Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 2

Kate at St Andrews
I'm new to this editing thing, but I wanted to point out that there's a lot more information about Kate at St. Andrews. I'm involved with the DONT WALK Charity Fashion Show at St. Andrews (so this is clearly somewhat of a plug), but it seems relevant that Kate modeled for DONT WALK (cited below, and more articles at the time if you google), and stayed involved with the St. Andrews fashion show and our runway designers ever since. We can't release our runway photos, but it's public that Prince William had a seat at Kate's table.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2010/12/william-and-kate-201012 http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Kate-Middleton-the-catwalk-queen.6628806.jp

Thanks! Aek22 (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Anna, November 17th, 2010
 * Why can't you release your runway photos? Paul Austin (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

SO sorry I can't figure out how to format this correctly--DONT WALK Charity Fashion show technically owns all images, and all models sign consent forms for publicity use, but we clearly want to be sensitive. Our committee specifically agreed not to release any lingerie shots a few years ago, but we're waiting for an okay from Kate on the rest. Do you think the show is worth including in her Early Years bio? It's the "largest and most respected" (Courier, Scotsman, Guardian etc) invite-only fashion show in the UK with "all the glitz and glamour of top European fashion design" (Courier). Thanks! ---Anna (17 November 2010)

Commoner?
Is she a commoner? The article doesn't say.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It says her mother was an air hostess and her father a flight dispatcher for BA who later founded a party supplies company. What do you think that means? john k (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, although she really is a commoner, strictly speaking "air hostess" and "flight dispatcher" are simply jobs, and a noble or royal could have a job as well, although it would be a bit unusual for them to have this kind of job. Nor is a noble or royal prohibited from owning a company (look at the Earl of Wessex). So from the sentence, although it is implied, one cannot literally read the Middletons are commoners.-- fdewaele, 18 november 2010, 11:55 CET.
 * I suppose, but the same question then applies to every article on a British person. In the strictest sense, everyone who is not a peer or (maybe) a member of a royal family is a commoner.  Obviously the Middletons are commoners in that sense, and the article, by not giving her a peerage title, makes it clear that she is a commoner in this sense.  Of course, in this sense Lady Diana Spencer and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon were commoners too - indeed, the late Queen Mother would have been considered a commoner at the time of her marriage.  I suppose in a broader sense, we can maybe say that children of peers are not commoners either.  But it seems clear from the article that Kate Middleton is not the child of a peer.  Beyond that, I'm not sure what we're getting at.  Was Winston Churchill a commoner?  His grandfather was a duke, but he was simply Mr. Churchill (until his knighthood).  A commoner is to be opposed to a peer, which neither Kate Middleton nor her parents are.  Her parents' profession makes it reasonably clear that, in addition to this, she comes from a middle class background.  I'm not sure why more explicit comment is needed. john k (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of people use the word commoner to refer to a person who doesn't have royal or noble blood.

In British law you are either a commoner, a peer, or the monarch. Kate is a commoner. Probably what you are asking is whether Kate is a member of the nobility - and the answer is no. Diana and the Queen Mother were members of the nobility before marriage. (As an aside, nobles and royals who are not peers are legally commoners in British law, but this is a technicality you probably don't need to worry about.) 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I asked the question because it was my understanding that the prospective Price of Wales was either expected or required to marry a member of the nobility.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Price of Wales? About 200 yen per pound.  :)  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. No one in the British royal family is required to marry nobility or royalty. But it's really interesting, except for Prince Philip of Greece, as the year went by the British royal family started marrying farther and farther down the nobility ladder, from a non-reigning morganatic family of Mary of Teck, to the children of English nobility in Queen Mother Elizabeth and Princess Diana. Today there has only been three British princess by marriage have no recent (4 generations or less) royal or noble blood connection: Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Katharine, Duchess of Kent, and Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

