Jump to content

Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Baroness Carrickfergus

There is an issue concerning Catherine's titles. Willthacheerleader18 claims that she is styled Lady Carrickfergus when in Northern Ireland and presents an American lifestyle magazine as the source. I dispute the reliability of that source. In fact, this Lady Carrickfergus business seems to be mentioned only by tabloids. Reputable sources, such as BBC, The Telegraph and The Guardian mention Catherine as "Baroness Carrickfergus" but do not state that she is referred to as such in Northern Ireland. I thus believe that Wikipedia should not state that Catherine is referred to as Lady Carrickfergus in Northern Ireland as a matter of fact. We could simply state that the title she has is connected to Northern Ireland. That would be indisputable and in line with what reliable sources say. And, of course, that title is not Lady Carrickfergus but Baroness Carrickfergus, per the reputable sources mentioned above. Only non-royal peeresses are addressed as Lady X. After all, is Sophie ever referred to as Lady Wessex? Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Another user linked to the Clarence House twitter directly which shows that Catherine is referred to as Lady Carrickfergus. Write that off as original research if you want, but that is coming directly from Clarence House which is far more reliable on royal titles than other sources, I'd say. Not to mention that even though Edward is styled as the Earl of Wessex, he still holds the rank of a royal duke (seen in orders of precedence), so that's not exactly comparable. Doxedevenexia (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Alright, so we have a tweet. We still do not have a reliable source for the claim that Catherine is referred to as either "Lady Carrickfergus" or "Baroness Carrickfergus" when in Northern Ireland. Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a tweet coming directly from Clarence House, which is directly affiliated with members of the royal family. This negates your sources if they used outdated information, or misinformation altogether. Maybe the fact that she's Lady Carrickfergus shouldn't even be in there then. Doxedevenexia (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
No, the claim that she is called Lady Carrickfergus in Northern Ireland is what should not be in there because it is not supported by any reliable source, tweets included. I struggle to find an example of Catherine being mentioned as Lady Carrickfergus. Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hm, yeah. Maybe it's an English thing that people assume applies in other parts of the UK, because I've checked the Irish Times and the Belfast Telegraph and both refer to her as "Baroness Carrickfergus". (Sorry, I thought you meant that she was never referred to as Lady Carrickfergus at all.) Doxedevenexia (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I could sense there was some misunderstanding. So what's the final verdict? Is she called Lady Carrickfergus or Baroness Carrickfergus in Northern Ireland? Could you cite those rish Times and Belfast Telegraph articles here please? Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
As her husband is officially Baron Carrickfergus, she has the female form of the title. I thought it would be "Baroness Carrickfergus", but from reverts made at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex's article (regarding her Northern Irish title as well) and from original research about peeresses, it appears she would be titled as "Lady Carrickfergus" as "Baroness ___" is only used by peeresses in their own right. Since she is a baroness by marriage it appears she would use the courtesy title of "Lady ____". I stated Northern Ireland because the title Baron Carrickfergus, and therefore the barony itself, is Northern Irish and not English, Scottish, or Welsh. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It is perfectly fine to mention that the title refers to Northern Ireland. The issue is whether Wikipedia should claim that she actively uses that title in Northern Ireland or that she is popularly known as such. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Irish Times article, Belfast telegraph. Because those both are based in Northern Ireland, I think it's safe to assume that she's referred to as "Baroness Carrickfergus" while in Northern Ireland, but referred to as "Lady Carrickfergus" in England while in reference to her Irish title. Doxedevenexia (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Also this one where they say "known here as Baroness Carrickfergus". Doxedevenexia (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the articles. They do not refer to Catherine as Baroness (or Lady) Carrickfergus, however. They refer to her as Duchess of Cambridge in every instance. They just mention that one of the Duchess's titles is Baroness Carrickfergus. The claim that Catherine is styled Baroness (or Lady) Carrickfergus when in Northern Ireland is now not only dubious but also apparently disproven. Surtsicna (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding regarding the "Northern Irish" portion. I did not mean she is referred to as only "Baroness Carrickfergus" in Northern Ireland (nor did I mean that she is not referred to as The Duchess of Cambridge in Northern Ireland). Her title as Baroness Carrickfergus is a Northern Irish title. Just as her comital title is Scottish, and the article states she is known as a Countess of Strathearn in Scotland. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I think "in reference" is key here since it's true, they do not refer to her only by her Irish title in Ireland. Anyway, I'd be happy if it said she is called "Lady Carrickfergus" in reference to her Northern Irish title, or "Baroness Carrickfergus" by Irish media in reference to her Irish title. Doxedevenexia (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
We are in agreement then. The article should be amended accordingly. Surtsicna (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The wording is a bit strange, that's why I changed it. I think there needs to be more expansion, because someone with no knowledge about titles or anything would be confused about that. Doxedevenexia (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I still don't think it's right to say she holds the title in Northern Ireland. She is Countess of Strathearn and Lady Carrickfergus throughout the United Kingdom; they are United Kingdom peerages. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
That's fair, I like the edit you did! It clarifies the nature of the titles. Doxedevenexia (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A glance at the Court Circular (search results are impossible to link to) doesn't show anything in a search for "Carrickfergus" for either Catherine or William (whereas "Strathearn" does yield details of engagements in Scotland). Since their wedding they don't seem to have been to Northern Ireland very much which rather limits the scope for any local use of the title, although they're called the Duchess and Duke of Cambridge in the listing for the garden party at Hillsborough Castle detailed in the stories above. I suspect that because the issues and sensitivities are rather different in Northern Ireland from Scotland, there isn't the explicit aim to use specifically Northern Irish titles in the province whereas strengthening the Royal Family in Scotland has meant a use of what would previously have been merely additional peerages, at least outside the places themselves, (for example a search for "Earl of Inverness" for Andrew suggests that either he's only been called that when actually visiting Inverness & -shire or rather improbably hasn't done a single engagement in the rest of Scotland in over twenty years; similarly the only entry that calls him "Baron Killyleagh" is for a function in Killyleagh itself). This piece from last year suggests neither Catherine nor William have actually been to Carrickfergus so perhaps if they go there the title will be used but otherwise there's little to suggest their titles change across the Irish Sea. Timrollpickering 21:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why but I find this section to be pure trivia, and it definitely is not related to the other material covered by the article. The two movies are already mentioned in an appropriate section in Catherine's template. The fact is that I find no such section in the other articles about the royal family members, so I decided to remove it but I first wanted to see if someone wants to oppose its removal; if not, I'll remove it as soon as possible. Keivan.fTalk 23:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Trim down the intro.

