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 16:37, 21 November 2010 (→‎Title after the Wedding section.). 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]

Considering the ages and extra year, it seems more likely that there won't be a Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II then there won't be a wedding for reasons of death even considering either of two different deaths would prevent the wedding. Considering how far away, I think it's difficult to say it's less likely the 2028 Olympics will be cancelled then the wedding. Of course for good measure, if someone nukes London on Christmas day, we probably won't be having any of the jubilee, wedding or 2012 Olympics. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Herewith two observations: first, an objection to the article's title, which indeed is not merely presumptuous but inaccurate. There is no "wedding", there is an engagement. That is how it is clearly referred to in Wikipedia's "In the News" entry, as follows:
Prince William (pictured), second in line to the thrones of the 16 Commonwealth realms, and Kate Middleton announce their engagement to be married next year.
(My italics and bolding)
How unreasonable is it to move the article to a page with an appropriate title? Not unreasonable at all. The integrity of Wikipedia demands it.
Second, I object to the seemingly territorial covetousness with which the currently entitled article's author - one Scott Mac - is demonstrating towards the page. I call for a neutral administrator to intervene and remove this seemingly biased element from the equation till matters settle down and reason has a chance to percolate to the top. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no authors on Wikipedia. All I did was revert a contentiousness move you made without discussion (indeed you didn't move it, you redirected to a non-existent article). As you see below there has been discussion of this. Please read the arguments for "wedding" and respond to them. Have you an answer to the question of where information about announcement of details of the wedding would go, if this was about the engagement. Bolding bits doesn't help, I can do that too "Prince William (pictured), second in line to the thrones of the 16 Commonwealth realms, and Kate Middleton announce their engagement to be married next year.". Please read the section below and give your opinions.--Scott Mac 22:55, 19 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]
  • Comment. "Crystal" is irrelevant. That is about subject matter within an article. Removing "It is rumoured that Kate Middleton will wear an ochre dress" could be done under crystal. The title of an article is not covered by that guideline so people need to stop quoting. In any event, the "wedding" is not idle speculation but an announced event. Otherwise, I don't care, but I dislike to see people abusing guidelines. GDallimore (Talk) 14:42, 19 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]
Correct. Philip was simply HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (a title he was granted on his marriage to Princess Elizabeth) until he was created a prince in his own right in 1957. I suppose he could have been given the "crown matrimonial" but maybe as well not.--Scott Mac 01:36, 19 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]

You are totally correct. Check the convo I started just below your thread. Again, the Sydney Morning Herald is HARDLY a reliable source on this issue.Dphilp75 (talk) 18:37, 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"... Dphilp75 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if William is given another title, she will still be Princess William of Wales.

Quite right, but the new title would take precedent. Dphilp75 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, when Sophie Rhys-Jones married The Prince Edward, she became HRH Princess Edward. You don't become a princess by marrying a Prince. However, Edward was made Earl of Wessex, meaning she became HRH Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex. But such titles are easily shortened to HRH The Countess of Wessex.--Scott Mac 18:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right again! This is exactly my point. The article currently claims that Middleton will become known as "Princess Catherine of Wales", which is, simply incorrect. Dphilp75 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, when the current Queen dies and William is invested in the Principality of Wales, she will become "HRH Catherine, Princess of Wales", or simply "HRH The Princess of Wales", but not "HRH Princess Catherine". Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She will first become HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, since that title vests immediately in the eldest son of a Sovereign. The Principality of Wales is confirmed by letters patent. See the Titles of Queen Mary for the most recent historical example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.254.251 (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness! LOL! I thought I was going to have a hell of a fight about this one! Dphilp75 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as the original inserter of the line about her future title, I'd like to clarify the reason I used the Sydney Morning Herald was that it was the only source at the time that mentioned the title (I inserted the line yesterday afternoon, US time). I understand that an Australian newspaper is no source on the British Royal Family, but the article did correctly identify the title as "Princess William." Other, erroneous contributors were responsible for sticking in the "Catherine" part. Either way, the current write up is satisfactory. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An Australian newspaper may however be a very good source for the Australian Royal Family.--Scott Mac 01:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah; I forgot the Commonwealth includes much more than the UK. