Talk:Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2


Let us not get into a ding-dong over "their". The following suffices and reads well: ...birth of their second child. The child will be... behind elder brother... father Prince William, and grandfather...[1] Qexigator (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It reads fine without a pronoun. DrKiernan (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The sentence with "their" in it didn't seem like logical English to me. But perhaps that's just me... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

" least three children....twins..."

Is Hello![2] an acceptable source?

If the birth results in twins, the person supervising the birth will decide which of the twins was born first. Is this usually mentioned? Is it needed here? Is it mere padding? Why not link to an article which elaborates on the usual practice in such cases? Qexigator (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello is not a suitable source for BLPs, and the Duchess is a living person. Talking about twins is original research unless a reliable source can be found that discusses the issue of the Duchess being pregnant with twins. Martin451 23:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello? "The Duchess is suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum, a condition that is more often experienced by women expecting twins. Mothers-to-be who suffer from the condition are three times more likely to have a multiple birth than other women" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
We know now she had one child, so that speculation from 2012 was incorrect. The announcement from the palace this week explicitly says "child", so all this talk of twins is unnecessary. DrKiernan (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh well. It seems there have never been any British Royal Twins, but only Scottish. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a tabloid to me. Not sure if you realised that if there's multiple birth, not all the babies will come out at the same time, but rather it will come out one by one, so I don't understand how you came to that conclusion that "the person supervising the birth will decide which of the twins was born first.". reddevol0728 (talk) 3:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, another good point. Qexigator (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
"Is it mere padding?" No, I think a twin would probably show up clearly on the scans. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"big brother" George

The article mentions media reports suggesting that the pregnancy announcement would have an effect on the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum,[3] which seems barely relevant to the topic. But if that is acceptable, the article could also mention that Ed Miliband, the Labour Party (UK) leader, and Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom) has been reported by The Guardian as saying: "Fantastic to hear that Prince George will soon be a big brother!"[4] Coming from such a prominent politician, that may be notable as an inadvertent (or intentional?) reference to Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four) or Big Brother (UK). Is there a place for it in this article (if not at Prince George of Cambridge[5]? Qexigator (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTHESIS or original research, and has no place in either article. Martin451 19:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
As my Right Honourable colleague probably knows, Mr Miliband is member for Doncaster North, not Wigan. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. It may be SYN and (well) OR, but does the last comment rightly hint at the gentleman's P.C. status? No need to answer on a PC or p.c. or otherwise. Qexigator (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "P.C. status" but I think you're reading a bit too much into the comment. George is going to be a big brother - in that he is going to have a younger sibling, thus making him a brother that is bigger. It's a fairly common term outside of the Orwellian use. Psunshine87 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
That was a jocular response in kind to Martinevans123. As you know, "Right Honourable" Ed Milliband = status of Privy Counsellor. It may be that Milliband was not aware of what his words could be taken to signify. But his remark also chimes (like 13) with Orwell's critique of Labour (socialist) politics of the previous generation's era, such as Milliband pe're. Please note, that the cue (sic) for this is the political allusion in the article mentioned in the opening paragraph of this section. Qexigator (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Independence referendum sentence

Some media reports suggested that the pregnancy announcement would have an effect on the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum, scheduled to take place less than a fortnight later, providing a boost to pro-union sentiment.[6]

That is unwarranted press speculation about a current political issue, devoid of any supporting fact, and wholly unrelated to the information about the pregnancy as such. It is out of place in this article and should be removed. The article as a whole is being considered for deletion. There is no need to pad it in that sort of way.[7]. Whether or not such speculation is notable enough for the article on Scottish independence referendum, 2014 it will certainly not be notable here. Qexigator (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Has no basis in fact whatsoever. Not really sure it's notable as part of global reaction/comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The speculation is notable and reliably sourced. That's makes it a legitimate candidate for inclusion. Bo.Clive (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If that is all that can be said in its favour, then it should be removed. Why notable? The source for this kind of unfactual speculation does not make it either notable or relevant here. Qexigator (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The speculation is notable if it comes from a notable commentator. If more than one notable commentator makes speculates similarly, as in this case, then it becomes even more notable. That it is reliably sourced too makes it verifiable. It ticks all the boxes that I can see. Bo.Clive (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ticking boxes does not make the irrelevant relevant. If it is notable its place would be Scottish independence referendum, 2014. Qexigator (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
This unborn baby ticks all the boxes for possible future monarch. Oh, hang on.... there's only one! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been BOLD and reverted the edit by Qexigator which removed the discussion of how some media have speculated a link between the Socttish independence referendum and the announcement of this pregnancy. My edit diff: [8]. I note that the edit summary which removed the content said "rmv irrelevant information about non-factual partisan speculation about an extraneous political activity- may belong elsewhere: see Talk" (diff). which I believe is an unfair/hostile description of this well footnoted and neutrally-written sentence. I also don't believe this section of the talkpage indicates a consensus to remove the sentence. Finally I note that at least three people on the deletion discussion (Dereckson, Lankiveil and Chuq ) have referred to this sentence as a main reason for their "keep" comment - while Qexigator voted to "delete". Therefore, I believe that it should at least not be removed while the deletion debate is ongoing. Wittylama 21:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