Closing RFC, consensus is that the first sentence is fine. Fish+Karate 12:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IMHO, the intro to this article should be trimmed down. Instead of mentioning that her husband is a future king & thus she'll likely be a future queen-consort. The sentence should read "Her husband, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, is second in line to the British throne" or "Her husband, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, is directly in line to the British throne" - (See Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall's intro, as a rough example). What say you all? GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The first one you suggest is all that is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The former, aye. No need for this: "Her husband, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, is expected to become king of the United Kingdom and of 15 other Commonwealth realms, making Catherine a likely future queen consort." The Duke of Cambridge is second-in-line to the throne; HRH the Duchess likely being a queen-consort almost goes without saying. Best to be succinct with these things. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 18:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
No, be explicit about it. It is an integral part of her notability, and it is unreasonable to expect that a casual reader would know that being married to the second in line means being a future queen. The lead is also too short given the size of the article altogether, so there is no need to trim it down at all. Instead, it should be expanded. I think a good look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is in order. Surtsicna (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to remind you that the article is about Catherine, not William, and the reason that she is notable is due to her marriage to the second in line to the throne which puts her in line to become queen consort. By the way, being second in line doesn't necessarily mean that one might become a monarch. The Prince of Monaco's sister, Caroline, was first in line to the throne for so many years but she was pushed down the line after the birth of his nephew and niece and will probably never ascend to the throne. So we should not expect the readers to automatically assume that William will one day become a king by reading the sentence that you have suggested as that's not the case for everyone. On the other hand, Camilla is the wife of the heir apparent; that word alone indicates that he will absolutely ascend to the throne upon his mother's death, and Camilla will become princess (queen) consort afterwards, so there's no need to repeat it twice in the intro. Keivan.fTalk 03:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Given that there is no possibility of anyone pushing William lower than second in line it's about as certain as these things ever get that he will become king. There's no need to hedge and prevaricate about it. When Elizabeth II expires Charles will become king and when Charles III expires Wiiliam will become king. The only way this progression could be disrupted is if Charles or William die out of the expected sequence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but that is not clear from "second in line". A second in line sometimes can be pushed lower, as Keivan.f explained. Surtsicna (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
How it's not neutral? I've asked if the intro should be trimmed down or not. PS: Why are you questioning its neutrality now? Rfc has been open for over a week. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
An opinion on the question to be discussed is expressed in the opening statement. The opening statement should just phrase the question, with any answer to the question in the comments section. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, if Surtsica wants to close it down, no prob. I'll start an Rfc then, with a 'neutral' beginning. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

St Thomas' Hospital and Maurice Wohl Clinical Neuroscience Institute

I see no reason to include these in the lead. Each member of the royal family has numerous patronages and makes numerous visits. I don't see why these two examples (of single visits) are selected for special treatment. Nor does she "regularly" spend time with mentally-ill mothers and disabled children. She makes brief, occasional visits to the institutions that help them. DrKay (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Mentioning specific organizations in the lead does not seem to be a good idea. The small summary that we have right now is enough and captures the essence of her work. Keivan.fTalk 19:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The result was to merge. Keivan.fTalk 14:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Kate Middleton effect be merged into this article. I think the content of that article can be transferred to this one, and put under the section "Public image and style". That page consists of two paragraphs and is not very elaborate, so merging it into this page will not cause that much of a problem. By the way, the Duchess of Cambridge is not the only person who has had an impact on fashion industry. Numerous other figures such as Michelle Obama, Jacqueline Kennedy, Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex are known to have created their own fashion trends, and the information about their fashion choices and styles is already included in their respective articles, rather than in separate pages such as Michelle Obama effect, etc. Information available on "Kate Middleton effect" perfectly fits in this article. Keivan.fTalk 01:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with saying thanks. DrKay (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I thanked you for your participation, not for your "support" vote. This proposal has enough votes anyway, so strike whatever you want. Keivan.fTalk 16:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Have removed notice (added over one month ago) and added in "Kate Middleton Effect" appropriate section as discussed on Talk page Srbernadette (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Family Tree/Ancestry

What happened to the Duchess of Cambridge's family tree/lineage? There used to be one, but now it just leads to an article regarding her family tree.

It was removed. Not every article benefits from having a family tree. Her ancestry did not lead to her notability. Surtsicna (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
But why does Sophie, Countess of Wessex have a family tree? And Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall too? For consistency, should not Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge have one included in her article? I would have thought that her ancestry DID "lead to her notability" - how could it not?!!! Please explain - thanks 203.132.68.1 (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC) 04:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not about consistency, it's about reliability. If those family trees are unsourced they need to be removed as well. Keivan.fTalk 14:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed - I have returned the photo of the estate where Olive Middleton was born; this is well documented in the citations203.132.68.1 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
And I have removed it because Olive Lupton didn't live there and wasn't born there, she lived at Rockland which was built on estate land and so that photograph is misleading as she was not born at the hall. For goodness sake it is not a photograph of an estate it is a photograph of a hall.Esemgee (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed - no photo necessary203.132.68.1 (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

suggest changing mental issues to mental health issues... as this is the modern appropriate language to use 2607:FEA8:BD9F:FB19:59F2:32AF:A06F:FEB4 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 picture