See some discussion of this point in today's Guardian corrections column. There is no generally accepted definition of the term "commoner" in Britain. Therefore while Kate is undoubtedly a commoner it is unclear whether some previous royal brides were as well. PatGallacher (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she's a commoner. A wealthy one maybe, but still a commoner. How does the Queen feel about that, I wonder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.138.176 (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Guess, it does not bother her. Although, I am a bit surprised myself since Kate will be the first consort with no royal or noble blood (recent or ancient) in her veins. The Davenport connection is totally off the wall and clearly was added out of desperation. As for the Edward III connection, the dates simply do no match up correctly for Kate's possible ancestor to be connected to that line. I am very surprised that some geneaology sites have chosen to list those two lines as though they were fact when the evidence disproves it more than proves it. Virgosky (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think Kate is the first commoner to be married into the British Royal Family, what about Camilla Parker Bowles, she seems to be overlooked because she is of the older generation. Plus, in my opinion, I don't consider Kate to be a commoner because her family were self-made millionaires with the start of her parents party-planning business, they were an upper-middle class family, in which Kate's parents could afford to send her to a very prestigious university such as St. Andrews. User:Animecutie July 2011

Why Kate and not Cate...?
...which might more normally be short for C atherine. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because she's most commonly known as Kate. Per WP:NAME, "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources." Tabercil (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the media rather than Wikipedia. Higher up the page is a suggestion (unfortunately now with a dead source) that she prefers Catherine. So where doe  K ate come from? HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because, whatever spelling Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn etc is used for the full name, in British English, the usual diminutive is Kate, not Cate, just one of those things. David Underdown (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cate Blanchett? HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The exception to the rule :D -- fdewaele, 18 November 2010, 13:05 CET
 * Cate Blanchett isn't British. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

460.7K views
Folks, congrats, 460,7K hits on November 17, 2010. Even the United States has less -) -- Twilight chill t   17:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal infobox
Why? She's engaged to William, not married to him. Editor who put it in wrote "ready to go" in edit summary, but the infobox can be changed later when it's actually accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not doing any harm but on the other hand if you changed it to Template:Infobox Person it would be more neutral and more relevant at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * When I edit I typically keep an eye out for trying to anticipate and minimize future maintenance needs. Not every editor is familiar with replacing infoboxes and adding non-default lines to them hence the change.  But this article could well get a million views the week of the wedding so I admit in this case the article is unlikely to be left neglected.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree, but I appreciate the explanation. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox picture
Your change to the picture was welcome - looks less hazy. Too bad we don't have a better picture. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the picture... unfortunately I've not found anything on Flickr or Picasa which looks suitable for use, or even asking for a license change... :( Tabercil (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good of you to look. The latest version you put in is a little better than the big one, but I'm not sure it's better than the big one made smaller. They all make me think my vision is blurring. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well cross your fingers and hope - I'm going to try and see if I can get the license on this image changed so it can be used here. It's by the same person who did the existing image of Kate so there's a chance, and given that she's in the sun it's gonna crop much better. Tabercil (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a picture and what a hat! Reminds me of the hats Hedda Hopper wore in an old I Love Lucy episode.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, now we have a better image from the same event.  74.220.184.110 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The photo creator (Nick Warner) has messaged me and although he released it, he didn't seem very comfortable with his decision and I've tried to reassure him that he did a noble thing by releasing the better photo. I suggest that users with Flickr accounts write a thank you comment to the original on Flickr to show that the decision was appreciated.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Weird chronology
I wish someone could properly address the fact that the article's chronology is slightly messed up. The "Early life" section extends from birth to... somewhere around 2005; the "Relationship with Prince William" section, from 2005 to 2010; and the "2006-present", from 2006 to 2010. It's kind of awkward having to go back in time just to see how the 'personal' information from 2006 to 2010 fit in the scope of the relationship. Now, I suggest that the last section be moved right after the first, leaving the "Relationship" one last. Thus, we would have info pertaining solely to Middleton in the first two sections, and the relationship afterwards. Another option, more drastic and, ultimately, messy, would be to mash (almost) everything up in a huge "Biography" section. &bull; H☼&omega;d&Theta;esI&dagger;fl&notin;&isin;   {KLAT}  &bull; 21:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Have to agree it is mainly due to the number of edits recently although all in good faith it does as you suggest need some better organisation. No reason why the relationship cant be added into the correct chronological order. Not sure what you could use as sub-headings perhaps early-life, university, graduation and relationship, engagement. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible titles
"As William's wife, she could then become Duchess of Cornwall, and Duchess of Rothesay if his father Charles becomes king, then Princess of Wales if Prince Charles (as the king) creates Prince William Prince of Wales, and Queen consort if William becomes king."