But it doesn't even feature at Scottish independence referendum, 2014. So appears to be just journalistic froth, without any substance in fact. Perhaps about as notable as A Former Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, knitting a toy kangaroo for the baby?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
What appears, or doesn't, in any other article is not relevant here. Each article is independent of each other and they may each have different editor groups. There is no central coordinator ensuring synchronisation. If you disagree please explain why you think this article should only contain what appears in other articles. Bo.Clive (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying the pregnancy announcement had nothing to do with the Scottish Referendum. That's why it's not mentioned at the Referendum article. The only people who suggested it was relevant were speculative journalists. I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for speculative journalism. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh look, it's just appeared! Someone must think it's relevant over there. But I still think it's irrelevant media froth. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
BOLD or not, the points mentioned in Wittylama's comment (21:51, 13 September) are irrelevant to the edit undone, and fail to address the ones that matter, namely, relevance to the mother's pregnancy, and, if the information is notable, why is it not at Scottish independence referendum. This is not an emotive question of who, if anyone, may be considered hostile, or scoring points on the Delete proposal, but of the encyclopedic quality of the article's content. Qexigator (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The relevance to the pregnancy is in the article - did you miss it? It is that there is verifiable speculation that the news of the pregnancy may had an impact on the outcome of the referendum. To discuss why this reliably verifiable information is not in that other article, well you need to go to that article's talk page, here we should only be concerned about the content of this article. Bo.Clive (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Reply to Bo.Clive (09:44 14 September ). The verifiable speculation does not and will not make it relevant to the ante-natal or post-natal biography of the child, as yet unborn, which is the topic of the article. The press speculation has now been added to Scottish independence referendum, 2014[9] (14:30, 14 September), where it belongs if anywhere, not here. The article is short for the time being, and to maintian its quality it should not be padded with frivolous and extraneous ephemera. Qexigator (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
As the idea that this sentence should to appear in the Scottish Independence article was suggested several times [e.g. above: "and, if the information is notable, why is it not at Scottish independence referendum"] - I figured I would go in and "sofixit" myself directly. I was going to wait for a day to see if there was any followup editing/comments/reversion before pointing it out here. Wittylama 15:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, Wittylama (15:47, 14 September) no prob. That's where its relevance may prevail over its marginal notability as a peripheral part of a day or two's politicking and journalistic disinformative space-filling. Qexigator (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


given that the article is so short, headings are unnecessary: edit summary 10:51, 12 September 2014 [10]. The article is here in readiness for the birth, when its content may, like "big brother" George's, be expanded with sections for Announcement, Birth, Title and style,[11] but headings had not been introduced in George's article until the birth was imminent, and in the meantime headings are not needed here and would be better removed. Qexigator (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - subsections aren't required yet. Wittylama 09:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Mother absent from opening ceremony