shouldn't this picture be used now for the lead instead of the 2014 one

The Duchess of Cambridge in 2018

, (Monkelese (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a nice photo. I'd rather have an updated photo as well. 2014 is like five years ago now. Can we update her photo? Anything from 2019? -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
She hasn't changed much since 2014. And come on, it's only been 2019 for 18 days now :) Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This picture is much flattering than the 2014 one which her mouth is opened. I agree it should be changed (Monkelese (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Where does it say that pictures should be flattering? Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm just saying this is a nicer pic for the lead (Monkelese (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
But it's a terrible crop. It feels so unbalanced. Surtsicna (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a good replacement. Something about the background of the other one always makes it look like it was a black and white photo that was later colorized. I also think it's preferable to have an image without the distraction of William's hand and part of his umbrella. Piratesswoop (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Something about the name of the other file makes it seem like it was colorized too... :D Surtsicna (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I also think the new photo is better so I have changed it. Seems like the old photo was colorized. I have also cleaned up the crop of the new image a bit. Tholme (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Both

old

warnings from both the Prince of Wales and Prince William and from Middleton's lawyers

new

warnings from the Prince of Wales, Prince William, and Middleton's lawyers –84.46.53.95 (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2019

add GCVO after the Duchess' name, now she has been appointed GCVO by Her Majesty the Queen. [1]

add to 'Honours' * 29 April 2019: Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) Emmiepemmie88 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.royal.uk/duchess-cambridge-appointed-royal-victorian-order

Unemployed?!

It's really weird that the Duchess is listed as unemployed. Is that a subtle joke or something? It's technically true, but.... -- Sleyece (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's clearly opinionated and poorly cited, if at all. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

better picture suggest

..why so tired and with flash contrast main picture (commons:File:The_Duchess_of_Cambridge_Belfast.jpg)?

please check and change to this better:

Duchess of Cambridge in Mumbai, 2016 commons:File:Duchess_of_Cambridge_met_cricket_legends_Sachin_Tendulkar_and_Dilip_Vengsarkar.jpg


--151.38.46.193 (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

'Upper middle class'

Really?

Is everyone whose parents were a 'flight dispatcher and flight attendant' classed as *upper* middle class? Even middle class would be stretching it for many people, and probably for most people generally regarded as actual upper class.

Of course, whether 'class' has any significance outside being a historical quirk is another question altogether, but for those who donate their lives to the class game they have to play by the rules, and others, and history have made those rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.45 (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This is referring to the British social class system, not the American. Her father's family were members of the gentry. Their social class has nothing to do with their professions. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction

I think there's some sort of contradiction (and maybe also repetition) in two different parts of the article right now. In #Early relationship it is stated that "In 2010, Middleton pursued an invasion of privacy claim against two agencies and photographer Niraj Tanna, who took photographs of her over Christmas 2009. She obtained a public apology, £5,000 in damages, and legal costs." Then in #Privacy and the media it is said "In 2009, before her engagement to William, Middleton was awarded £10,000 damages and an apology from the photographic press agency Rex Features Ltd. after she was photographed playing tennis on Christmas Eve while on holiday in Cornwall."

Are these referring to the same incident? If so, then why in one part it is said that she received £5,000 in damages while in the other one it is stated that she was awarded £10,000 damages? Can someone help with clarifying this? Keivan.fTalk 03:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

37.200.24.191 (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear what changes you want made. DrKay (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Missing comma; can't edit since page is protected

> The following day the courts granted an injunction against Closer prohibiting further publication of the photographs and announced a criminal investigation would be initiated.

There should be a comma between "Closer" and "prohibiting." The lack of one makes it sound like the injunction prevents Closer from prohibiting publication, which makes no sense. cluth (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You made this change, then undid it, and then posted here to say it should be done. So, I've redone it. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think I intentionally undid the change; perhaps the fact the page was protected meant the system automatically undid it. Anyway, thanks for fixing. cluth (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Improper use of Catherine's title

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

"Relationship with Prince William" image and detail

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

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

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

Public life description

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

User:Bettydaisies As suggested in edit comments, consider starting a new separate page if you want to list or detail all her trips and engagements. Try clicking on this Wikipedia link for ideas. Sampajanna (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
As aforementioned, I did! I just want to reiterate that I do think a few details of major trips and engagements should still be included for encyclopedic and historical purposes. Thanks!--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Bettydaisies: A 'See also:' redirection link should resolve that. Sampajanna (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Mass changes

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

hello! i'm sorry, i added some sourced information from her youth. was there a mistake? i hope you're having a great day. Miadaisies (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Bettydaisies (formerly Miadaisies) : With all due respect, your edits on pages for the Duchess of Cambridge and the Duchess of Sussex usually require follow up editing. This is not suggesting that your edits are not done in good faith and lack merit. One possibility is that English may not be your first language. Otherwise, you may be proficient in more than one language. It is noted that you are based in Los Angeles, so it is understandable that you may frame British royal family matters through an American lens, which is fine. Instead of adding volumes of new data, consider editing the existing stuff first. In other words, focus on the remedial work initially, especially for consistency in the context of the whole page seeing as there is more than one editor onboard. Sampajanna (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! For the more major edits, I have tried in the past to go to talk pages for contributions, but it is difficult to get responses. I apologize if my edits seemed imposing or drastic, especially toward the contributions of other editors, and I'll definitely keep it in mind for the future. For the follow-up editing, I admit my thinking process can become quite rapid, and I forget the details of syntax and grammar. I do regret the inconvenience this causes, and will do my best to prevent it from happening hereafter. Thank you so much for your feedback.--Bettydaisies (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Relationship with Prince William"

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

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

RfC: section renaming

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

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

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

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

Upper-Middle Class?

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

I doubt they're one of the "wealthiest families in the world" - regardless, to my understanding, social class in the United Kingdom has specific criteria. Families of David Cameron and Boris Johnson, for instance, are described as such, coming from substantially wealthy backgrounds. Wikipedia draws information from reliable sources. If you can find multiple reliable sources that describe her family to the contrary, that's definitely worth a discussion on the talk page.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Wealth is not the sole criterion of class in the UK. Opera hat (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure you have a better understanding of it, as I don't live in the UK. However, as I mentioned before, if reliable sources could be found to support the matter, it would beneficial.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the term refers to their position outside the landed gentry. And of course you can still be rich, and upper class, and relatable. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

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

  • A.
    A.
  • B.
    B.
  • C.
    C.
  • D.
    D.