This is a sentence?? Not to mention it has no source. If someone doesn't clean it up and source it, I'm removing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pure speculation and WP:CRYSTAL I would support removing it. MilborneOne (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ditto. Rodhull  andemu  00:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - it is clearly speculative. Roger (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - indeed, as nobody has a crystal ball and for instance it's always possible that William might predecease both his father and grandmother so it's really purely speculative -- fdewaele, 2 december 2010, 8:57
 * A fact which is surely implied by the sentence in question. john k (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - If Charles becomes king, his former dukedoms fold (I forget the actual technical term here) into the crown and cease to exist. The duledoms do not get inherited in the strictest sense.  Charles would have to create (or recreate in effect) any dukedom for William. --L.Smithfield (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * William would automatically become Duke of Cornwall and Rotehsay upon his father's accession, as eldest son of the king. Those titles are not created anew, but descend to William by virtue of the terms of the original creations in the 14th century. john k (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was not aware of the special status of those dukedoms. --L.Smithfield (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Catherine's possible title as duchess
If William is created a duke on (or just before) his marriage, he would not be a duke by courtesy. Rather he would be a duke by right (a duke in his own right). In this case his wife does not hold a courtesy title but rather the title outright, as her husband holds it by right and not by courtesy. My specific objection is the use of the word courtesy in describing Catherine's title. For those who know more on this (and please not those who think they know) please correct me if I am wrong here. On the other hand, If William is NOT created a duke in his own right, he can hold one of his father's lesser titles by courtesy. In this latter case, Catherine would also hold that same title by courtesy. But this is not the case that was being addressed in the article. --L.Smithfield (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a certain ultra-pednatic crowd that likes to argue that, except for suo jure peeresses, peeresses are not "real" peers, and thus hold their husband's title by courtesy. Such an assessment seems problematic to me, and it's certainly a bad idea to conflate them with actual courtesy peers. john k (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reworded the sentence to conform to the source. Editors can wax eloquent about what should happen, what might happen, and what will happen, as well as discuss the intricacies of English titles as much as they like, but what matters is that anything we say is supported by a reliable source. Anything else doesn't belong here. (There are other statements in this section that should be reviewed under the same principle.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

