Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales

Princess William [Arthur Philip Louis]?

Okay, well I brought this up months ago when I tagged it as needing verification, but we still have no source for calling Catherine "Princess William Arthur Philip Louis" - all the sources call her "Princess William". I left it tagged for months in the hopes that someone would find a source, but as it as yet to happen, I went ahead and removed the material in keeping with the policies of WP:BLP and WP:V. If someone can find a source saying that she takes on his full middle names along with "William" please please cite it and re-add the material, but for now, we have to err on the side of caution as this is a BLP and not include any material that cannot be verified, especially after it had been tagged as such for months. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done. With the greatest respect, did you try to look for a reference? When I Googled "Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis" I got 48,600 results. Was relatively easy to grab one of those sources and re-add the information to the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I did, actually. In searching for ["Princess William Arthur Philip Louis" -wiki], the first few pages, at least, contained sources that could hardly be considered reliable (blogs, tumblrs, "tags" on websites, etc.). In fact, back when the titles were announced, and for months afterwards, there wasn't a single source that used his middle names as part of the title, which leads me to wonder if the usage has come from seeing it on Wiki as opposed to it being the actual truth. The site you added actually flat out credits wiki (and its various forum users) for its information (see here), which makes the information self-referential, and thus hardly a reliable source. I'm still really hoping that we can find something. I'll continue searching, and I hope you will join me, but until we find something that is up to standards, we can hardly include contentious information in a BLP. I'm going to go ahead and remove the information again, but as soon as a good source can be found, by all means, I certainly have no objection to the information being re-added. I just want to make sure we are adhering to the WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS policies. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about her taking on the middle names, but I'm pretty confident that she is not Princess anything yet and will not be until Prince William becomes Prince of Wales, at which point she will become Princess of Wales (as Camilla technically became when she married Charles, but out of respect for Diana she uses another title in everyday use; I doubt there will be much controversy over Kate taking on the title from Diana when the time comes). 68.146.80.110 (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Okay. In British tradition, a wife legally takes the name of her husband. It is the same for everyone: the woman who marries Mr John Robert Smith would become Mrs John Robert Smith. Within the Royal Family, this tradition is strictly adhered to, full stop, end of. I cannot understand why this is causing such a problem. All other royal ladies take the name of their husband. Catherine is Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus. Prince Michael of Kent is the son of the late HRH The Prince George, Duke of Kent. His wife takes the title Princess Michael of Kent because her husband holds no higher title. Prince Michael and The Duke of Cambridge are in the same position: they are both sons of the sons of a monarch. Catherine is Princess William, but since he is a Royal Duke, this higher title is used. I do not wish to sound rude, but this is simple, basic English tradition and I cannot understand why people are disagreeing. Please take a look at the pages of The Duchess of Cornwall, The Countess of Wessex, The Duchess of Kent, The Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Michael of Kent. Currently, the article is wrong because people do not have the slightest clue what they are talking about.

• See British princess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.106.98 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked more closely at a reference that was provided by 68.33.102.251 in their edit here. Although on the surface this website appears very flashy and well organized, the information provided by a handful of editors with only nicknames to identify them, seems rather dubious to say the least. None of the articles are backed up by references and the credentials of the contributors are impossible to ascertain. I would put this source in the category of a Blog, without editorial supervision or screening of the content provided. See WP:BLOGS for the unreliability of such sources. Particularly relevant here is "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." So, that leaves us with Zoeydahling's very astute observation that in the full title we can put only "Princess William", without the middle names of William tacked on. Until some reliable source says otherwise, that is our only choice. People are trying to insert themselves into this debate on very shaky grounds, and this needed to be said. I have thus removed the reference in question, which is not usable, especially in a BLP. --Skol fir (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• When the titles were announced, Catherine WAS NOT (I REPEAT WAS NOT) Granted the title or Style Princess William. Per the official announcement on their wedding website: Prince William thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge and Miss Catherine Middleton on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge.

• She was not granted the title "Princess William", it was automatic in the same way that if Miss Smith married Mr Jones, she becomes Mrs Jones. It should be noted that she was not granted the title "Duchess of Cambridge" either, she automatically became "Duchess of Cambridge" on her marriage. Martinvl (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Last name controversy

The original discussion on this as been archived, but I still think some discussion needs to be added to the article as to why the media continues to refer to her incorrectly as Kate Middleton, despite the indisputable reliable source - the Royal Family itself, via its website - indicating she is not so named anymore. With celebrities, we use maiden names - and married names - only when they are used professionally (i.e. Roseanne Barr became Roseanne Arnold professionally during her marriage to Tom Arnold, later reverting to Barr after she divorced; Portia De Rossi is legally Portia Degeneres following her marriage to Ellen, but she continues to use De Rossi professinally; Michelle Robinson became Michelle Obama and is never referenced by her maiden name; and of course some like Hilary Rodham-Clinton (and at one time Courtenay Cox-Arquette) go the double last name route. But none of this applies with Kate, yet the media insist on perpetuating this factual error - I actually got into a dispute with the editor of a magazine I contribute to regarding this; she insisted on "Kate Middleton" despite it being wrong "because that's the style" I was told. I nearly asked for my credit to be changed to Alan Smithee as a result of that. Anyway, I am hardly the only person who complains regularly about this, so surely some media has offered a rationale that can be used for a source citation by now. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Portia De Rossi is not Portia Degeneres following her marriage to Ellen in 2008; she's Portia Degeneres following her name change in 2010. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We could speculate forever about why the ignorant decide for themselves what public figures' names are, but it gets us nowhere in the end. The important thing is that we use her correct title - and we do. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article still refer to her as "Middleton" thoughout, then? Orlando098 (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