The article mentions The Duke and Duchess were expected the Dickson Poon ... China Centre Building at ... Oxford on 8 September, but ... the Duchess ... was unable to attend. That has sufficient factual basis and relevance for inclusion, but may be removed when its notability fades with the passage of time. I feel it will do no harm to the article at this stage to add external link which includes pictures of the event, showing the father and the absence of the mother.< ref >Dickson Poon University of Oxford China Centre Building opened[12] < /ref > St Hugh's College OxfordDuke of Cambridge opens Dickson Poon University of Oxford China Centre Building[ ] I will do this. Some editors may feel it is UNDUE or violates some other WP but support here will be welcomed by....Qexigator (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this detail is important in the context of the article because - according to the information cited to footnote no.4 [Witchell, Nicholas (8 September 2014) BBC] it was her being absent from this particular event that was the reason why the palace decided to make the announcement. While listing all the other events she is going to miss over the next few months would be "undue weight", noting this particular one in the context of how it was the cause of her pregnancy being announced is a fact worth retaining. Wittylama 13:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You could say it's important to note that on the day she was supposed to do an event at Oxford and her inability to attend it is what caused the palace to make the announcement. However, is it really necessary add the details of the event? If you leave it just at she was supposed to do an event at Oxford and didn't because of the pregnancy then you can remove two of the citations within the sentence, as it's all covered by the Clarence House pregnancy announcement.Psunshine87 (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Psunshine87 (18:16, 15 September): Yes, the information is there, but the external link has pictures of the event. Agreed, not strictly necessary, but useful to start an "External links" section, and, as said above, information and links may be removed later on when notability fades with the passage of time. Qexigator (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the link up and into the article itself as a direct inline citation (rather than as an 'external link' where it was more awkward). This has replaced the second citation of the original press-release as the information in this Oxford University news item can be used to justify the same claim in the article. That should be a better use of the content that way :-) Wittylama 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
p.s. I think it's interesting how much work and discussion is going in to this article when it is currently up for deletion and with a majority of people (including people actively helping here!) saying that it should be deleted. Wittylama 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved.[13] Qexigator (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (Sept 2014)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. (non-admin closure)innotata 20:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Second child of the Duke and Duchess of CambridgeSecond pregnancy of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge – Because "second child" is sort of crystal balling. Consider -- if the Duchess were to miscarry or require an abortion tomorrow, and then they had another child a few years down the road, would we not then call that their second child, and not their third?. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This pregnancy is not notable enough as such, other than as part of the mother's biography, and as it may affect the public engagements of the parents. The notability is due to the anticipated birth of the expected child as fourth in the line of succession. If, unhappily, the pregnancy terminates before the birth, we would not expect there to be a separate article. The present article is in the expectation of the birth, when the article's name will be changed, as happened for big brother George, and it will be continued biographically as befits the notability. If the pregnancy is terminated, the name "Second child..." would be discontinued and be available in the event of a further pregnancy. Actually, if no source supports the supposition about the number of the pregnancy it would be indelicate to make an implication either way. Qexigator (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The duke isn't pregnant. DrKiernan (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Biologically that is true. But isn't this regarded as a "joint enterprise?" I bet he had a hand in it! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
      • It's true that a pregnancy is not a solo-act, but it's still just not correct English. It might be fashionable these days for couples to say "we're pregnant" but the phrase for that is "our baby" not "our pregnancy". Wittylama 12:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
        • And I'm not claiming they'd say any such thing. I'm suggesting that it's an allowable deviation from "correct English" to avoid a number of other more awkward alternatives, and to avoid the present title, which many regard as inaccurate and presumptuous. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment Any source for an allowable deviation? "...many..."? More would not deviate into so foolish an attitude. Qexigator (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