RM to Catherine Middleton
I wonder if the time is coming to RM this article. When you consider common-usage, Diana, Princess of Wales would've been at Princess Di. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not yet, Princess Di was not a real name it was made up but Kate Middleton is what she is commonly called, at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we can wait and see how it plays out, too, in the media and palace press releases, not to mention anything from Middleton herself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose when the get married, we'd only have to RM the article again. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Think of that RM as a wedding gift from Wikipedia to the royal couple. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, not while I'm eating. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we need to rename Prince Harry of Wales, too? His actual first name is Henry.  Another point here is, we don't actually know what Princess Diana's article would have been called, as Wikipedia did not exist then.  It probably would have been called something different every other week, with edit wars, RfCs and Arb cases swirling all around the issue.  Neutron (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook incident?
How about adding a mention of the incident (reported in the British press on 2011-01-25) whereby another Kate Middleton got booted off Facebook because they jumped to the conclusion that she had used a false name to register? Ironically, her boyfriend (who still has his Facebook page) is called Jonathan Ross. -- Korax1214 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a bit of a stretch. Unless this Kate Middleton was involved in the request it only tangentialy involves her.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Name
She's generally referred to as Catherine Middleton now, and will be styled as such whatever her title becomes upon marriage. She has requested people call her Catherine, and some of her classmates &c. have commented that she was never referred to in private as Kate either. I think it's time to change the name of this page! Jess xx (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting, but you'd need to propose a Requested Move, WP:RM, and be able to back it up with referenced material to support the fact she should now be referred to on Wikipedia as anything other than Kate. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that under Wikipedia's policy on article titles, the most common name used by reliable sources is preferable over the legal or official name. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but when the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, Daily Mail and Independent have all refered to her as "Kate" within the past week, it's going to take more than an anecdote to justify calling her anything else. Happy‑melon 10:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry
Does she descend from any Kings of England or other royals of Europe? --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * She has no links to any nobility, peers or any other high panjandrums or even vaguely notable people of any descriptions; as such her ancestry is of no real significance. We are spending far too much time and energy on the least interesting/significant/notable aspect of her existence. Whether she takes one or two spoons of sugar in her tea is more interesting than any of this noise about ancestry. Roger (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * here is a chart of her ancestry, if you're interested. No royals or nobility that I can see. john k (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Geneaology
I have challenged the addition of a comment that her ancestry has been researched it really has no relevance to the subject and neither are the researchers names relevant. Any comments? MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the reversion. Even assuming the assertion is true and can be reliably sourced, it is a stray fact that, without some contextual relevance, has no place in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Her ancestry is relevant in that she will soon be a member of the royal family. She is a distant relative of Prince William through more than one line, although one of the relationships as described in a newspaper article (referred to in the ancestry section on the talk page) is incorrect. Kate Middleton's ancestry has been extensively researched by the late William Addams Reitwiesner and Michael J. Wood, both respected genealogists. People who have read newspaper articles about her ancestry will expect to find links to authoritative information on her ancestry in Wikipedia. Until such time as a book is published on this subject, the most authoritative source is the work of these genealogists.BillHodgson (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The book (The Ancestry of Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, by William Addams Reitwiesner and edited by Christopher Challender Child, published by Newbury Street Press/NEHGS Books) will be available in April. - Nunh-huh 01:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * She is the first "non-nobody" in the entire known history of her entire known family. Her genealogy is simply not notable. The only part of her lineage that would ever be notable starts with her as yet non-existent offspring (assuming they are fathered by her current fiance). Please just give it a rest already! Roger (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The publication of a book devoted to her ancestry suggests that your lack of interest in her genealogy is not universal. What makes something "notable" is the availability of a non-trivial reliable source, not an individual Wikipedian's opinion. And since a genealogical book published by the New England Historic Genealogical Society pretty much defines "reliable source" in this context, the information will be added to the article when the book is publicly available. Really, pretty much all a (future) queen brings to the table is her genealogy anyway, whether it's deemed remarkable or unremarkable :) - Nunh-huh 01:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Probability of descent
Not wishing to suggest original research, but there doesn't seem to be a big deal about being descended from Edward III. Assuming that a historical figure can be shown to have any descendants alive today and assuming that Kate has an Enlgish ancestor from the same era one can estimate the probability that one of them is Edward III: Dainamo (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) For each generation we go back, starting with Kate's parents there are twice as many possible forebears
 * 2) Taking the avereage length of a generation to be 30 years (it's slightly higher for male lines and shorter for female), 1350 is about 22 generations ago. so the number of ancestoral paths is 2^22 = 2,097,152
 * 3)  There were about 3 million or less people in England in 1350 (after a delcine following the black death), the chances of any one being a direct ancestor  is 1 in 3,000,000.  It's actually higher since not all of them will have had children but lets underestimate for now as it goes agiant the premise made.  The probability that thae are not is high as 1- 1/3,000,000 = 99.999952.32%
 * 4) While the probability of finding a link to any one path is low there are over 2,000,000 chances, ewhich means the chance of being directly descended from Edward III is at least: 1 - [(1 - 1/3,000,000)*2,097,152] = 50.3%.
 * 5) This is greatly increased considerably when one considers that not eveyone alive at the time will have a continuous line alive today - some have suggested it is a low as less htan 1% that Edward III is not an ascestor of an english person today.. Note that the the question of restictions on marriage actual circles for aristocracy becomes random over so many generations

New material about titles
The following material was added: "In December 2010, it was reported in The Daily Telegraph that William did not wish to receive a dukedom, preferring to remain simply a prince. It was suggested that this caused a dilemma for the Queen, because of the question regarding the title by which Kate will be known after the marriage." Based on the source and what the source says, I think the material should be removed as speculative.