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward were given their dukedom and earldom on the day of their wedding, so I take it that the Duchess of York and Countess of Wessex became so at the moment they got married. So I expect Kate will automatically become e.g. Duchess of Cambridge immediately on marriage. She may well be informally known as "Princess Catherine" or "Princess Kate", and I have heard it suggested that she could be given the fomer title officially by royal warrant. PatGallacher (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's HIGHLY unlikely that Middleton will ever be created a Princess of the United Kingdom. There is frankly no need for it, given that she will (presumably) one day be Queen Consort and lord knows Diana was never created a Princess, nor were any of the wives of the other male descendants of ERII. Traditionally speaking, the wives simply take on the subsidiary titles of their husbands and that's that. Though, as several people have pointed out, no doubt the media will consistently refer to her as "Princess Kate" and will cause another generation of "Royal Watchers" who have no understanding of either the Monarchy nor the Peerage actually works to wallow in ignorance... Dphilp75 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's been the tradition, yes. The IP 198.*.*.* says that the Duchy of Cornwall is automatically vested in the eldest son, but the other royal duchys certainly aren't, the boys have to marry. We're entitled to assume that William will get a duchy on his wedding day. Speculation about Kate getting the title of Princess is a bit further off: she will become Duchess of Cambridge, or Duchess of the Elephant and Castle, or wherever. She could be made Princess, either as a courtesy title (see Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester for an example) or by formal letters patent, but that would cause problems with the current Duchess of Cornwall: because William is lower down the order of succession than Charles, it would be illogical that his wife had a higher rank. Physchim62 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies

I have removed (again) the section that contains biographies of Prince William and Kate; this material is entirely tangential to the topic of this article and, if not merely because no other article on an event has in it biographies of the players, keeping such information here goes against WP:ROC. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really just a toy for all the interested contributors, imo best advice is to ignore it until about March, by which time any of this will be history. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a toy? a toy that was viewed 30,000 times yesterday. Physchim62 (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-instated the section (again). I have seen articles in magazines, the press etc in which give a few details about the bridal couple. User:Miesianiacal regards is actions as WP:BRD, but unless there is a consensus for what he has done, I regard such action as vandalism. At least two other editors have impliticly agreed with me by editing the section in question. Martinvl (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You totally misunderstand WP:BRD. It would also seem you have a misconception of this article: it is not in a tabloid magazine, it is in an encyclopaedia that already has full biographies of both persons to be wed. Notably, you've failed to explain why, in light of the aforementioned, as well as WP:ROC, your additions are justified.
Off2riorob does have a point, though; the section will disappear in time, as the involvement of less experienced editors dies out and the more experienced move through to clean up the mess. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the biographical section in this article unnecessarily duplicates material in other articles. It should be removed. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim. Miesianiacal's complete blanking was unnecessary, but any 'bridal couple' section really only needs to be one paragraph long at most. Simply establish the basics, succession, where they met, brief family detail, and that's it. We don't need to include things like Kate's maternal relatives were miners, or what regiment William was commissioned into. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate's Religion

It will obviously be a Christian wedding (Anglican to be exact... (Church of England)).. but is Kate Christian, specifically, Anglican? Would she, if not Anglican, have to convert to the Church of England to become Princess of Wales? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, her religion doesn't matter. She can be any religion she likes, except Roman Catholic. If she was a Roman Catholic, William would have to renounce his claim to the throne. A Buddhist Queen is fine for Christian England, a papist is anathema. --Scott Mac 00:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No. I can tell you from personal experience that only one party to a marriage has to be baptised Anglican for a marriage under the rites of the Church of England. I'm not sure, but I don't think either of the parties has to be baptised if the marriage takes place in parish church of the parish where one or other of the parties lives. The big problem would be if she were Catholic (see Act of Settlement 1701), but no one has suggested that she is. William is obviously a communicant member of the Church of England, and our article records that he was baptised in the Music Room of Buckingham Palace on 4 August 1982. Ergo, no problem ;) Physchim62 (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. While it is certainly preferable for both people to be Anglican, only the Sovereign *MUST* be "in communion with the Church of England" and not have married a Catholic.. Dphilp75 (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second in line to the throne(s) of...