More than what? Sorry, no. Nor any source for "common sense should prevail" apart from WP:Consensus. I think the AfD discussion might give an indication of alternate views, whether or not they are deemed "foolish". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment That may be a reasonable surmise (not strictly "logical"), but "...declared..." would be even less acceptable: it would be indelicate to make an implication either way. Qexigator (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as the original creator of the article obviously I'm going to be satisfied with the title that I picked :-) When the child is born and given a name THEN we'll need to rename the article - obviously. Until then "second child" is the most specific that we can get. As DrKiernan pointed out - the Duke is not pregnant, and speculating about how many pregnancies pointlessly tabloid sensationalism. Wittylama 09:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If I remember right, the page for Prince George was titled "Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" until his name was revealed. It seems to be the way to have the fewest moves - what's the point in moving it now, only to move it back to Second Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge when he/she is born, only to move it again when his/her name is revealed? Psunshine87 (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as once moved, Someone would disagree so would be re-moved again and so would be a huge merry-go-round ... To save confusion edit wars and arguments imho It should just be left as it is .–Davey2010(talk) 21:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why does this page even exist? When they're born they'll probably get a page, as royalty often does, but it seems a bit silly to have a page on this right now. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • This article has already been nominated for deletion and, after extensive discussion, the decision was to keep. If you would like to read the reasoning please go to the deletion debate page. Wittylama 07:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (Dec 2014)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below (WP:SNOW). Dekimasuよ! 06:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Second child of the Duke and Duchess of CambridgeDaughter of the Duchess of Cambridge – the following web site reveals a girl: Georgia guy (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Georgia guy (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • The website is a tabloid paper that doesn't have any named sources. Unless there's an official announcement that she's having a girl everything else is speculation. Psunshine87 (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I recommend that the article stay with its present title until the child is given a name. Then it can be moved to "Prince xyz of Cambridge" or "Princess xyz of Cambridge" following the precedent of its older brother Prince George of Cambridge. Also - note that the sex of the first baby wasn't announced until the birth, and that the name George was announced publicly within a day. Wittylama 15:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems out of character for the royals to disclose such information. Many sources state reportedly. Even if the report was truthful, ultrasound interpretations can be got wrong. Gregkaye 15:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose A change of article name is totally unncecessary, even if the information were to be confirmed by the parents authorising certified medical disclosure, which could be mentioned in the article. Qexigator (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, if Hollywood Life is anything like the National Enquirer. The Enquirer (for example) has been reporting that Elizabeth II is dying or is going to abdicate & has chosen William as her successor. FWIW, Elizabeth II isn't dying or abdicating & she has no say in who her successor will be. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and early close of RM per WP:SNOW. In ictu oculi (talk)
  • Oppose per my previous comment, Not entirely sure why on earth there's another request anyway!. –Davey2010(talk) 04:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A girl?? looks like it's saying that the baby will be a girl. Is this source reliable?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously. She's even wearing a pink coat! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it's now time to move the page. Any objections?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course there are objections. Pages should only be moved without a requested move if there is no previous discussion of the article title. DrKiernan (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps if the requested move were today, there would be more votes to support. Georgia guy (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
If only your section header here had three question marks instead of just two. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus to move, an no change in the situation from the last time this move was suggested. This is not a reliable source for what is, in effect, a BLP article. I argue that this should be moved ONLY when the child is born and has been announced officially with a NAME. Wittylama 00:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Is this question going to be asked every time a tabloid claims that Catherine's having a girl? They claimed she was having a girl during her last pregnancy too, and look how that turned out. If we follow the precedent of George, then the page will be moved to either "Son/Daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" once he/she is born and the gender is announced, then will be moved again to "Prince/Princess X of Cambridge" once his/her name is announced. There's no reason to move this page before there's a birth. Psunshine87 (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think Princess X is a lovely name for a girl. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The above seems enough to let this discussion be closed, in the hope that it will not be revived. Qexigator (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I thunk it was hinted by The Duke or Duchess that their first child would be a girl. Moving the page on speculation would be rather silly. A source naming the child is not reliable, that name is pretty much decided by the parents in conjunction with the Prince Charles and the Queen, and they would not let it out before the birth. Remember that wp:wikipedia has no deadline, so we don't need to be moving pages about as events happen. Also the popular press often print what they want to happen rather than what has happened. Martin451 23:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015