In support of the assertion that William doesn't want a dukedom, the source says: "Mandrake can disclose that the 28 year-old has, however, let it be known that he would prefer to remain Prince William rather than be made a duke. 'He says he was born Prince William and wants to continue to be known as that,' says a courtier. "He wants Kate to become Princess Catherine.'" Mandrake is apparently the reporter, Richard Eden. So, to say that "Mandrake can disclose" is worthless (why does he phrase it in the third person as if he's royalty?). And who is the "courtier"? After that, the source goes into its own analysis of what could happen.

It would be one thing to report on William himself saying he doesn't want to become a duke, or, less good but maybe acceptable, an attributed source saying that William said he doesn't want to become a duke. But the reporter and an unnamed courtier don't really cut it.

What do others think (I've left it in for the moment)?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like, excuse my language, BS to me. He'll still be Prince William, Duke of Whatever, just like his uncle Andrew. Morhange (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mandrake is a gossip column, an outlet for the newspaper to throw out tenuous tidbits that come from 'off the record' sources which they can't quote in a proper article. It's about as reliable as a regular article from The Sun... ditch it. Happy‑melon 17:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rearrangement 24 February 2011
I made some slight re-arrnagements of the article in anticipation of the wedding and also so that I could add the note about the Canadian tour in a logical place. I chose the layout and the headings so that the section about their courtship would end with their wedding and subsequent material would be as part of her married life.

I anticipate of course that the article's title will change to reflect her title once they get married - the article Countess of Wessex is an example of the writing style that should be used. Martinvl (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wedding question
Does anyone know why Kate's decided to arrive in a car rather than a carriage? (Diana problems, again?) Paul Austin (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Security? (espl if it is bullet-proof). Martinvl (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is because a carriage is tradition for Royal Royalty and Prince William has made it clear he wishes to remain simply as a prince. They're are both trying to make this a modern royal wedding, as opposed to a big, more higher up, royal wedding, in which it would be more traditional. I hope that makes sense. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.198.184 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Lifetime movie
Someone added the movie to the article. I cleaned up the material and the cite, but do we want it here? If so, do we want it in its own section (it doesn't really fit in any existing section)? I don't have a strong feeling about it one way or the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be a postscript to the section on their courtship, but unless it makes a hit, it is not really relevant. Since there is already a Wikipedia article on the film, it is not neccessary to list the actors. Martinvl (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added it, and I agree that I included too much, it looks better as now edited down. It isn't essential to include it, but I think it's fairly standard to refer to portrayals of subjects in films; in documentaries only if really notable. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Common Ancestors of William & Kate
This information is provided by Genealogist Mary Joann (Williams) Sovelenko 1168 Harbor Ridge Drive Solivita Poinciana, FL

Genealogy of Prince William Windsor & Catherine (Kate) Middleton Their Relationship to each other is 10C13R:

Common Ancestors: William Gascoigne XI & Margaret Percy are 16GGrandparents of Prince William Windsor & Catherine (Kate) Middleton

Prince William Windsor 16GGrandparents: William Gascoigne XI & Margaret Percy 15GGrandparents: Ralph Ogle & Margaret Gascoigne 14GGrandparents: Thomas Gray & Dorothy Ogle 13GGrandparents: Ralph Gray I & ISabel Gray 12GGrandparents: Edward Gray & Catherine Strange 11GGrandparents: Philip Gray & Margaret Westwood 10GGrandparents: Edward Gray & Catherine Fenwick 9GGrandparents: John Gray I & Dorothy Lisle 8GGrandparents: John Gray II & Margaret Pearson 7GGrandparents: Henry Gray & Hannah Woods 6GGrandparents: Charles Gray I & Elizabeth Gray 5GGrandparents: Charles Gray II & Mary Elizabeth Ponsonby 4GGrandparents: John Crocker Bulteel & Elizabeth Gray 3GGrandparents: Edward Charles Baring & Louise Emily Bulteel 2GGrandparents: Charles Robert Spencer & Margaret Baring GGrandparents: Albert Edward John Spencer & Cynthia Elinor Beatrix Hamilton Grandparents: Edward John Spencer & Frances Burke-Roche Parents: Charles Windsor I & Diana Spencer