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

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

Charity work

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2021

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

[Edit]- Sorry I forgot to login into my normal account for the above comment. Also, my mistake, that "Kate Middleton effect" wasn't an article link like I thought, but the point is that they still used the name in the article so they acknowledge its importance.Rush922(talk) 18:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Pinging editors who have worked on this talk page before: @Surtsicna:, @Doxedevenexia:, @Willthacheerleader18:, @GoodDay:, @DrKay:, @Keivan.f:. Just to clarify, I propose that the first sentence can be as follows: "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, GCVO (born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton; 9 January 1982[1]), often informally referred to by the media as Kate Middleton,[2] is a member of the British royal family." Rush922(talk) 20:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge". Current Biography Yearbook. Ipswich, MA: H. W. Wilson. 2011. pp. 116–118. ISBN 978-0-8242-1121-9.
  2. ^ Nast, Condé. "Why Do We Still Call the Duchess of Cambridge "Kate Middleton"?". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 8 May 2019.
It's so annoying when the news media keeps calling her Kate & Kate Middleton. I mean, didn't they cover the 2011 wedding? GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it kind of covered by 'Kate Middleton effect'? It seems to be overkill to have to spell out why the effect is called that. The abbreviation of her first name can be inferred. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Seem agree with Celia, do not think it is needed in the lead, it is clearer that the media outside of the tabloids are using Duchess of Cambridge and "Kate Middleton" is becoming rarer. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I also agree with the other users. It's totally unnecessary to include the nickname in the lead sentence, especially since it's not used by her husband and family. Keivan.fTalk 01:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It is hardly just the 'news media' that use this name. Probably most of the people on the planet that have heard of her use 'Kate'. I suspect that most of her extended family do as well, now. It is simply the name by which she is best known and is not very different, in essence, from the Queen having an 'official' birthday and an 'actual' birthday, or as the Trump might say, a birthday and a fake birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.45 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

minor edit

The "D", in Death Of Princess Diana, isn't capitalized. If someone could change that, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.96.125 (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Correct as it is. DrKay (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The nickname "Kate Middleton"

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

@Bettydaisies: I'm glad you brought it up. In my opinion, no, we don't need to include it in the lead. There are numerous precedents about royals being known by informal names, including Mary of Teck who was known as May, George VI as Bertie, Elizabeth II as Lilibet, Princess Margaret as Margot, Prince William as Wills, and Sarah, Duchess of York as Fergie. I don't see none of these nicknames being mentioned in the lead section. Keivan.fTalk 04:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree, personally, the former styling made sense, but goes against precedent, and there's also a redirect in case anyone searches for her by her maiden/media name.--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Am I losing my marbles? Surely she was born "Kate" and changed her name to something more, er, suitable before the wedding? Isn't this widely known? AndyI 22:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
You are as coo-coo as I, since I remember well when it was clearly announced by his family that Prince Henry was not to be called Harry. but media had their way with that in a matter of only months. We are supposed to pretend that never happened. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
BBC says it was "officially announced from the start of his life that he would be known as Harry". A New York Times article published two days after his birth, when his name was announced, reported Buckingham Palace's announcement that the newborn would be "just plain Harry at home". Catherine's name has always been Catherine. Surtsicna (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I think you've misremembered that. My recollection is the exact opposite, and that's borne out by press coverage: From the start, palace officials said the prince would be known as "Harry,", the palace confirming it on the day he left hospital and saying that although he was called Henry, he would be known as Harry, Palace officials announced that he was to be known as Harry. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I have bad dreams. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

In any case, if tabloid media continues to only (only) call her Kate Middleton, wouldn't we need that in the lead? "... popularly called..." ? Literally thousands of refs on that for those who believe in frequency as our Wikipedian guiding light! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Just don't go by the American news media. They still call Elizabeth II - "Queen of England". GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Which would be correct, but incomplete. This is about a nickname (?) in extremely (extremely) wide media use worldwide. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It's definitely used extensively in the media, especially in the tabloids, but there's already a redirect at the top of the page that addresses that. Diana, Princess of Wales, has definitely been referred to, most often, as "Princess Diana" or to a lesser extent, "Lady Di" during her lifetime, but her page also contains these listed redirects instead of the "popularly known as", etc.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

The subject is pregnant in the infobox picture, so I don't think that should be there. Instead I prefer this one File:Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge.jpg. Ukshah2004 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Peter Ormond 💬 23:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The photograph is credited to Matt Mackey / Press Eye. Photographs taken by Mackey from the same trip have previously been deleted on Commons - if you wish to deliberate her infobox image, please refer to the discussion on this talk page a few sections above.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bettydaisies: I think the request was relevant, because she is very thin.

I saw above your choices of images for the infobox. I find this black and white more classy, ​​and she hasn't changed much since 2014. I think this photo comes closest to the Duchess of Cambridge of 2021. Also, I find that the colorized version of this image is unnatural. Oroborvs (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Oroborvs. Peter Ormond 💬 18:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Peter Ormond: There is something wrong with the colorized version:

There's a stain on her forehead, looks like the skin is burned. This image appears on British princess, 1982 in the United Kingdom, Berkshire. Oroborvs (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps another user can re-colorize it. Black and white photographs are typically not used for the lead image in contemporary subjects. Again, there are more options on the discussion a few sections above.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bettydaisies: The imperfection is on the black and white image. The image of 2018 can remain in this case. I'll see if I can upload a newer one. Oroborvs (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I was referring to the "burn" on the colorized image. Please remember WP:IMAGEUSE when looking for images on other sites.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bettydaisies: The image in the infobox is nevertheless better with its true colors. Yes I know. Oroborvs (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Title