Jovianec6 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jamietw (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems you may have wanted to name the baby Princess Catherine of Cambridge. If so, you should use a move request, not an edit request. But don't bother till you have a good reason (and reliable source). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Article title

Upon the girl's birth, this article should've been moved to Princess NN of Cambridge. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Which would achieve what exactly? It's fine where it is until the girl's name is announced. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The new born princess neither has, nor is expected to have, the name "NN". That cipher communicates no information, and has no place here. The name will be known soon enough, and that is the time to alter the article title. Qexigator (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
"NN", what a pretty name. So unusual too. The article used to say she was called "(nyn)" but now her name is "(NN)". All nice names though, and quite charming. Thincat (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
NN means Nomen nescio. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
It's like MM, but without the nasty Roman numeral connotations. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

How much do various women's opinions weigh? (Very little, really)

I see The Independent is noting how Komsomolskaya Pravda noted women arguing that Middleton's newborn doesn't look like theirs did, therefore she sat on it (figuratively) for a few days.

Granted, The Independent takes care to use the terms "conspiracy theory" ("possible conspiracy theory", even) and "pro-Kremlin", which English Wikipedia should take to mean "not exactly pravda". So without implying the claims themselves are facts, is the fact that these claims have been put forth in the international mainstream worth mentioning? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not just The Independent, either. It seems every British tabloid has picked this up today, if only to make themselves look better. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
But comforting to see the "Health" section in Komsomolskaya Pravda (regrettably quite low down on the page) is shared with 415-kg Brit Carl Thompson, who may be also having a baby, or two, I guess: [14]. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC) [15]
Do you happen to speak enough Russian to find the actual article? They all seem to link to that home page. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh right. Google can translate things. Nevermind. Funny how the "Russian women" there are mainly commenters on The Daily Mail website. And how the phrase "May rose" is in there. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Everybody knows that the royal family are actually shape-changing lizard people, so of course it isn't a real baby. Why has it taken so long for the Russians to realise it?Everybody knows that the royal family are actually shape-changing lizard people, so of course it isn't a real baby. Why has it taken so long for the Russians to realise it? (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
... maybe because they have to be told everything twice? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Get ready for the next big thing

Be careful, don't get too riled up about the little details. Let's just wait until the little one's born and then we can get all the facts straight (like gender, birthdate, obviously) and a whole lot more. Oh, and get a picture. 1234567890Number2 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think 8 pounds 6 ounces was that big (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems relatively bigger now. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Here comes the pain! No detail too small, no update too soon. My money's on "Philip", if it's a girl. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Fun Fact: The day that may one day be the new Queen of England and Scotland's birthday is also the day the old Queen of England was arrested for witchcraft and the old Queen of Scotland escaped from a castle. The tabloids would've loved those two. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Less Fun But Still Relevant Fact: The Queen Elizabeth 2 made its maiden voyage this day in 1969. And Led Zeppelin played the Rose Palace. I change my vote to "Rose". InedibleHulk (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Happy 600th birthday to the Duchess of York, AKA the Queen of right, AKA the Rose of Raby. Also, the centenary of "In Flanders Fields" (mostly about poppies, but also about rows). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, "There's Rosemary." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Her actual rose is also titled "Duchess of Cornwall". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
More grounded in contemporary reality, Kate Middleton's "beloved" founded a jewelry store called Lola Rose. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
And here she is wearing Lela Rose. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Now this is just getting stupid. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't even noticed the author was "Alli Rosenbloom". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"Please put down your weapon and step away from the spectacles". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I was going to surrender, but found a more reputable "weapon". Queen Margaery Tyrell, sigil a golden rose, is, according to Rolling Stone, the Kate Middleton of Westeros.
And who did Natalie Dormer first become famous for playing? The aforementioned birthday witch, of course. Regardless of Wikipedia's standards, that's all the proof I need. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The Telegraph has a piece asking Alice, Diana or Carole? But if you Google "telegraph alice diana carole", "Rose" comes first in that list, at least on the results page. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems that Google knows more about you than you know about yourself. If it is Google, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought that, too, so I deleted all my temporary files and made sure my blocking stuff was turned on. Tried again, and bam. Still there. It's also moved up from virtually nowhere to 25/1 on William Hill since yesterday. So somebody else must be seeing the same future I am. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I hear you have quite a following at the bookies' offices, Hulk. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, that's only true for UFC. When I said my money's on Philip Rose, it was just a figure of speech. Too late now, and wouldn't want want to jinx it. If I've influenced anything, all credit is irrevocably released to Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee is looking forward to your generous donation. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Jockeys are murderous trolls. The horses do all the work. Maybe I'll donate some oats after the bull upsets at UFC 187. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
"Are we able to grow roses? Yes. Are we able to grow bulls? Apparently so!" InedibleHulk (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
But yeah, Charlotte's good, too.
I'll stick with Rose, myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015

The name was announced on 4th May 2015 as Charlotte Elizabeth Diana. (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this was resolved, probably independently. If there's something else you want done, do describe in greater detail. Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