See section "Middleton or the Duchess?" further down this talk page. Martinvl (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

incorrect link

fyi - just reporting that The Art Room link in patronages does not work. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.41.212 (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Only because nobody has created an article on The Art Room charity yet, when it is created then the link will go blue and will work. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

HTML comment

In the article there's an HTML comment saying:

Yes, her full style DOES include HIS names. It may be weird, but it's not WRONG

In what situation is this right?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Charities

Someone has reverted some thinning here with the edit summary:

Please notice！Those charities are close to William & Catherine hearts and reflect the experiences, passions and values of their lives！

Possibly, but does make them encyclopedic, particularly at this level of detail? This is an encyclopedia not Court & Social. Britmax (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Far to much detail for this article, a one para summary is all that is required but they should be an article on The Foundation of Prince William and Prince Harry which can include anything notable about the gift fund. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

title

Would it be possible and suitable to mention that in the time between 29th April 2011 (Royal wedding) up until 26th May 2011 that Prince William's dukedom did not become official, therefor The Duchess of Cambridge would not hold that title until the 26th? In between then wouldn't she have been Her Royal Highness The Princess William of Wales? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.126.122 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think she is still entitled to be called "The Duchess of Cambridge" because it was announced by HM the Queen's press release, and the Duke became so at 8 a.m. She may still technically be Princess William of Wales, given the pecularities of the peerage system and the fact that William remains the son of the Prince of Wales, thus making him a Prince of Wales (not THE Prince of Wales, of course). 74.69.6.182 (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing that should be mentioned his that her full title is HRH The Princess William,Duchess of Cambridge and so on all Royal brides have carried HRH The Princess Charles (Diana, Princes of Wales & Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall) HRH The Princess Andrew (Sarah, Duchess of York) and finlly, HRH The Princess Sophie (Countess of Wessex). Just a thought.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.23 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure this first statement is correct, we would need a reliable source. PatGallacher (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

update

Someone needs to update section after the Duchess' marriage and duties. Both her and William's pages I think need to be organized more sensibly, as they are going to be doing A LOT in the next few years and from my view, it seems choppy and disjointed in places. I think it needs to be more linerally organized. I'm not sure what the defintion of "recent" is, but she handed out medals to the Irish Guards in July, over seven months ago. There's no need to say B.P.'s announced the Cambridges would tour the United States after Canada; they did it i July. Now that it is past, who cares when it was announced? She carried out her 1st solo engagement stepping in for the Prince of Wales on October 26th at Clarence House. The sentence that she toured the Canadian Museum of Civilization probably belongs in the royal tour page itself. She and the Duke attended the British premiere of "War Horse" on her 30th birthday, and she's begun a series of solo engagements visiting her charities. And on a personal note, she's 30 yrs. old for God's sakes. Most women her age are married and have children, and aren't splashed about every time they have small talk with some fuddlyduddy at a charity or a public event. There's no reason to baby them for God's sake. She's a 30-yr-old woman, she ought get on with it! 74.69.6.182 (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction of Date Needed

There needs to be a correction made regarding when the Duchess of Cambridge presented shamrocks on St. Patrick's Day. The article uses March 14, 2012; it should be March 17, 2012.

Thank you, JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.13.123 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 23:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Name

Per WP:Common Name surely this page should be set as Kate Middleton, not Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. I mean, I only call her Kate and who ever calls her Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? Dontforgetthisone (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are endless reams of discussions in this page's archives about why this is not, in fact, the consensus. WP:NCPEER is the primary, and more specific than WP:CN, guideline covering the names of wives of British nobility and royalty. Happy‑melon 21:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2012

her style and title in full should be - Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathern, Baroness Carricfergus

69.177.32.249 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source. Pol430 talk to me 21:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Catherine must be the Princess William etc... since, she does not posses the titles in her own right but through her husband.

Burkes Peerage from 1937 states: "There have been nine duchesses in their own right from Margaret Duchess of Norfolk, so created by King Richard II on 19 September 1397 , to H.R.H Princess Arthur of Connaught, who is Duchess of Fife of the creation of 1900(Burkes Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, 1937, p.6)".

Further under the title Duchess of Fife: Duchess of Fife (H.H. Princess Alexandra Victoria Alberta Edwina, Louise) and Countess MacDuff, co. Banff in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, Dame grand cross of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, has royal red cross, b. 17 May 1891 m. 15 Oct. 1913 H.R.H. Prince Arthur of Connaught K.G., K.T., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., only son of H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught. Her Royal Highness Princess Arthur of Connaught (Duchess of Fife), who s. her father in the dukedom by special remainder 1912, has issue (see Royal family connaught, D.)(Burkes peerage etc..., 1937, p. 967) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.167.91 (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

unicef

When the Duke and the Duchess were in Copenhagen, Denmark, they visited UNICEF. It is mentioned, but I think it should be mentioned that they were accompanied by the Crown Prince and Crown Princess of Denmark. It may not be the most notable thing, but since it was a royal duty for all parties, it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.151.126 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Catherine and William toys

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: On the occasion of first anniversary of marriage , the famous London toy shop Hamleys put on sale two dolls that show Catherine Duches of Cambridge and Prince William in wedding robes. The price is about 100 pounds. Most collectors buy them and are not intended for play. A good way for the popularization of the Royal family.93.137.44.29 (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

IF Prince William became King?