Why is the title of the article "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge"? The fact that it's her legal name according to whatever bullshit British monarchy law is irrelevant. Most people's articles aren't title by their legal or proper name, they're titled by what those people are actually generally known as. It's pretty clear that "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" isn't what she's generally referred to as. (It's Kate Middleton) There's no reason this article should be any different just cause she's a member of the British royal family. The convention, which concerns the actual utility of the article, should not be ignored because British people want to feel like their beloved royal family is special. It should be changed to Kate Middleton. Of course her full legal title should still be in the introduction paragraph. Finnigami (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't her legal or proper name, so your absurd rant is revealed exactly for what it is: prejudiced and ignorant. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
That only makes my argument stronger... if it's not even her legal name, that means there's even less reason for it to be the title. Not the mention that the first line of the intro paragraph is highly misleading, as it seems to imply that that title is her new legal name, by listing it and then listing her birth name in that manner. For example, the opening paragraph of Marilyn vos Savant, who legally changed her name to what it is now. If it's not her legal name, it's not her birth name, it's not her proper name (whatever that means), and most importantly it's not what she's know as, then it seems there's really no reason at all it should be the title of the article. Finnigami (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing to change, she is part of the British royal family, her title that appears on Wikipedia is consistent with Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. She is currently known as Her Royal Highness Catherine, The Duchess of Cambridge, and she was born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton not Kate Middleton; "Kate" is a diminutive form. The page will presumably be renamed Catherine, Princess of Wales when Charles will become King, and later when she will become the Queen consort. Your dissatisfaction with the "British monarchy law" has nothing to do on Wikipedia. Oroborvs (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Main Picture

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

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

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

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

That picture isn't public domain. We can only use free, uncopyrighted images. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
We used to have this one as the main photo, but someone objected to her facial expression. I find it better than the current one. Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

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

She's not a queen yet and I think she looks nice in the picture chose because it shows off her smile and her signature coat style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎173.35.240.92 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? All of the other royals (in the immediate line of succession) have their signatures on their pages... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎173.35.240.92 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I would rename the second Bibliography section as Further reading

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

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

Biased writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are someone. If you can find reliable sources, you can either edit the article yourself or make suggestions for changes on this page. Britmax (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
This is @talk's first post. Their second was the same to Prince William's talk page. But hey, welcome to Wikipedia, @70.53.34.60. New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience. Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing. Sampajanna (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I’ll address a few points here. The use of private jets by the royal family in their official capacity is an entirely different matter from taking private jet by a now private individual who labels himself as a climate change activist. Any criticism directed at the royal family should be covered on British royal family. After all, all members may use private jets while on official trips, not only William and Catherine. However, in their private capacity William and Catherine have mostly flown commercial. If you have specific sources that suggest otherwise, please put them forth. Also, criticism of one’s comments on social media is not worthy of inclusion here on Wikipedia. Yes, William’s comments may have been called racist, but Harry has also been called a traitor and hypocrite and Meghan has been labeled as a narcissist by social media users. Yet neither of them have been labeled as such by the mainstream media, because there is no evidence behind any of these claims. These are just unflattering and unnecessary criticism that have no place in an encyclopedic article. Keivan.fTalk 06:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"Kiki Wigglesworth" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Arranged thematically but not chronologically

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

It looks obvious to me since each paragraph appears to start with something akin to a topic sentence, and then flows into related themes. For example, a paragraph begins with In her capacity as patron of Action on Addiction, the Duchess has occasionally made visits to its centres, spending time with recovering addicts. which is then followed by examples of such visits. This then flows naturally into other healthcare work, which is again prefaced with a topic sentence Catherine has worked extensively in children's palliative care alongside East Anglia's Children's Hospices and undertakes private visits to children's hospices and their families. Adding a sub-section heading for a single paragraph which is already neatly set out with a clear topic is unnecessary, even intrusive. DrKay (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@DrKay: Obviously, it makes sense from a thematic point of view, but when the eye focuses on the dates, it's rather disturbing (to me) to see the dates that do not follow in a section of a WP's article. If you look at the section #Privacy and the media of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex's article, there is a subsection called "Court cases" then two little sub-subsections are included inside ("Associated Newspapers Limited" and "Other cases"), and it's more clear and readable, at least to me. Meghan's section #Patronages and interests is split in half and what I also see is that it has GA status. The entire #Charity work section of Catherine's article is not visually appealing − even if that does not take away the quality of its content. That is all I wanted to say. Oroborvs (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Profile picture change

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

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

Main picture

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

You were given an appropriate answer several times before. Please, stop asking the same question. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why you contacted me at my talk page when you are discussing this here. Replacing the picture with another (which it has to be said, you never proposed any alternative, you merely expected us to replace it with another picture) will not solve this alleged bullying issue. If people want to bully Catherine, they will bully her, no matter which picture is used. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Platinum Jubilee medals

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

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

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

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

@Theeveralst : It is your prerogative to guess whatever you like. Sampajanna (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Why were her golden and platinum jubilee medals removed? She has been a serving member for over a decade now and she is entitled to have received both. 72.136.95.67 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@Sampajanna can you please revert the changes made by 'Theeveralst' because they have no merit Stopwiththenonsense (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

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

There doesn't need to be, she is currently a working royal and has been for over a decade, and Meghan is not. 72.136.95.67 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This website says that female royals also received the medal: https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/the-royal-family-proudly-wears-their-platinum-jubilee-medals-177620/ Stopwiththenonsense (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
That website says Anyone can apply to be a blogger on Royal Central. It therefore does not appear to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, unless Jess Ilse (the blogger in this case) is an established author or expert in the field. DrKay (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I mean she has a bachelor's in journalism from University of King's College, she's made over 1500 posts and apparently has corresponded with various media so she's not just a random person off the street... Stopwiththenonsense (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likely future queen

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

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

Incorrect Description of Party Pieces

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

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

Cornwall and Cambridge

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

Husband's title change confirmed in Charles III's address to the UK and Commonwelath. 2601:3C1:C300:3950:ECF7:16FD:15B8:DAE0 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Written sources confirming this will soon turn up on royal.uk, BBC News and the Royal Household's twitters. DBD 17:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022 (2)

The Title needs to be changed to HRH The Princess of Wales

Catherine is not divorced, so styling her in an identical fashion as Diana, Princess of Wales is incorrect.