User:Miesianiacal, can you explain the logic behind splitting up her name like that? Why not have her full name at the start of the article? The article on, for example, Bill Gates, doesn't begin "Bill Gates (William Henry Gates III)". Zacwill16 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Royal surnames: "For visual clarity, an article should begin with the form "{royal title} {name} {ordinal if appropriate} (full name – including surname if known, except for monarchs)" with the full name unformatted and the rest in bold... In practice, this means for example an article on Queen Elizabeth should begin "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary)"." Or, simply regard any Wikipedia biography of a member of the Princess' family. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
But why? What's objectionable about having the full name at the beginning, like in any article on a commoner? I can understand the logic in Queen Elizabeth's article, since her full name is rather long and cumbersome, but Princess Charlotte's full name is "Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge", which could easily fit at the start of the article. Zacwill16 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The guidance linked above begins For visual clarity.... That principle is the basic reason, and the details that follow normally produce an acceptable result, as in this and many other articles. Uniformity with such guidance is generally the better way to edit, and while there may be exceptions, none come to mind at this moment. Qexigator (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You will have to ask that question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned above, this is how it's done. See Prince George of Cambridge, for example. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If "this is how it's done" were an acceptable response or reasoning, there would never be any progress. Why not dare disturb the universe? Zacwill16's argument makes perfect sense. There is more (or at the very least just as much) "visual clarity" in "Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge" than in "William Henry "Bill" Gates III". Surtsicna (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
One more time: that's a comment that goes at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies, not here. This article follows the Manual of Style. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
There is really no need to repeat yourself. The discussion is not that long. The article does and does not follow the Manual of Style, since the Manual of Style is contradictory when it comes to this in more than one way. Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now opened a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Zacwill16 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

She won't always remain fourth??

What event (if it were to happen before she becomes England's new ruler) would demote her position from fourth to fifth?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

George has children. Calidum T|C 21:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Then grandchildren, and great-gr ..... She and her progeny will just get progressively lower in the order with such events. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
And before that happens, she's likely to become third, and then potentially second, depending on when George has children versus when Charles and then William each becomes King. Her likely path is not just down, since, unlike what happened with Charles and Princess Anne, she and George are very young in comparison with the current Queen and the Prince of Wales. Metheglyn (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
A temporary situation, that will be gradually reversed, assuming George marries & produces progeny, for generations to come. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
But assuming the top four suddenly die (yacht accident or something), we'd have a baby queen. That'd be cute, for a while. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
There are, fortunately for the status quo, no Royal Yachts today. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If George dies or abdicates without issue, it is possible that Charlotte could become Queen. That's how Elizabeth became queen; had Edward VIII managed to have any children before taking the throne and before the Wallis-Simpson business, that child would have become monarch upon his abdication. (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Title and style trivia

User:Keivan.f addded some trivia to the title and style section, it has been removed by two different users but has been put back in because other stuff exists. Perhaps it should be removed from the other articles as it is just trivia and bloat in this article as she is clearly a princess and we already have a reliable reference for that. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Keep it is informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015

Change "both were present at Prince George's 2013 birth." to "both were present at Prince George's birth in 2013." as a grammatical edit as the current statement gives the impression that he has had more than one birth. Page404 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So how many people have more than one birth (even when expressed in a grammatically correct way)? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Name Decision

The Princess's full name Is Charlotte Elizabeth Diana,Charlotte after her grandfather,Prince Charles Of Wales,Elizabeth after her Great-Grandmother,Queen Elizabeth II,and Diana after her late grandmother,Princess Diana Of Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that she's named Charlotte after her grandfather. Elizabeth is the name of her great-grandmother but is also the middle name of her mother and maternal grandmother. About Diana, it's completely clear that she's named after her paternal grandmother, the late Diana, Princess of Wales. I think we can add a sentence to her article and also Diana's saying that she is named in honour of her. When I search the news in Google, I see Time, Daily Mail and other websites has mentioned it. Keivan.fTalk 06:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Full name should be in opener.

Her full name and title is Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge - as shown on her birth certificate:- The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have formally registered the birth of Princess Charlotte

— Kensington Palace ‏@KensingtonRoyal, Twitter

At the moment, the lead in only says "Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (Charlotte Elizabeth Diana; born 2 May 2015)" - excluding the "Her Royal Highness" which is on her birth certificate. (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that the information and source should be in the article, the question is about how to present it. First, the information is in the section 'Title and style'. Secondly, the opener is similar to the format for Prince George of Cambridge and Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and others in the Line of succession to the British throne. It could be well placed in the 'External links' section. Qexigator (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Pregnancy Announcement

In the third paragraph of the Pregnancy Announcement section, there is information regarding the birth. I'm not sure how to move it (because I'm still learning how to Wiki and because it has a reference number).