What's it gonna be folks - 1) Elizabeth II, 2) United Kingdom and the 15 other commonwealth realms or 3) 16 commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Physchim62 (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(2 or 3), as Elizabeth II isn't a throne. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either 2 or 3. Preferably 2. "The throne of Elizabeth II" is grammatically and idiomatically correct. The throne belongs to her. But it is a bit of a circumlocution. "16 commonwealth realms" is obscure - although it is correct and NPOV - lots of readers may not immediately connect it with (what is generally known as) the British monarchy. The second one associates it with the principle "throne" while indicating that it is equally the throne of other nations.--Scott Mac 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. 1 makes no sense and 2 has an inherent pro-British bias. However, none take into account that there's more than one throne to be inherited. The main page today also uses the phrase "thrones of the 16 Commonwealth realms"; this article should as well. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fact is that this institution being located in, and historically originating from, Britain has an inherent pro-British bias. It would thus be accurate for that to be reflected in how it is described. I'm not suggesting excluding the other 15, but pretending that they are all equally associated with the monarchy is simply counter-factual and a non-neutral spin. And 1 does make perfect sense - it is just that you don't understand it.--Scott Mac 23:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't lecture me on this subject, especially when you're wrong. The only monarchy located in Britain is the British monarchy; the legal walls dividing the former single crown throughout an empire into individual crowns for each state went up a long time ago. The monarch of Australia, for example, may reside mostly in the UK, but that has no bearing on the fact that the Australian throne is planted firmly in Australia.
Again, if "thrones [note: plural] of the 16 Commonwealth realms" suffices for Wikipedia's main page, it is suitable enough for this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's mainpage isn't a source that can settle this argument. I am well aware of the Statute of Westminster, but "The throne of Elizabeth II" makes no reference to nation whatsoever. It is a reference to the office she holds, and could quite equally be used of any of nations. It is commonly used to refer to her office - and the thrones of the Commonwealth are not separable (the Act of Succession governs them all). Anyway, I much prefer not using "throne" at all, so it is a bit irrelevant.--Scott Mac 23:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main page is an example to be looked at, though, and I remain steadfast in my opinion that it uses the superior wording. However, while I still believe "throne of Elizabeth II" is terribly unclear, it is, at least, and as you say, neutral, and I can tolerate it if "throne" is pluralised to "thrones"; there is indeed more than one (and they are "separable"; there's no law requiring Canada to have as its monarch the same person who is monarch of the UK, no law preventing any realm from amending its copies of the Act of Settlement and (if even necessary) the Statute of Westminster, and, as a concrete example, Ireland, when it was an independent realm, had, for a time, Edward VIII as king while the other countries had George VI). Just add an "s" to "throne" and I'll stop being a bother.
Also, I apologise for barking like I did. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth II's thrones, would look slightly better, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. That reads really strangely. It isn't an expression one ever hears.--Scott Mac 00:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would Queen Elizabeth II's throne be alright. PS: Physically speaking, there's is more then one throne - there's one at Buck Palace, Balmoral, Windsor Castle etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the normal way of wording it would be "the throne of Queen Elizabeth II" - which is exactly the same thing, so I can't see why we need to invert it.--Scott Mac 00:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool too. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I really don't like the phrasing "Elizabeth II's throne(s)". They are the thrones currently occupied by Elizabeth II, but they do not "belong" to her in the same way as, say, her achievements, or her children, or her corgis. They existed before she was even a twinkle in her daddy's eye, and she is simply the current occupant, keeping them warm for her successors. Physchim62 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, a common expression.--Scott Mac 00:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not "British throne" per Line of succession to the British throne? And link to that article. AnemoneProjectors 02:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I am understanding the issue here correctly, such a linking would be far too pro-British, given that we are talking about 16 independent and separate thrones. But further to the OP, why not simply use something along the lines of "Second in line to the Crowns of the 16 Commonwealth Nations"? It's accurate, succinct and could easily link to the Commonwealth page for anyone who doesn't understand what it means...? Dphilp75 (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not accurate because "16 Commonwealth Nations" mashes together the two different groups "Commonwealth realms" and "Commonwealth of Nations", in the latter of which there are more than 16 crowns, not all of which are William's to inherit. "British throne" is equally inappropriate because there's more than one throne for William to inherit. I just pluralised the word "throne" in "throne of Elizabeth II" and linked to a list of the various relevant monarchies; I think that's a decent enough compromise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's a cool solution, linking thrones to commonwealth realms. Blasted, why didn't think of that? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FFS. Great. Now the first line of this article, which is about a wedding, reads like a bloody article on the structure of monarchy. This is ridiculous. Anyone reader who didn't understand what 'heir to the throne/s of Elizabeth II' meant, is most certainly not going to have understood what 'heir to the throne/s of the 16 Commonwealth Realms' meant, or even what 'second in the line of succession to Queen Elizabeth II' meant. You either understand them all, or none of them. And the first one was the simplest and most appropriate for this article. And for the record, not that the opening line of this article is the place where this sort of tedious monarchy-trivia crap even needs to be 'clarified', the 'Crown' that William will inherit is both unified and separate, and that situation is not changable without unanimous agreeement of all the realms, and that is why it is still commonly, and quite correctly, referred to as the British monarchy, from which it derived in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By checking the new 'commonwealth realms' link, people can learn about the commonwealth realm set-up. We aim to educate. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mies, You are totally correct.. Commonwealth Realms *IS* what I should have written, and what I had in fact meant. Nice catch! :) Mick, your point that it is commonly referred to as the "British Monarchy" is correct, but the FACT remains that he will be heir to 15 other Crowns as well. I would hardly think that simplicity and ease of reading should take precedent over factual representation of information. Yes, this article is about a wedding, but that hardly precludes the need to keep the information on factual for the sake of ease of reading... Dphilp75 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, William's being 2nd-in-line to these thrones, is the core of the wedding's notability & press coverage. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I often find it strange that the same people who will correct usages of "Queen of England" or "Princess Diana" will, at the same time, accept the equally casual and inaccruate use of "British monarchy" and make all sorts of convoluted arguments as to why. Anyway, I'm still not sure what MacNee's objection is; does the added "s" offend for some reason? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Common usage is to blame. The Queen is rarely described as Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand etc etc. She's usually called Queen of Britain, Britain's Queen or that dreaded inaccourate Queen of England. This trickles down on the family members, too. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's hardly to blame for the inconsistency of some editors: "Queen of England", "Princess Diana" bad; "British monarchy" good. Makes no sense. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more Mies.. The "Queen of England" one drives me particularly nuts, but it would seem that many editors are either obstinate for the sake of being obstinate, or they are far too pro British when it comes to the Monarchy.. Dphilp75 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely lack of awareness. A hair pulling experience, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy:good, pedantry:bad. If you can show me a single person out there who cannot understand 'throne(s) of Elizabeth II', but can understand 'throne(s) of the Commonwealth Realms', I will show you an idiot. And I've never in my life called her the Queen of England, I've no idea what these particular comments are supposed to have to do with anything. Simplicity of reading does take precedence over over-precision, where the desired accuracy is already presented in the relevant places already. It doesn't need plastering everywhere and anywhere. You will see precisely that common sense approach laid out in quite a few policies. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again: do you have some objection to the present wording? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus christ. Of course I bloody do. My version was perfectly fine, and had been read and understood by probably thousands of editors, until you came along to claim it was 'unclear'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: You object to the addition of an "s" to the end of "throne"? Because, that's the only difference between "your version" and what's there now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first diff is my version. Everything else that followed was the follow on result of your arrival on the scene. I've got no real objection to adding an s, it will probably confuse more people that it informs, but I'm sure you will carry on this pretence of some non-clarity if I don't agree to that, but this is irrelevant, becuase simply 'adding an s' was not your original change. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound almost as though I don't have the right to edit an article while, at the same time, continuing to lament about a version I gave up on some time ago in favour of a pretty simple compromise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plural expression "thrones of Queen Elizabeth" is found nowhere on Google at all (except to refer to actual seats)[1]. The expression "the throne of Queen Elizabeth" is regularly found, precisely in the context of the monarch. [2]. I can't see why we don't follow the common usage here - we are not even mentioning Britain, so its not British-centric. We could include a clarifying footnote saying she's Queen of multiple commonwealth realms - and pointing people to the appropriate article. That avoids any bias whatsoever.--Scott Mac 16:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Throne, in the singular, immediately invokes the question: Which throne? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mick and Scott here. There is no need for exact precision in wording to satisfy pedantry. The article (and the efforts of editors working on the article) should concentrate on the actual topic it is meant to cover, namely the engagement and the forthcoming wedding. Prince William is second in line to the throne of Queen Elizabeth II. The stuff about Commonwealth thrones can be dealt with in a later sentence of section, or put in a footnote. Excessive precision or qualifications in the first few sentences causes the flow of the writing to suffer. Carcharoth (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales

Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales this is hilarious! (last section of the article) --08:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Then Diana was Her Royal Highness Princess Charles of Wales
That is not hilarious; it is correct; Diana was HRH The Princess of Wales, then Diana, Princess of Wales (she was also The Princess Charles during her marriage) ✝DBD 11:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's the same reason Princess Michael of Kent is called Princess Michael of Kent, not Princess Marie-Christine of Kent. AnemoneProjectors 11:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Billy hasn't been given a new title by the time of the wedding? then yes, she becomes 'Princess William of Wales'. When Billy get a title Duke of.. or Earl of.., Catherine will become Duchess of.. or Countess of... GoodDay (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I am being anal or if I am being snobby, but the level of ignorance on this topic in the media in general is driving me nuts. I understand how one could THINK that Middleton would become a Princess upon marrying William, but one would also think that the authors of these articles would do a little, oh, I don't know what you'd call it, JOURNALISTIC BACKGROUND CHECKING maybe, before writing articles the masses will ingest as the gospel truth... Dphilp75 (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gradually, all the quirks will be ironed out. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Middleton will become a princess upon marrying William. She simply won't be entitled to use her own name as part of her royal style. But she will become a princess - Princess William [Arthur Philip Louis] of Wales. William's aunt, for example, is The Princess Edward, but she is not known as such (though the title remains a part of her full style). Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. She will not be a "princess of the united kingdom". The title of prince or princess is reserved to children and grandchildren (in the male line) of the sovereign, and to those to whom it is explicit granted (e.g. Prince Phillip). For the rest, they are effectively using "Mrs. [husband's name]", which any wife in the land is entitled to do. So, she will be "Mrs. Prince William" or "Princess William". If she were a princess, then she would indeed be able to call herself "Princess Catherine".--Scott Mac 16:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bang on Scott. With no disrespect intended to Surtsicna, his/her point is EXACTLY what I am talking about in regards to people *THINKING* they know what they are talking about when it comes to the Titles, and it is in large part to Journalists who don't do their homework and use terms like "Princess Diana", when Diana was in fact, never a Princess. Dphilp75 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is ridiculous. Of course she will be a princess. And of course Diana was a princess. You're confusing "princess" and "princess in her own right". One of the most basic definitions of "princess" is "wife of a prince" (and this usage in fact far predates the usage you're claiming is the only one - England had Princesses of Wales long before the daughters of the monarch were princesses). Proteus (Talk) 17:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Letters patent, dated 30 November 1917, stated that "the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign (as per the above Letters Patent of 1864) and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1898) shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour". There are no other provisions. Except that Philip was granted the dignity in 1957. The confusion over Diana was that while married to Charles, she was able to use her husband's title as well as his name (he is a prince both relation to the sovereign, and by creation as Prince of Wales". Hence she was entitled to style herself "HRH Princess Charles, Princess of Wales" - legitimately shortened to HRH The Princess of Wales - but illegitimately called "Princess Diana". Notably, Sarah Ferguson was NEVER styled princess, but duchess - because she wasn't a princess.--Scott Mac 17:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to state it because under common law a wife acquires the female form of all her husband's ranks and titles. You won't find any references to wives having any titles whatsoever for this reason - they're not necessary, as it's assumed to be the case. For instance, letters patent for dukes don't mention any titles for their wives - by your logic that would mean they're not duchesses. Proteus (Talk) 18:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oy.. Proteus, you are SIMPLY wrong about this matter. You have confused these titles with something you have read in a Fairy Tale.. No where in Common Law that I have ever read does it deem a Wife takes on all the titles. Further, the Letters Patent would trump any such law anyhow. The *FACT* is, marrying a Prince does NOT make one a Princess. PERIOD. It does however allow them to use their Husband's name in such a style "HRH Princess William" being the example used here. The wives of Dukes get to use the female form of the title because it is permitted by Tradition and the letter