Diana, when she was married, was HRH The Princess of Wales, she was styled as Diana, Princess of Wales when she divorced Charles. 80.6.40.86 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Official names and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). DrKay (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing instances of "Duchess" to "Princess" or even just "Catherine"

Now that she's the Princess of Wales, we need to correct instances where she's referred to as "the Duchess" in the present tense. Unfortunately this is a massive undertaking in such a lengthy article that refers to her overwhelmingly by title and not name. Maybe someone with a lot of free time can do it, or maybe we can do it section by section. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Titles and styles section

Should be written as text or removed/trimmed. The table states that she is referred to as Her Royal Highness the Countess of Strathearn in Scotland at present. She isn't, in practice. DrKay (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In what universe does it make sense to remove the entire section because of this? If it is really wrong to list that one title, then remove that one title. The title is listed on the Prince of Wales's page though, so I doubt it is wrong. - FalconJackson (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood. The problem is not the title. It is the date that it was in regular use. It is only given once on her husband's page up to 8 September. Here, it is given twice: once up to 8 September and once up to the present. It is not in use since 8 September. That content is misleading. She hasn't lost the title, but it is not used in practice. DrKay (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Still doesn't warrant the removal of the entire section, that was just bizarre. Surely it should be identical to William's section (but for the pronouns and Kate's lack of titles before the marriage obviously)? - FalconJackson (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Catherine is merely a PROBABLE future Queen Consort

As of the date and time I am typing this, this article says that Catherine has now become a future Queen Consort. Not so. She could die before her husband becomes King. He could die before Charles III dies, in which event William would never be King and Catherine would NOT be a Queen Consort. She is a "probable future Queen Consort", not a "future Queen Consort".2600:8804:8C40:401:C443:27EA:F4C5:59B6 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

At the present moment, they are all alive, and concerning the probabilities of death, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. What is factual is that William, Prince of Wales, is now first in the line of succession, which is verifiable. Oroborvs (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Correct, and you proved Christopher's point. It is the very fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball which makes it impossible for us to say Kate is a future Queen Consort. William could die before he's ever King. She could die before he's ever King. They could divorce before he's ever King (seems highly unlikely, but again, we are not a crystal ball). Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Succubus MacAstaroth: Editors do not give their opinions on articles; they summarize reliable sources. You speak only of assumptions, I speak to you of the fact that she is the wife of William, Prince of Wales. Wikipedia has a straightforward, just-the-facts style, if we apply the principle, then "making Catherine the next queen consort" is appropriate. You make things vague. Oroborvs (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Titles

Catherine is still Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge, hence that line in the Titles section should read September 8, 2022 - Present, instead of September 8 - 9 only. 121.58.224.237 (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, she didn't loose any of her titles on 9 Sept. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The titles section is now correct. The notification box above it may now be removed. 121.58.224.237 (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Somebody edited the titles section again. She is Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge from September 8 - present. William's page now reflects this correct form. 121.58.224.237 (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It's been changed back to end dates again Dbainsford (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of "mathematics"

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

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

Wrong. Slang is different than an abbreviation and doesn't require an abbreviation point. But it should be in British English in this article, and in any event we have plenty of room to spell out full words in the encyclopedia. Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Article changed to 'mathematics'. Sampajanna (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Baroness Airedale??

At the time I'm typing this, this article says "... describes Michael Middleton's family as having aristocratic ancestry with Baroness Airedale (1868–1942) being his distant ancestor". That's just not possible. Baroness Airedale died in 1942. Michael Middleton was born in 1949. She's either a recent ancestor (in which case just say "grandmother" or "great-grandmother" or "great-great-grandmother" or similar, whichever pertains) or she's not an ancestor at all. What is the meaning of "distant" in this context? There are other places in Wikipedia (oh, here I go again, using Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia, because I think an encyclopedia should care to not say contradictory things) where Baroness Airedale is referred to as Michael Middleton's "distant RELATIVE" (emphasis mine), NOT "distant ancestor".2600:8804:8C40:401:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Titles & styles section

Hello, all. I've noticed that there has been some dispute about this article's Titles and styles section, especially here: [1]. To avoid further conflict, I would like to initiate a discussion so that we can decide once and for all how this section should actually look like. @Surtsicna, please feel free to join the discussion, seeing as you have contributed to this issue before. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this thread. I believe there is no need for two sections with repetitive information when one well-worded section will do. The dates are not in the sources and some are unsourceable. The "Miss" stuff is silly fluff; we do not have it in articles about other women. What titles she has held and with which of those titles she has been styled can be properly explained only in prose. Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the whole "Miss" business is odd, but I actually rather like the format of bullet points and dates. Other articles, including features ones like Mary of Teck also list titles in this manner, so it does have precedent and support. However, I will be happy with either option that is decided in the end. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
One of the problems with the bullet points is that the "Miss" business becomes unavoidable when we have them. Seemingly also unavoidable is the editors and readers' confusion between held titles and used styles. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually, the editor who brought back the bullet points made an excellent point that this discussion already took place on Talk:William, Prince of Wales##RfC_on_Titles_and_Styles. Though I find it funny-sounding, I took a look at the citation for the "Miss" part and found that it actually was something the Royal Palace's official website went with, so who am I to argue with that? We'll see what the community says, but for now, most Wikipedians seem to be in favor of the bullet point system. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The RfC at Prince William was closed early by the same editor who opened it and was not closed properly. The subsequent RfC shows a clear consensus that the section should not be split. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into that. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
So now you've just deleted the section entirely??????????????? Who is running this page? A bunch of Megalomaniac stans? It's reinstated now but seriously what is going on? She is entitled to her titles and she has had a title section like every other royal for a decade. 142.189.134.56 (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
May I also add that she is either HRH "The" Duchess of Cambridge, etc. or simply "Duchess of Cambridge" never "the" anything and there should also be mention that she was a princess of the United Kingdom by marriage before becoming Princess of Wales. 142.189.134.56 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Future page title