If somebody would be kind enough to move that sentence ("The baby was born in the Lindo Wing of St Mary's Hospital, London, the wing in which her brother George, father William, and uncle Prince Harry were all born.[13]") to the Birth section, I'll look at the edit and learn how to do it for next time.


MarpoHarks (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you The Almightey Drill MarpoHarks (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
It's what I'm here for '''tAD''' (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I propose to delete the section "Pregnancy announcement", as Charlotte is now born. I think it's not relevant for an encyclopedia to have all details on announcement of a pregnancy. Please compare e.g. the article on her father, Prince William. --Alchemist-81 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, current version[16] needs a good trimming, such as deletions (...) leaving:
On 8 September 2014, Clarence House announced that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were expecting the birth of their second child. ... In October 2014, Kensington Palace announced that the baby was expected in April 2015. On 2 May 2015, at 08:34 BST, the Duchess gave birth to a daughter who weighed 8 pounds 3 ounces (3.71 kg) at St Mary's Hospital, London. The Duke of Cambridge was present at the birth. The baby was delivered by Alan Farthing, surgeon-gynaecologist to the Duke's grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, and Guy Thorpe-Beeston, an expert in high-risk pregnancies and surgeon-gynaecologist of the Royal Household; both were present at the birth of the Cambridges' first child, Prince George, in 2013. She made her first public appearance, outside the hospital with her parents, on 2 May. ... On 4 May, .... her name was confirmed as Charlotte Elizabeth Diana....(end)
Would that be acceptable? Qexigator (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

shouldnt we add an image

shouldnt we add a pic in the info box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantagenet v (talkcontribs) 23:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As soon as a suitable one becomes available. Qexigator (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Parts deleted by User: Qexigator

Good day all! I'm busy translating this article verbatim into Afrikaans, my mother tongue. Today, to my amazement, [some parts] from the text that I copied over yesterday (that I needed citations for on af:wiki) have all disappeared! (reason given by the author: "Trimming update: rmv previous news no longer notable, and more recent non-factual and unnotable opinion.")

Will anybody mind if I put it back into the main article? Aliwal2012 (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably needs to be discussed as most of the stuff Qexigator deleted has been overtaken by events and is now not really needed, it was probably just included to fill out the article when we had little to say before she was born. MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but if Aliwal2012 wants it for his/her version, it can be found using the history tab, such as here[17]. Qexigator (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

When will the children receive their own arms?

When will Charlotte and George have (coats of) arms? George's would be fairly straight-forward as the first son on the first son of the Monarch. What would Charlotte's be and they would be on a lonzenge, correct? Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Given as George is not yet the first son of the first son of the monarch, his isn't all that straight-forward yet.... But, based on the precedent of the Queen's grandchildren, probably when they're about 17-18. Psunshine87 (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha. Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


Is "Baptised in the Church of England" a religion? I note that the Church of England is "the officially-established Christian church in England." But it's a denomination, not a religion.Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. A lot of articles put the denomination as the religion. See the Featured Articles including George V, Pedro Álvares Cabral and Malcolm X (although it is important for the latter as he converted from a syncretic denomination to a mainstream one, which had a vast change on his life and teachings) '''tAD''' (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see Charlotte as typical Nation of Islam material just yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Aye, but if the denomination as religion is good enough for her great-great-great-grandfather's Featured Article, it's probably OK here '''tAD''' (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
But he wasn't baptised in an infobox? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I see. Nowadays people are more wary about ascribing philosophical views to infants, but the infobox would read better if it simply said "Church of England" '''tAD''' (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Do you think Charlotte knew she was being baptised? We won't know if she raised any objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
And do we absolutely have to have a religion parameter in this infobox? If "baptized in the Church of England" is not deemed suitable, I would say that the next best option is removing the parameter altogether. Surtsicna (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Religion should only ever be mentioned on a living person if it's self-confessed. Sure, there's the off-chance that this baby could one day be the head of the C of E, but right now it's not entirely relevant. So I agree with the above for now '''tAD''' (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the religion we see in the infoboxes for George V, Pedro Álvares Cabral and Malcolm X wasn't decided at the age of two months, was it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The articles did not exist when those three exemplary gentlemen reached said age (we only waited 536 years before making an article on Cabral), but I understand your logic '''tAD''' (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with what Surtsicna and '''tAD''' are saying for what it is worth and think it should just be removed. Jameswrjobe53 (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
(The same applies over there, of course.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

How is this article noteworthy?