I noticed it said that if Prince William became King, Princess Kate would be queen consort. This is wrong. Prince William, who is my first cousin once removed, is second in line, therefore will be King. Because his dad Prince Charles(who is my great-uncle), if Prince Charles became King, he would only be King Charles III for a little while, then there would be King William V or VI and Queen Catherine or Queen Kate. Signed, Savannah Philips, granddaughter of Princess Anne, Princess Royal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.157.52 (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Two points. The obvious first: Savannah Phillips is an infant, so clearly this is a fake persona. Second of all, until it happens, anything is likely. William could (heaven forefend) be killed in an airplane crash, a helicopter crash, a deadly disease, a successful assassination, etc. Since the last two male heirs-to-heirs were not on the throne for long or at all (Edward VIII abdicated, Prince Albert Victor died very young and left Prince George, Duke of York to become King George V), it is entirely possible that William will not become King. Not likely, but possible. It MUST be adhered to. 74.69.126.89 (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

His current occupation is fairly hazardous so it is reasonable to not engage in reckless soothsaying. Roger (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Or he could be outlived by his father, or his grandmother, or Britain could abolish the monarchy before he acceeds to the throne. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources

This article relies heavily on citations to thepeerage.com, and wargs, which have been discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN and determined not to be a reliable source, and should not be used as references in articles.[1][2] The article also cited various other self-published sites and blogs, none of which can be used as a source in a BLP per WP:BLPSPS The citations have been removed, but not the associated text, and tags inserted for the former footnotes. Better sources must be found for this text; text that is not supported by in-line citation to a reliable source may be removed.Fladrif (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted - the WARGS research into the Duchess of Cambridge's ancestry was not self-published - it was published posthumously by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, a respected genealogical society - see William Addams Reitwiesner for more details. Martinvl (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wargs is self-published. If it is reproducing Reitwiesner's research, which is separately cited in the article, it is a copyright violation. You can cite the NEHGS publication, but not Wargs copyright violation of it. You've provided no rationale whatsoever for restoring thepeerage or the other blogs and fansites. WP:BLPSPS is unequivocal about such sources not being used in a BLP. Fladrif (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The charge of "copyright violation" is absurd. For a variety of reasons, the simplest being that WARGS, published first, can't "violate" the copyright of Reitwiesner's book, published years later. You should redact your accusation, and be more careful about making such claims of wrong-doing. - Nunh-huh 19:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that these sources should be kept out. It is worrying how many BLPs they are used in.RafikiSykes (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Could I suggest that "The Peerage" references be reinstated, but flagged as "unreliable". At least this way people will know where the information came from and won't "discover" the information next year and reinstate it. For the record, I reinstated the entire change, but I would like the WARGS reference to stay. Martinvl (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sute that WP:BLP is applicable to this discussion - WP:BDP is probably more applicable as none of the people being discussed are living or are "recently deceased". Martinvl (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a better suggestion. Find a source that meets Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source and insert it. At least that way, the information will be sourced to something other than Randy in Boise, and it won't get deleted for lack of sourcing by this time next year. Why would you want to cite Wargs, which is a self-published site and cannot be used in a BLP no matter how expert the author is, when there is a published document that is already cited in this article that contains the identical information? This is mind-numbingly baffling. Fladrif (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP rules do not apply in the case of most of the information from WARGS. If you read the WP:BPL site you will see the following:

"Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning deceased persons. However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy."

The area of controversy surrounds people who died many centuries ago. Moreover, I do not think that the actions of those ancestors has any implications on the current generation. Martinvl (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The subject of this article is a living person thus everything in the article must comply with BLP. Roger (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have raised this question at Biographies_of_living_persons#Distant_ancestors. Please contine the discussion there. Martinvl (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry chart

An edit was has broken out about the use of a chart showing the common ancestry of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. This chart has no place in this particular article as it covers both partners. However there is scope for a new artcile "Common ancestry of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge". May I respectfully suggest that the chart be moved to that artcile and that it be explained there and that the article contain Wikilink to all parties named. Furthermore, could the author of the chart modify it so that the link to Charles is horizontal, not sloping upwards. Martinvl (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 May 2012

In the section captioned "Public Appearances" it states the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge "handed out" medals to troops.

The Royal Family do not "hand out" medals they "present" them!

94.172.220.141 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Although if 'handed out' was in the reference, I'd have commented and waited for further input. Dru of Id (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing her Titles

So I've been looking at the available sources for Catherine's titles, and I'm not entirely sure we have it right. We know for sure that she's Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus because we have good sources for those. However, we don't have a single source that she becomes Princess William Arthur Philip Louis... or even just Princess William. Every source I could find calling her "Princess William" was pre-wedding speculation saying that if they don't get dukedoms or other titles (which they ended up getting), she would be Princess William of Wales. Since that is not what ended up happening, are we sure that she is Princess William at all? As best the sources show right now, it would seem that she is just Catherine Elizabeth, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus. Unless we can find sources to support Princess William [Arthur Philip Louis], we really shouldn't have those titles on the page at all. Can anyone find sources, because if not, it really seems we should remove the information? --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree to an extent: if the taking of her husband's first names is so obvious, we should be able to find a source for it. On the other hand, in the absence of a source, the lead sentence needs to say something, and the question of what would be least controversial is not trivial. "FemaleName, Duchess of Wherever" seems to be the more common style amongst the princesses linked to in the infobox in the article; with the only exception being Princess Michael of Kent, the wife of the younger brother of the Duke of Kent. So I would venture that "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" would be the most 'obvious' style. Happy‑melon 09:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree too, and I have removed the "Princess William..." before. I've removed it again. Opera hat (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• PLEASE SEE British princess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.106.98 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you were trying to show with that link? All I see is a bunch of claims that need citations and speak nothing about whether Catherine herself took any specific titles? --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Although the article British princess needs citations, however it does explain the matter with examples, as under:

The wife of a prince of the blood takes her husband's Christian name in her title as do all married royal women. For example, upon her marriage to Prince Michael of Kent in 1978, Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz assumed the title and style of "Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent". Similarly, upon her marriage to then Prince Richard of Gloucester, the former Birgitte van Deurs assumed the title and style of "Her Royal Highness Princess Richard of Gloucester".