Patent that are issued when the Dukedom is created, not because of "Common Law"... I defy you to show me ONE woman who was created a Princess by marrying a Prince in the United Kingdom in the last 100 years, who was not already a Princess in her own right.. You won't find it. 18:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You've already been referred to Princess Michael of Kent. I'm afraid if you're going to argue that someone who is called "Princess William of Wales" isn't a princess, the onus is on you to produce a reliable source saying so. I'm not going to waste any more of my time pointing out the blatantly obvious to you. Proteus (Talk) 18:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the onus is on you, as I am correct, and you are not. I am unsure what the point of referring to Princess Micheal of Kent was meant to prove. Let's go back to Diana, since that is the example a lot of people are familiar with. You show me, ONE TIME that she was EVER legally able to be called "Princess Diana". It never happened, as she was *NEVER* a Princess. Try to read this slowly. When a female marries a Prince, it's no different then when a woman marries a commoner, in that she takes his last name. Since the Royals do not have surnames (Mountbatten-Windsor notwithstanding) the women take on their "Christian" names, thus becoming "William of Wales". Now, since William *IS* a Royal Prince by blood, this allows his wife to use the female style of "Princess" with William's "lack of last name" becoming "Princess William of Wales". This is akin to a woman becoming "Mrs. Wales". Thus, she MAY NOT call herself Princess Catherine, thus, she is *NOT* a Princesses. There are MOUNTS of evidence that I am correct, and you present nothing except some vague nonsense about common law.. Again, read this SLOWLY; The only way to become a Princess in the United Kingdom is to be BORN one, which can only come from the male descendants of Her Majesty (Or, obviously, HM's children themselves) or to be created one, which only Her Majesty can do. There is a BIG difference between BEING a Princess and having the term Princess in your title. Dphilp75 (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Proteus was trying to say is that the common perception will be that she will become a princess (lower-case 'p'), as opposed to the formal title Princess (upper-case 'P'), but then Wikipedia shouldn't assume what the common perception will be, but should in a way that doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article, explain succinctly how this is all handled, and it should be possible to do that without people shouting at each other on talk pages. As GoodDay says below, it is not the most important thing to worry about. Better would be to look at past articles on royal weddings and sketch out a plan for how the article should be developed in the coming months. I am sure there will be many more minutiae of protocol and etiquette and formal precedence to sort out, depending on what sort of ceremony they go for. Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Just think of all the arguments possible over title and styles for something like a coronation, which would be far more formal and an actual state occasion.[reply]
I agree with your statement. My issue is that Proteus is factually incorrect in what he is saying. There is no doubt that the common practice will be to call her "Princess Kate" or the like, but I feel that Wikipedia should contain the accurate information, regardless of what the common perception will/could be. The truth and fact of the matter is that she is not, and will not ever be a Princess, unless of course, Her Majesty decides to make her one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphilp75 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't fuss too much about the style. In all likely hood, Billy will be given a Dukedom before the wedding & thus Kate's article title will be Catherine, Duchess of.... GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree GD, I simply have a difficult time with people who wish to insist on spreading inaccuracies. This *IS* an encyclopedia!! LOL! Dphilp75 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Austrian method cutting the thing:Kaiserliche und Köngliche Hoheit Franz Joseph Otto Robert Maria Anton Karl Max Heinrich Sixtus Xaver Felix Renatus Ludwig Gaetan Pius Ignatius, Kaiserlicher Prinz, Erzherzog von Österreich, Königlicher Prinz von Ungarn became Otto Habsburg-Lothringen. --Stone (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title after the Wedding section.

I really like what the editor has done with this section, but I would like to make a suggestion that we add a note; something in regards to how she will likely be known unofficially as "Princess Kate" she will never actually BE a Princess of the United Kingdom. I'm asking for a consensus on this rather than "be bold" as this has caused a fair bit of discussion here on the talk page, and, frankly, I full on admit that I am perhaps being a little uppity about this issue as a result of my desire ensure that as many people as possible "GET" that she is not, and likely never will be "Princess Kate". Dphilp75 (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once she marries Billy, she'll likely be called Princess Catherine. Buck Palace, is already encouraging the media to call her 'Catherine'. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that she will likely be called "Princess Catherine", and AFAIK, Buck Palace isn't encouraging the media to call her Princess Catherine, so much as they are encouraging using her full name of Catherine rather than just Kate. (Forgive my interchangeable use of K and C! LOL) But my point is that she will never actually *BE* a Princess of the United Kingdom, and I'm hoping for someway to insert that fact in to this section...? Dphilp75 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wedding_of_Prince_William_and_Catherine_Middleton&oldid=398076400"