It strikes me as bizarre that we are making articles on Wikipedia for babies who have yet to do anything of note in their lives because they are infants. Perhaps when the princess has actually done something of note this article may seem worthwhile, but all Charlotte has done is be born! If we're making articles for people whose only achievement is being born, why not simply give every human on the planet an article? I'm not saying that I think the article should be permanently removed, but I think that this, and George's have very little need to exist until either of them actually do something noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It is because they are in line to the British throne.Mezigue (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Just the British one? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
About 16 countries at last count. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yawn. Surtsicna (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yawn. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
She's the first female born after the amendments to succession of the British throne & the other Commonwealth realm thrones. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Can editors (on both sides) be expected to be more or less indignant in this debate than they were in the very similar one we had over Child A almost two years ago? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Her birth was notable because multiple, independent mainstream sources noted the hell out of it. Doesn't matter that it wasn't hard, or that a hundred thousand are doing likewise right now, or that all babies look the same. We need to reflect the reality of the world, even if it seems stupid, unfair or whatever. The reality is this baby is special, simply because enough reporters have said so. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently Russian babies don't all look like this. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC) [18]
That was only apparent while they were still apparently Russian. Though none of the tabloids that said they were have corrected themselves yet, so I guess they still are, by my "baby is special" logic. You're right. Pro-Kremlin babies aren't officially magnificent, but "bizarre".InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the historic aspects, there is also the fact that numerous media are reporting that each of the Royal Babies is responsible for tens of millions of pounds being boosted into the UK economy. The Mirror has run a story that suggests Charlotte by herself could generate as much as billion pounds for the UK economy by the time she turns 10. (See [19]) I chose that example simply because it was the first Google hit but there are others. This impact to the economy alone places Charlotte and George (and William and Harry had Wikipedia existed in the 1980s) on a level different than your average celebrity baby, even if you choose to ignore or dismiss the royal aspect. (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That sort of thing would be great in the article. As it stands, it does look like she's only famous for being famous, rather than for the effects of her fame. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
So add it. Rlendog (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not as this is clearly nonsense. Mezigue (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree, clearly nonsense. She is notable as fourth in line to the throne of 16 realms, and she is famous world-wide as her parents' daughter. Qexigator (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean that particular story. But something about her relatively contemporary "Prince George Effect" on business (apparently not as hot as the first kid, far more so than our kids.)
It's nonsense, in an absolute sense, but the sort that gets Maclean's-level seriousness. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I think Princess Charlotte is defiantly noteworthy. Has she don't anything noteworthy other than being born, no. But she is a person of interest all around the world. Arg Matey (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


I don't know how to, but can someone update the age in days? or is the how many days old she is even useful?Daisy134 (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The regular birth date and age template doesn't account for infants under the age of one, so if we used that one, it would show her age as 0. The age for infant template, which is being used here on Charlotte's page, properly lists her age in months, but I'm afraid the inlusion of the days is just a byproduct of using that template. In a month and a half when she turns one, it will be removed and replaced with the birth date and age template. Piratesswoop (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Whooo! Party! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
"Maybe something gender-neutral like animals or pretty gingham cotton bunting with elegant lunch settings and canapés for the adults". Not just the usual "bring bottle+bird", then? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC) .
Whooo! Gender-neutralizing party animals! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
It seems that a Pintoy block trolley is this season's "must have" catwalk accessory:
"Dressed in a pink floral dress with a lace peter pan collar, a pink cardigan and Early Days 'Emma' shoes, the adorable princess looked delighted with herself as she pushed the Pintoy walker with alphabet blocks through the large gardens. The princess' precious look was completed with a pink bow clip in her dark brunette hair." [20]. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Only 22 blocks. I'd have expected 25. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone find the actual gift list? I read it's been released, but it seems to have drowned in stories about how it's been released. A lot of those stories mention ten or so, but they're always the same ten or so. Whether or not we use it for the article, it would be nice to hear what the forgotten nations gave. Might make a nice External Link, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)