The situation is slightly different when a woman is married to a prince who happens to be a peer or the Prince of Wales. Upon marriage, the wife of the Prince of Wales becomes "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales". Upon marriage, the wife of a royal duke (or earl) becomes "Her Royal Highness The Duchess (or Countess) of X". When Prince Richard of Gloucester succeeded to his father's dukedom in 1974, his wife became "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Gloucester".

Whilst it has been traditional, as is still technically the case, that a princess by marriage cannot be called Princess and her first name. However, Diana, Princess of Wales, was so consistently referred to as "Princess Diana" that by frequent usage (at least in her case) it has come to be accepted occasionally by official sources such as the Royal website and also in the media.

• Specific example is that of Birgitte van Deurs, who, on marriage to Prince Richard of Gloucester, assumed the title of "Princess Richard of Gloucester" but, when her husband succeeded to his father's dukedom, became "the Duchess of Gloucester". Based on this precedence, Catherine would have been "Princess William of Wales" if her husband had not received the dukedom. As he did receive it, her proper title is "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge". Even if the exact technical term is "H.R.H. Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge", better to use her own name in an encyclopedic setting. However, in the absence of specific, authentic reference, my comment should be taken as speculatory. Hrishikes (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Without the Princess William, or indeed Catherine, it is currently showing she has no name, it goes straight into The Duchess of Cambridge with no immediate first title and no name. She is not a princess but is allowed to use it as a courtesy with William's name, like any royal wife is styled. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, not long ago, it was added, with a source from the BBC. See the edit history. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The full title for Catherine Elizabeth (née Middleton) would be, unless proved otherwise: (Catherine Elizabeth,) Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Phillip Louis of Wales, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus. Since she is married to a Royal-Duke rather than a noble Duke, the dukedom takes priority with regards to her shortened style, and thus that is HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. The Princess of Wales is (usually) an exception to that tradition, but b/c of public sensitivities the royal-duchess style is also being applied to Camilla. William's peerage was announced the morning of his wedding. However, the peerage only became official on May 26 that year, the date of the letter patent. Therefore she briefly did hold (or rather, was eligible to use) the style HRH The Princess William of Wales. That would have presumably remained that way if William had never received a dukedom.

The fact that William now holds a peerage does not mean in and of itself that the "Princess William" portion was ever removed from his wife's full title. Women marrying into royalty, nobility, and (until recently) commoners virtually all took on their husbands full name and titles (including 'middle' names) upon marriage. As many were recently reminded when the new (private) order of precedence came down with Catherine having to curtsy to different people depending on if she was with William or not, these titles are not her own. If widowed, she would retain the HRH and be titled HRH The Dowager Duchess of Cambridge. It is only in the event that they divorce would she be known as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, with all her other titles (and HRH as well, per a 1996 letter patent) stripped, as happened to Sarah, Duchess of York, in the style also afforded to all widows of peers (not including princesses- Diana being the sole exception). Exceptions may be granted for styles, as was the case for Princess Alice when she became widowed, although her official title remained the same. So the name of this article is currently titled as if the woman is divorced and without a child as direct heir to the throne (the latter being true for at least a little longer). While styles may change through convention, common use, verbal permission, etc. the method by which official titles may be created, granted, modified or revoked must be expressed through a written royal decree, in the form of a letter patent. One of two relevant letters patent has been copied to the top of this article, and the other (granting William his peerage) is published here.

Also worth mentioning is the page for Sarah, Duchess of York, which acknowledges the "The Princess Andrew" part of her title. I'd think we would want to maintain some consistency amongst these pages. If you don't take my word for it, this video may be worth watching (the relevant bit being in the first couple minutes, the rest being mostly fluff) is a CBS interview given by this man during the wedding- it seems like he should know a thing or two about these rules. Therefore, given the titling rules ostensibly in place, I believe the burden of proof is on those who wish to exclude the "Princess William..." bit from her formal title, which they can meet by finding and citing the letter patent that would have done that. Given the persistent use of "Princess Kate" and "Kate Middleton", the lack of use of "Princess William" by mainstream media sources should not be relied upon as evidence that that is not part of her full title- we need evidence the rules were changed, or that an exception was granted in her case.

While I may not necessarily agree with it, I understand the idea that official titles, styles or continuous portions (used exclusively) thereof may be disregarded for the sake of integrating the common name of the individual. Therefore, may I suggest the article be titled Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge? This would subtly distinguish it from the (currently employed) style of a divorcée, integrate separate but continuous portions of both her Christian name & style (Catherine Elizabeth and HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, respectively), and help bring consistency across the pages for British royal consorts, like Sarah, Duchess of York (as a divorcée) and Princess Michael of Kent- her style minus the HRH. Although I suppose the latter case would become "Marie, Princess Michael of Kent", after we applied the subjective threshold for that, if she's commonly known as Marie. Camilla's would be "Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall", etc. I don't think this proposal violates any of these rules. I think (nay, hope) that if decided upon in the affirmative, this would be a simple enough change to enact? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

We did, briefly use the form Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall for a while more than five years ago. The discussion prior to overturning that practice is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 18#Current royal peeresses here. I for one remain convinced that The is un-necessary and should continue to omitted from article titles. DBD 15:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I figured this must have been brought up somewhere before. Having read through that, I don't see there being much of a consensus either way, and certainly not one decisive enough to overturn the old (pre-2007) one. I agree with you that including "the" is not ideal, as it sounds more choppy. However, I have an even bigger problem with using the exact same diminished style left to a royal peeress after divorce, to describe a relative newlywed no less. I suppose it is a case of which option people consider to be the "lesser of two evils." I can't think of another alternative at the moment, and apparently neither could people a few years ago.

