have any images of them together, this will remain an aspiration. Unless any of the press pool feel like donating one (highly unlikely).--Scott Mac 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody got the time, location & camera to get some photos? GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear liitle Mr TT is quite right, a dilligent civil servant no doubt. I'm not surprised. The answer is quite simple, I shall paint one of my impressionistic watercolours of the happy couple and donate it and all rights to the project for charitable auction. I can see it now, the handsome toga draped prince in apotheosis offering his laurel festooned coronet to Ms Middleton in her working class coal miner rags; all against an idyllic scenery of dark satanic mills, rioting students and Scottish folk playing bagpipes. Another couple of gins and I'll paint it tonight. There! Problem solved and so in keeping with the article. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady should know her poetry. The "dark satanic mills" are Blake's reference to these evil places, and not to the delightful almae matres of the royal pair.--Scott Mac 18:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To address the topic of the section, there are various ways to illustrate this. The most obvious being a freely released photo taken by a member of the public during whatever parts of this will be in public (presumably the actual ceremony will be ticket-only, and I doubt Lady Catherine will be on the guest list). Might be an idea to discuss in advance what to do with photos of the numerous bits of merchandise that will be produced. Most will be non-free images due to underlying copyright in the objects being photographed, but there may be some possibilities if people are imaginative. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could get the WMF offices to hold a street party and take some pics? Seriously, there will be some events - and there's bound to be someone in the crowd in London. And I've been scouring free images of Diana to see if I could find a shot of her engagement ring, but no joy yet.--Scott Mac 22:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing turns up, it is possible to just link in the external links to a suitable picture. I've actually been asking my older family members if they have pictures of the 1981 wedding (Charles and Diana) that they would be able to scan. One thing that may happen is a big guest list that it is possible to try and wikilink to articles. I've been trying to add wikilinks to the 1981 guest list, but am looking for some help. See here. Maybe Lady Catherine will deign to help identify some of the more obscure members of European royalty. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The closest Lady Catherine has ever been to royalty are the Bourbon Cremes biscuits she devours while watching The Tudors for historical inspiration.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

italics in title

Quoth the article:

"After the wedding, Middleton will technically become Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales..."

Is there any particular reason "Her Royal Highness" is italicized? I'd just change it, but I wanted to check to make sure I wasn't stepping on some obscure typographical requirement for royal titulature. --Jfruh (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"Princess William"??? Maybe you mean Princess Catherine or something like that. --195.57.146.182 (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Technically she would be "Princess William". She's not a princess, and (contrary to popular opinion) you don't become a Princess by marrying a Prince. You are entitled to use your husband's name (as in the formal "Mrs John Smith"). That's why a prince is usually given a title on marriage, so his wife can become "Duchess of Somewhere". Otherwise its Princess William. See, for example, the unfortunately named Princess Michael of Kent.--Scott Mac 01:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very interesting, but not relevant to my question, which was about the italics. I've removed them; please justify them here if you put them back. --Jfruh (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removal is good.--Scott Mac 09:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do become a Princess of the United Kingdom by marrying a Prince of the United Kingdom. You are simply not entitled to use your own name along with the title unless you are also a princess by birth. Surtsicna (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you do not. Prince Phillip is a prime example of this. He *WAS* a Prince in his own right, but had to be created a Prince of the United Kingdom. Marrying a Prince/Princess does *NOT* make one a Prince or Princess. However, she will be able to be correctly referred to as "Princess William of Wales".. It's sort of akin to getting a new surname when you are married. That said, if this situation were the other way around (IE: Middleton was a Princess by birth and Wales a commoner) then William would *NOT* be able to use the equivalent title of "Prince (C)Kathrine of Wales", again, pointing back to Prince Phillip as the most recent example I am aware of. This is a quirk of the British Peerage system.. Dphilp75 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings

If we're going to have sections in such a short article, then I'd like to suggest that the content of each actually matches the section title. It seems to me that the current text falls neatly into four topics: Engagement; Announcement; Wedding Plans; After the Wedding. This will help structure the additional material that is inevitably going to be added over the coming months. Hallucegenia (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Princess Catherine of Wales? Although is sourced, this is incorrect, as a grandson of the monarch if William doesn't receives a dukedom, Kate will be Princess William of Wales, right? just as, Princess Michael of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent is grandson of a monarch and is not holder of a Dukedom.Jibco (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton's Title

Okie, I hate to be *THAT* guy, the Middleton will *NOT* be "HRH Princess Cathrine of Wales" when she marries William. She will be "HRH Princess William of Wales". As I said in a previous post, it is sort of akin to Middleton getting a new last name when she marries. I am desperately trying to find a source on this and I will post it when I find it, but the "Sydney Morning Herald" is HARDLY a reliable source on the intricacies of the Royal Titles in the UK. Dphilp75 (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear this up a little more, if William is given another title (Dukedom ETC) then Middleton WOULD be able to use the female version of that title, ie; "HRH The Duchess of London"...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wedding_of_Prince_William_and_Catherine_Middleton&oldid=397526582"