Hello, all. I have decided to start this discussion now in order to avoid chaos if/when Catherine becomes Queen. What would the article be called when said situation happens? Queen Catherine is far too general and risks excluding important historical individuals such as Catherine de' Medici, Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Parr, etc. However, as indicated by the talk pages of Charles III and Camilla, Queen Consort, most Wikipedians do not like the phrase "of the United Kingdom" in the article title as it excludes the Commonwealth realms. So, what do we all think? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I, for one, think there are far more pressing things to discuss. Charles III's parents both lived to late 90s. He may well outlive Wikipedia. One thing I am concerned about is the article reading like an engagement diary. Does a general encyclopedic biography really need to tell its readers that in June 2020, Catherine talked to some children about "self-care and opening up about your feelings"? Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree. There does not need to be an excessive listing of Catherine’s engagements. As I do plan on promoting this article to GA status one day, it is a concerning issue. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I think she will be known as Catherine, Queen Consort just as Camilla is now since they both had the same title accession. As for her page 'reading like an engagement diary' I disagree and 'Surtsicna' is one of the many users I see on here who only ever posts negative things about the Princess of Wales, trying to either erase information that is valid here or cast her in a negative light. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I do not believe that Catherine will be known as "Queen Consort". Legally, that term would describe her, of course, but precedent and English law has shown that a queen consort has always been simply called "the Queen". Heck, even Camilla is likely to be referred as simply "Queen Camilla" in the coming years. Because Catherine is far more popular than Camilla, I am sure that people will have no problem with addressing her as Queen. The other problem here is that all the other women under the page Queen Catherine are all Catherines who were queens consort, so that doesn't really help with the ambiguity issue. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Spelling of titles

Can someone please for the love of all that is holy fix her titles? 'The' must ALWAYS be capitalized, so "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge" should be "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge" AND "Her Royal Highness the Countess of Strathearn" should be "Her Royal Highness The Countess of Strathearn" AND "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge" should be "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge". Minor details they may be, but these are still her correct titles. 174.95.59.169 (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Keivan.fTalk 15:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

@Unlimitedlead: I highly doubt anyone would oppose the use of this photo in the infobox, unless there's a problem with its copyright. I will be glad if anyone could establish whether the license in use is appropriate or not, so that we can change it with the current photo that is four years old. Keivan.fTalk 21:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Keivan.f. I am fine with this picture. I removed it because of a lack of prior discussion on this talk page (which could be done now, by the way) and because the copyright it not as clear-cut as the current image. This one has a UK Open Government Licence v3.0 license, but there is no US-tag, which makes me hesitant to use it. If you could clear that up, then I have no problem with this image being a possible candidate for this article's lead image. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Glad to hear that you're also in favor of its use. I will keep an eye on this discussion to see if anyone happens to point out a problem with its license tag, because I personally do not consider myself an expert on such matters. If no opposition arises, I guess it will be safe to assume that we can use it. Keivan.fTalk 22:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks very encyclopedic. Surtsicna (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Certainly an improvement upon the previous one: she wasn't even looking at the camera. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Please don't call strangers by their given names (far less nicknames), and please don't waste others' time with your admitted lack of knowledge regarding this standard genealogical term. This is an encyclopedia, not Buzzfeed or some gossip blog. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Insisting others avoid calling a pop-culture celebrity by the name most commonly used to identify them is an inappropriate application of archiac etiquette. WP:NOBITING
Toogs (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikt:issue: (now usually historical or law) Offspring: one's natural child or children. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
"Issue" in this sense means "a child that was issued forth from a person's body", and is standard usage. Has nothing to do with mental issues or life problems, lol. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Kate name

I don't know the proper wording but I think the first paragraph should mention in bold that Catherine is quite often referred to as Kate Middleton (including in most references of the article). --Rinaku (t · c) 11:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing there's a policy insisting on formal titles for royals, because the avoidance of "Kate" in this article feels totally contrived. It's overly-formal, like someone who insists on using the scientific name for common animals. Toogs (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Should we really add media have fanatically, almost hysterically hyped her name as Kate Middleton, though her surname no longer is Middleton? Just askin'. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Duchess of Cambridge title

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

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

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

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

If you read through the archives you will see numerous previous discussions on this matter. One example is at Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge/Archive 7#Incorrect Title. Perhaps we need an FAQ at the top of this talk page? --David Biddulph (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
After some reading, it seems that "Her Royal Highness" is the honorific that sets apart married versus divorced royal ex-spouses. Her title should be listed as "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge". Sergeant Curious (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
She should at a minimum be listed as Catherine, HRH The Princess of Wales. Catherine, Princess of Wales implies she is divorced from William. Most accurately she is simply The Princess of Wales, as the "The" implies a current holder of the title. 2603:6080:2D40:606:8989:E4FF:D9DB:31F8 (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Princess of Wales

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

She wasn't created Catherine, Princess of Wales. She was created The Princess of Wales. She did not divorce her husband when the late Queen passed. If one must use her Christian name, she is Catherine, HRH The Princess of Wales. IF one does not believe the difference is important, research interviews with Diana, Princess of Wales regarding the loss of her HRH status and her new divorced title. 2603:6080:2D40:606:8989:E4FF:D9DB:31F8 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding ‘The’ in front of title