All things considered, I don't think Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge is that bad really. Ignoring the HRH (and I don't think anybody wants to restart that debate for awhile), she can be and is referred in two shorthand ways- one being the Duchess of Cambridge, and the other simply Catherine, rather than "Kate" (which she shys away from and doesn't use even among friends, as I understand it) or "Catherine Elizabeth", which is used as often as most of us use our middle names-almost never. So this is simply combining the two. Since the option to stick strictly to her title (or rather, a portion of it) has already (I believe) been ruled out, going the other way would leave us with Catherine (Duchess of Cambridge), which I think makes the title appear as an afterthought that is there just to distinguish her from all other people named Catherine, which it isn't. For the rest of her life as a royal, her use (as a public figure) of her common name 'Catherine' and whatever title she styles herself by at the given time will be balanced, if not weighted toward the latter. They are separate but equal as far as notability is concerned, so if viewed in that context saying "The Duchess of Cambridge" is better than more curtly referring to her as "Duchess of Cambridge". 68.58.63.22 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You might find these and these thoughts interesting, from Camilla's talk page. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article is not supposed to reflect her style as princess (yes, I remain convinced that she is both a princess and a duchess as the wife of a prince and duke). The title of the article is supposed to include her name and the title she uses. The article about her grandmother-in-law is not titled Elizabeth II, the Queen, and the article about her father-in-law is not titled Charles, the Prince of Wales. If anyone gets confused by the title (which, I believe, is rather unlikely to happen), the lead sentence clearly says that she "is the wife of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge". The Duchess of Cambridge would make a better title than Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, which is simply odd. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"The title of the article is not supposed to reflect her style...the title of the article is supposed to include her name and the title she uses." That's what a style is- that derivative of the full title that is chosen to be the one most commonly used. I don't agree that the title of an article in this category is 'supposed to include' the name (by which I assume you mean her Christian/common name, rather than her legal/royal name)- again, see Princess Michael of Kent. At some point, a subjective decision was made to do so in her case. As I said earlier, "While I may not necessarily agree with it, I understand the idea [behind it]." That idea being, I assume, to avoid confusing casual readers, and to bring WP closer in line with other media sources. There is also the assertion that Catherine needs to be distinguished from the two other Duchesses of Cambridge, one of whom never really used the title, and the other, who is better known by her German title. To those who believe the royalty naming conventions are unbreakable rules, I would give a reminder that they were meant to just be guidelines to reduce ambiguity and increase consistency- there is some flexibility that can be had for special cases, particularly where there is little ambiguity. I would argue that just as everyone in conversation knows who they mean when they say "the Pope" (in the present tense), the same large proportion would know who "the Duchess of Cambridge" is. Once she is dead, I could see an increased need for an additional identifier, even though the title will likely have merged back into the Crown at that point. It could be modified then much like The Queen Mother's page was. But I'm not even arguing for such a change right now, because I see that people are still getting used to her not being 'Kate Middleton'. My proposal incorporates both her common name & the more proper form of her style (everything minus the verboten HRH), all while avoiding a conflict with an official courtesy style granted for a currently non-existent circumstance. This would utilize no more than a modicum of the flexibility afforded to us.

For the British monarchs, because ordinal numbers can and are used, their regnal name is sufficient. Before she ascended, as a married woman she was styled HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, with the "the" going before the highest rank, as she was a princess in her own right, and the married title tacked on at the end. Neither Charles nor Catherine yet have the simpler regal name they'll get as King or Queen Consort. Technically, it should be Charles, the Prince of Wales or better yet, HRH The Prince of Wales (which would have to be paired with the now forbidden 'HRH'). However, since Charles holds all his titles by his own right, his style didn't and wouldn't change with a divorce. Therefore, Wikipedia can afford to be a little looser with the name of his article and those of other peers and princes by birthright. I'm primarily discussing royal consorts here, who hold their titles only through the marriage, and therefore are dealt with differently in situations like divorce or becoming a widow. She is indeed a princess, but only as "Princess William..." which most everybody agrees looks awkward, and is never used to address her. She'll have to wait a bit for the tidier title HRH The Princess of Wales, which Diana held before she divorced, after which she became Diana, Princess of Wales (as the first and only non royal British princess). That title is, of course, currently lying dormant with Camilla.