I know this has been debated before but there is a clear need to be “The” in front of the Princess of Wales as Diana was also called the Princess of Wales, so there will be some confusion. So I believe that “The” should be added to all married royals titles, so that the people can see who is divorced. It quite ironic how members of Wikipedia, do not want to change this but they are so pedantic about everything else. 2.99.23.25 (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Without the The legally it would assume the bearer is divorced from the current Prince of Wales like Sarah Duchess of York or the Late Diana, Princess of Wales Dbainsford (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to. Diana died in 1997 & so there's no confusion. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Could yoy please review the royal titles act and latter patent on the use on the princely title. Thank you Dbainsford (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: There is confusion. We now have two Princess of Wales: Catherine, Princess of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales. Technically, Catherine holds the title Princess of Wales 1, 2, and "This special title was last used by Charles' then-wife, Princess Diana, who died in 1997 at age 36" 3. When Queen Elizabeth II died, her article became "Elizabeth II", so the article about Diana, Princess of Wales, should be "Diana Spencer", or maybe I missed something. Oroborvs (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
There's no confusion. Catherine is the wife of the current Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@GoodDay: WP:TECHNICAL says an audience can be "graded in three ways". Diana held her courtesy title from 28 August 1996 until 31 August 1997, when she died, but now, 25 years after her death, the page is still "Diana, Princess of Wales", and nothing supports that. "Diana, Princess of Wales" should be Diana Spencer, which would be "straightforward, just-the-facts style". Oroborvs (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Oroborvs: I repeated this elsewhere and I’m gonna repeat it again. Diana is still referred to as "Diana, Princess of Wales" by the royal household 1, just as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is still Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother 2. People don’t get demoted when they die. It’s like saying Elizabeth II should now be referred to as Princess Elizabeth of York, her title at birth, because she’s technically no longer the Queen of the UK. Another example would be Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (born Alice Montagu Douglas Scott) and Maria, Duchess of Gloucester and Edinburgh (born Maria Walpole). Now you cannot really argue that the reader would confuse these two with the living Duchess of Gloucester, who is Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester. Keivan.fTalk 21:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Keivan and GoodDay are correct. Diana is now a deceased historical figure, not a living person, and there are multiple historical figures who hold the same title/style as a living person or as another historical figure. This is normal. There is no need to change Diana's page. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
It isn't about a lack of confusion. It is inherently incorrect. If you are married to the prince from whom you derive the title, you retain the "The" as the active holder of the title. Catherine is HRH The Princess of Wales. If Diana was still alive, Diana would be Diana, Princess of Wales and Catherine would be The Princess of Wales. If you want to include her Christian name, as in a wikipedia article, the correct address is Catherine, HRH The Princess of Wales. She isn't divorced. 2603:6080:2D40:606:8989:E4FF:D9DB:31F8 (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is anybody going to get confused by Frederick, Prince of Wales, Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, William, Prince of Wales, etc? GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Good example; I was about to put it forward myself. And to answer the question, no, I doubt it. Keivan.fTalk 21:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Thanks for the list; we can see that we cannot make a difference between the former and the current prince (and princess). I agree with the IP who started this thread; "The" should appear in front of her title in the lead. Oroborvs (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. We don't need "The" appearing in the title. Diana is dead & has been for over 25 years. It's obvious that Catherine is Princess of Wales, now. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
My question is why is there no agreement on adding "The" in front of the title, that is the correct way to say the titles. If that does not happen than wikipedia is not accurate. It even says it on a wikipedia page that divorced duchesses don't have the in front of titles so why not put it for royals who are married. It does not make sense, and the justifications are flawed because everything else is so precise on wikipedia. Theeveralst (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
It is not only Wikipedia. Encyclopædia Britannica does not list current members of the royal family solely with their titles either. For many foreign readers who are not accustomed to British traditional system of titling and naming, first names are crucial for the purpose of disambiguation and clarification. This was discussed in length about 11 years ago, and the consensus was that we should incorporate the first names into the lede. Keivan.fTalk 21:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Even if first names are crucial, the article "The" has always been crucial in British royalty. Children of monarchs become The Prince/Princess. QEII elevated HRH Prince Philip to HRH The Prince Philip, and when her sons got divorced, she took away the "the" from their wives. No one is really arguing the confusion. We're saying that Catherine deserves to be recognized as William's wife, not his divorced wife. You can call her Catherine, HRH The Princess of Wales and not confuse anyone while still according her the respect that the British nobility says she dexerves. 2603:6080:2D40:606:8989:E4FF:D9DB:31F8 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m not saying to remove the first name. I’m saying to put the title as “Catherine, The Princess of Wales” or “Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex” and to keep divorced royals as “Diana, Princess of Wales” or “Sarah, Duchess of York” Theeveralst (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Not required. We don't use "The" in Prince William's BLP, concerning his being Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
You should. William is not divorced from some other guy who is The Prince of Wales 2603:6080:2D40:606:8989:E4FF:D9DB:31F8 (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Hear Hear! I would argue that Catherine and Sophie and Camilla should get HRH before their title but the general sense is the same. THE is important in titles because the British royal family has decided it is. We ought to observe this. 2603:6080:2D40:606:8989:E4FF:D9DB:31F8 (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Flawed point, this rule is mainly towards female by marriage members of the royal family as they usually use their husbands tiles as a curtsy. For this to be shown to other Wikipedia users, this should be included. I think it is feasible for a vote to be set up for this. Theeveralst (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Even if we keep the first names, it is still more correct to call women with active courtesy titles derived from their husbands, “Catherine, The Princess of Wales,” calling her “Catherine, Princess of Wales” implies she was formerly The Princess of Wales but divorced her husband. This is established usage in Britain; it is how Diana went from being “The Princess of Wales” to “Diana, Princess of Wales.” The latter form is for a divorced woman who has technically lost the title but keeps the usage as a courtesy. I understand needing to keep the first name, but the definite article should be in there, because the “The” is actually a part of the current and active title! And means something different when it is removed, according to traditional usage. Jellyjiggling (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Can there be a vote on this matter? Theeveralst (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

People Magazine even has an article on the necessity of the “The” in current titles. It a substantive part of the title:

https://people.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-no-longer-called-her-majesty-the-queen/ Jellyjiggling (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

For everyone's information here, her title is either "Catherine, Princess of Wales" or "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales" or "HRH The Princess of Wales". "The" is used when her first name is not and it is ALWAYS capitalized. If someone could please make this change under her titles and stop this nonsense of removing the section entirely and other things trying to erase her titles that she rightfully holds that would be wonderful. 142.189.134.56 (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catherine,_Princess_of_Wales/Archive_8&oldid=1193573698"