While I hope this discussion continues, I don't want to get distracted from the main point of my initial comment- that Catherine's full title should be added back into the article. Are there any objections to this? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Back away from your article title soapbox there, IP. It is simply not going to happen. We are quite happy with our current policy – it makes perfect common sense. I personally am a precise person (particularly when it comes to official styles, and obviously more knowledgeable than you because I know that William is Prince William but not The Prince William :P), but I honestly believe regardless that there is little merit to using "The" at all. Speaking of reinstating Princess William A P L (but not of Wales!), I am fully in favour, because that's how it works. However, what actually needs to be done is a reliable source needs to be cited which tells us exactly that that is the way that it works. (And, more challengingly, I suspect, that it still works like that in HRH's particular case.) As ever, if there are certain users who want to oppose something enough and know their Wiki bureaucracy and policy well enough, it'll be a pointless battle. DBD 23:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(aiee trying to post at the same time) Before HRH's "full title" is added back into the article, some sort of reliable source will have to be provided to show what this "full title" is. At present the Court Circular refers to her as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge or (in Scotland) HRH The Countess of Strathearn. The only time when any more expanded style would be used would be in something like a Royal Warrant or Letters Patent, and she hasn't been the subject of any yet, so speculation as to how she might be styled in such a document is WP:OR/WP:Crystal. Regarding the title of this article, this is an encyclopaedia, not Debrett's Correct Form: her title is Duchess of Cambridge; the Christian name by which she is known is Catherine ∴ the article title is Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. No, one wouldn't write it on an envelope, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be the best article title as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Opera hat (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, DBD, I'm not sure how one mistake led you to believe that you were "more knowledgeable" than me. We ought to avoid personal attacks, so I'm not going to respond directly to that. However, since you brought up Prince William, I would agree with you that he is not The Prince William, because only children of the Sovereign are styled in that way, and of course William is her grandson. I apologize for the typo, and have removed it. Please tell me why of Wales would not be part of her title- it's still part of his (see here). I will grant that the "full title" listed there is not complete, but I'm not sure why what is there shouldn't be considered valid.

Regarding the proposed article move- "this is an encyclopaedia, not Debrett's Correct Form: her title is Duchess of Cambridge; the Christian name by which she is known is Catherine". I never challenged that was her Christian name- I first called it that here. That doesn't change the fact that the articles of all royals do not include their Christian names- at some point the decision was made to do so for her, but as I said, my proposal does not challenge that decision. Her title is not "Duchess of Cambridge". Her style is The Duchess of Cambridge. I have never heard any print or tv media refer to her as just 'Duchess of Cambridge'. I agree using her full title as the title for the article would be unwieldy and unneccessary. A style, however, is purposely designed to be a quick way to refer to these people, and I don't see the harm in using it. There needs to be a good reason for keeping it the way it is (particularly in light of it's conflict with the different style of courtesy granted to a divorcée). "Because it sounds better", "that's the way 'we' like it", and "because that's the way it is" are not valid or logically sound reasons. The latter two in particular never are for anything. Consensus can change.

Neither of you are addressing the point I made regarding the inclusion of the full title. Instead of just reiterating what it says in the hidden request in that section, explain why you think putting in the full title would be original research. My point is that the burden of proof ought to be on those who wish to keep it out. As written now, the article implies that the title, as is, is her title. At the very least, there ought to be a note that there is much doubt that that is the case. For example, if someone wished to take out of an article on gravity that gases are effected by it (i.e. "All solids, liquids, and plasma are drawn to one another by gravity"), they need to provide evidence that that is the case, because there is plenty of evidence that it does. At some point, "Princess William..." was part of her title on this article, but was then taken out. I'm glad, DBD, that you agree with me that "that's how it works." It is evident that is the case, as it currently applies to every other royal, as I showed with my links to other royals' pages. I have linked to some pertinent letters patent, and I have found a video of a member of the royal household affirming a question of a reporter who asked about this after, mind you, they were married and she had been declared a duchess. The preponderance of the evidence is clearly in favor of restoring her full title. Those who wish to continue to exclude it need to provide evidence the rules were specifically changed for her. What the Court Circular says is irrelevant because it is clearly choosing to use her style, not her title. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(First, "of Wales" is in neither of the Cambridge's full titles because that part, the territorial designation is for the children of royal peers, whereas William is now one himself – essentially they are now "Duke & Duchess of Cambridge" rather than "a prince of Wales"). Where's this video? It might be the source we're looking for. DBD 08:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see. So because the 'Royal-Duke' outranks the 'Prince' part with respect to styles & titles, the "of Wales" part gets completely cut rather than, as I thought, just obfuscated? Becoming a peer doesn't change the fact that he's the son of a different peer with a different territorial designation, and these things tend to stack. If you're correct, then it would appear the monarchy's website needs to be updated. I'll look some more into this, but if you can find a source that that's how it works I'll also remove that from the title I posted in my first comment.

The video I referred to was posted in my first comment, third paragraph. The relevant portion is near the beginning, 0:45-1:40. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That video is a good reference for Princess William. Nice one. As for Arthur Philip Louis, precedent is the best we're going to get for the foreseeable, and if that's unacceptable to the community then we'll just have to cope with the wiki being wrong/incomplete. (Re: of Wales, see the royals formerly styled Prince Richard of Gloucester, Prince Edward of Kent and Princess Alexandra of Kent) DBD 13:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem. I cannot find any uses of the form "Princess John Paul George Ringo" since 1714 (I haven't looked further back) in either the London Gazette or Google Books search. AT this point, it looks a lot like we have essentially made up the idea that Prince JPGR's wife becomes Pss JPGR (alongside whatever else titles). I think we can source Princess William (and Princess Charles, Andrew, Edward etc.) but not Princess William Arthur Philip George or similar. At all. DBD 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For both Prince Richard & Prince Edward of Kent, they just became Duke of X rather than Prince {name} of X. The prince territorial designation dropping off because different ranks are never linked to the same "area"; it would be redundant (i.e. there's no "Prince of Edinburgh", since that's taken by a dukedom). They were not peers created independently of their father's peerage. Nor can there be, I don't think, two territorial designations for the same rank. Do you know of any other examples like William's- a father/son who are each independently granted peerages with a different rank & territorial designation?

Regarding the wife taking her husband's middle name(s), you're right. It's hard to say if WP "made it up", but it does seem to be the convention used across the pages for many other royal consorts, including Sarah, Duchess of York, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, and Katharine, Duchess of Kent, and I have no idea how it started. Most of those titles don't seem to have sources. Or if they do, their source is the royal.gov.uk site which, as we've established, doesn't seem to list actual full titles, or is out-of-date. All I can say is that traditionally, a wife took all her husband's names (i.e. Mrs. John Edward Smith). Whether this is formally still the case, I don't know. Shouldn't we find when and how that custom would have changed? A quick Google search just turns up a bunch of informal blogs or yahoo answers-like sites that are clearly citing Wikipedia, so are of little help. It'd be nice to hear from the editors who first added the middle names to the titles on those other royals' pages, and see if they had a good reason for doing so. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(of ofs: when Queen Victoria gave her grandsons peerages in 1890 & 1892, they stopped being Prince Albert Victor of Wales and Prince George of Wales and became Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Prince George, Duke of York. It makes not a jot of difference whether one's peerage's and one's father's territorial designation are the same or different, the principle is the same – one who has a peerage drops their old territorial designation.) Lets us do some investigative work. While we do, remember that the royal.gov.uk site has never been very reliable – there are and have been several long-standing glaring technical errors. DBD 09:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

New navbox photo

Hi there. I think that the photo used in the navbox is not ideal; it's a little blurry. It seems to me that the photo of her at the Countdown to the Olympics would be more appropriate. It's a smaller but clearer and more recognizable photo. Thoughts? Thanks. RMJ (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Middleton or the Duchess?

Some parts of the article refer to her by her former surname Middleton, while others use Duchess or The Duchess. Is there a consensus? Spelling Style (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

References to her prior to marriage need not call her "the Duchess", but subsequent ones should. FactStraight (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Change of footnote to incorporate common use of designation.

I think the only footnote on the page, the one that states Mountbatten-Windsor is often used as a surname should be partially edited to explain that it is often the case that they'll use their designation, e.g. Wales or in this case, Cambridge. I am also sure that the Mountbatten-Windsor Letters Patent is not relevant here as it is more likely they'd use Windsor rather than the double-barrelled name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinkp (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nude.

So, what's the stance on this? Should a piece be added on the recent pics of Kate and her boobs being published in a magazine? :D --Τασουλα (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

May I draw attention to an extract from the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP:

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Therefore, unless this incident become the trigger for something of consequence, it should be ignored. Martinvl (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel it is in the publics interest to know what other do, while choosing to call their action an act of public interest. It is also interesting to know which part of Europe you are the least likely to be photographed on a private property. By two reasons or more, Las Vegas is the wrong answer. --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

They are considering legal action according to this, so maybe a mention of it if that happens. I think whatever is written though has to be done so tastefully. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"and with regard for the subject's privacy." - I can see publishing the photos here would be a violation. Also, with the news of them taking legal action...--Τασουλα (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia, not a tabloid. We should wait until a writ is served before anything is written in Wikipedia about the this incident. The writ itself would be of great significance as the British Royal Family normally have the maxim "don't explain, don't complain", so any discussion would centre on the writ rather than the invasion of privacy. Martinvl (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The royals' barristers are suing the publication over this matter. Check the Daily Telegraph. 74.69.8.195 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Time to look at this see if its worth mentioning now....Royal Family to sue over topless Kate photos.... Moxy (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd support including it, without the pictures. The controversy has received enough media attention to be notable. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, this matter is best forgotten. People make mistakes every day. It's pathetic but not notable that another editor at another tabloid printed something that should not have been printed. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Not notable do not include. 94.242.211.90 (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be included somewhere. Perhaps add it after the bit saying how both her and her family have had troubles with the press.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed how the Irish Daily Star website is suddenly showing a Service Temporarily Unavailable message? 86.135.40.232 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me reiterate, WIkipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We need to wait for the bigger picture (for example the courts clarifying privacy issues) to emerge. If no such picture emerges, then this is not encyclopeadic. Martinvl (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I have to say I think this story has become sufficiently significant to be included, now that legal action is being taken over the pictures. It would be quite inappropriate for us to link to the pictures themselves, but we could add a line referring to the story and linking to reliable sources about it. There's no need to rush though, and it would be fine to wait a few days to see if it looks different with a little perspective. Robofish (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Before we write anything we should know:

• What legal action is being taken
• What the respondent's stance is.

It must be remembered that legal action woudl probably be taken in the French courts under French law rather than under English law so whoever writes anything needs to ensure that they understand sufficient of the French legal system that what is written makes sense. Martinvl (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of non-confirmed editors who are adding information, often poorly written, about this incident I have requested that the artcile be semi-protected for a week. This should not affect our work. Martinvl (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been done. Martinvl (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Good move, Martinvl! However, on the issue of whether this story should be in an encyclopedia at all, I lean in the direction of NOT! My main reason for saying so is that an encyclopedia should not contribute to scandalous behavior of the Mainstream Media, but rise above it, and withhold information that could be embarrassing or damaging to a person's image. Of course, the extent of the damage is a matter of discussion, since it depends on how much you value your own personal privacy. However, as any good lawyer knows, it is the "intent" to cause damage which gets the most mileage out of any lawsuit. Since Wikipedia would rather not get into that realm of "doing harm", it would be better to stay out of it altogether, and let the tabloids fight over publishing or not. --Skol fir (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The publishers of an Irish newspaper, the Irish Daily Star, have begun proceedings to shut the newspaper down because their editor decided to publish the images. That's getting to the point where the discussion of the photos is important, although perhaps in their own separate article. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Where are you getting your facts on a newspaper being shut down? After some simple fact-checking, I found that this incident is not at all remarkable. "...but Richard Desmond, chairman of co-owner Northern and Shell, said he was taking "immediate steps" to close down the joint venture with Ireland's Independent News and Media, which runs the paper." So that is closing down the joint venture between two companies, not the newspaper itself. Ireland's Independent News and Media can probably find other sources of funding, as it most likely will, to stay in operation. See -- Kate privacy row deepens as Irish Star prints topless photos.

This is a typical example of why these Talk Pages cannot be relied on for correct information. Also, it shows why a story might have legs, even if they are only made of clay. I suggest that a newspaper losing partners is not a newsworthy story in itself, and certainly does not warrant its own article on Wikipedia. That is just silly. --Skol fir (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparing this event to other recent royal nude events (such as the Prince Henry discussion regarding his nudity), it seems that not to include a discussion is unwarranted. It is clearly notable. It has been covered by something like 4900 news stories. [3]. These reliable sources (such as Huffington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etcs). Discussion can be done neutral; and does not appear to violate the avoid harm policy. 04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.80.19 (talk)

Agree with 68.106.80.19 this event is totally notable, not that she was caught on camera nude, but that it is very rare that a Royal sues, it's only happened like what? 5 times in the last 30 years or something. That a member of the Royal family is suing a media outlet is very notable in my opinion due to its rarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.138.33 (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There are still no proceeding towards shutdown, so anyone can ask what is the big holdup. Northern and Shell owns a nudie magazine called Asian Babes, and yet they call O'Kane indecent....? --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• OPPOSE INCLUSION Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.DoctorLuther (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• What's the difference? Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is quite arrogant from royalist that this should not be included. This has been big story for the past few days.

I have put together a sub-section User:Martinvl/succession which I will update later today (17 September) once the French courts have responded to the initial applications. I am not sure whether this should be a 2nd level section or a 3rd level subsection of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Royal duties. Comments please? Martinvl (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have bitten the bullet and added the above as a sub-section under the heading "Privacy".

There is absoulutley no information yet about the nude leak of her in this article yet!

There is absoulutley no information yet about the nude leak of her in this article yet!--150.216.78.78 (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Privacy & Prince Harry

I have commented out the sentence on privacy and the Royal Family as a whole and Price Harry in particular - this is not the artcile for such a discussion. Martinvl (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Question of "Middleton" use just got more complex

Per previous discussion, some media insist on referring to her as Kate Middleton, despite her marriage, and despite the Palace indicating that she did not keep her last name (by way of announcing that Zara Phillips, who wed later in 2011, was the first female royal in history to retain her last name). Yet the Daily Mail today reproduced some of the court documents in the topless photos case here which clearly show Catherine identified under maiden name. Does anyone know if this is common practice? My parents have been married 53 years, and my mother took my father's last name - if she were to appear on a French legal document, would they identify her by her maiden name? Or does this document indicate that, despite what the Palace indicated, Catherine is, indeed, still officially Catherine Middleton? 70.72.211.35 (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot speak for France, but I can speak for the Netherlands whose civil law is based on Napoleonic civil law (inherited from France in 1808 when Napoleon annexed the Netherlands). In the Netherlands, a woman does not change her name in respect of legal documents. My great-grandmother's death certificate (my father was Dutch) gives her in the form "Mary Smith, wife of Edward Jones". A married woman, being addressed in her own right, would, out of courtesy, have a double-barrelled name - for example, Margaret Thatcher would be known as "Margaret Thatcher-Roberts" ("Roberts" being her maiden name). Martinvl (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the court documents yet, but it is possible that they refer to Catherine as Middleton because the news outlet that published the pictures referred to her as Middleton? Maybe to make it clear that they are the same person, perhaps? That makes the most sense to me, but like I said, haven't read it yet. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

la presse people" magazine Closer

it leads to the wrong -closer-. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.196.166.161 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Separating the Duke and Duchess's navboxes.

I wanted to broach the topic of making separate navboxes for William and Catherine. Will's navbox is getting a bit full of things that really only relate to Kate, while there are a number of things that only relate to William (and thus wouldn't make sense on a Kate navbox). Last time this topic was addressed, there weren't enough separate articles to merit separate boxes. But I'm wondering if they are now. I've done mock-ups of what the respective boxes might look like, and am hoping for your input as to whether we should go ahead with both of them, or keep just William's for now.

Catherine:

William:

Thanks! --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Should we include Diana in Catherine's box? Martinvl (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

My thinking was no, because they never met and had very little to actually do with one another. However, I'm open to including her if people think we should. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no as Diana died so long before she came on the scene.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"Violation of privacy" or "privacy concerns"

I have reinstated the section heading "Violation of privacy". This section deals wiith two specific incidents, both of which were deemed to be violations of privacy by the English and French courts. This title is therefore not POV, but is a summary of the findings of the courts. Martinvl (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

From what we have written in the article, the photos were stopped from publication, but a criminal investigation into privacy violation is still underway. Therefore, we can not rightfully claim that it was a legal privacy violation yet, and thus we are taking a side (POV). Furthermore, the name change allows us to add more material that is related to any future privacy issues without having to wait until a criminal case is decided. Therefore it seems more appropriate to me to have a less POV (our POV being that the photos were a violation of privacy, before the courts have decided) title for the section. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In both cases the courts have already awarded civil damages, so in both cases it was a privacy violation. Any phitotographer who is charged in the criminal case case always claim "It wasn't me", but this does not change the action, only the identity of the perpetrator. Martinvl (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that legally, saying pictures cannot be circulated is the same as saying they are a privacy violation? I don't really get that from the article as written... --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)