Catherine (Kate) Middleton 16GGrandparents: William Gascoigne XI & Margaret Percy 15GGrandparents: Thomas Fairfax II & Anne Gascoigne 14GGrandparents: Nicholas Fairfax & Jane Palmes 13GGrandparents: William Fairfax I & Agnes Darcy 12GGrandparents: William Fairfax II & Lucy Goodman 11GGrandparents: John Fairfax & Mary Birch 10GGrandparents: Benjamin Fairfax I & Sarah Galliard 9GGrandparents: Benjamin Fairfax II & Bridget Stringer 8GGrandparents: John Meadows & Sarah Fairfax 7GGrandparents: Philip Meadows & Margaret Hall 6GGrandparents: David Martineau & Sarah Meadows 5GGrandparents: Thomas Martineau & Elizabeth Rankin 4GGrandparents: Thomas M. Greenhow & Elizabeth Martineau 3GGrandparents: Francis Lupton & Frances Elizabeth Greenhow 2GGrandparents: Frances Martineau Lupton and Harriet Albina Davis GGrandparents: Richard Noel Middleton & Olive Christina Lupton Grandparents: Peter Francis Middleton & Valerie Glassborow Parents: Michael Francis Middleton & Carole Elizabeth Goldsmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.53.170 (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Social Media Presence
In 2011, after the announcement of their engagement, Kate's social media presence and influence became prevalent as many websites, Facebook fan pages, and Twitter accounts popped up in her name. Many of the websites committed to providing accurate, relevant, and current information on Kate and Prince William, including www.KateMiddleton.com, an unofficial website owned by entrepreneurs in Canada, one of Britain's Commonwealth countries, to be ruled by the future King of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.113.140 (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Virginity
There is no mention of Miss Middleton's virginity or otherwise in this article, which is surprising, because anyone who remembers the wedding of Charles and Diana will know that a big deal was made of Diana being a virgin and the matter was openly discussed in the media as a kind of 'selling point' that made her a suitable bride for Charles. If people find that somewhat distasteful I don't blame them, especially because Charles was encouraged to "sow his wild oats" before marrying by his mentor Louis Mountbatten. In case anyone thinks I am being prurient I want to point out that we mention this matter in the article on Diana: "Diana's Church of England faith, virginity, and native Englishness appeared to render her a suitable royal bride both legally and socially." Is a medical inspection of the hymen a pre-requisite for becoming engaged to the future king, do they just take her word for it, or what? One would think it fairly naive for anyone to think that Kate Middleton is a virgin, given that she's lived with her future husband already, has been in a relationship with him for many years, and has had other relationships. Furthermore, she was only confirmed in the Church of England in the last few days, and does not appear to be genuinely religious – It is well known that British women of her generation do not normally remain virgins before married unless they are evangelical Christians, gypsies, or from an immigrant background where premarital sex is taboo. If, unlike Diana, she is not a virgin, this is highly relevant, as it is a significant sign that the monarchy has moved with the times in the last 30 years, which has significant implications for the idea that the institution is a stable, unchanging paragon of traditional morality. I hope appropriate discussion of this matter, sensitive but matter-of-fact, can be incorporated into the article, as it's a pretty glaring omission at the moment given the way Diana's virginity was talked about in 1981. Thanks. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I believe this topic is an unacceptable invasion of privacy and a violation (if not literally then least in spirit) of the Privacy provisions of WP:BLP. Roger (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you think the matter of prying into someone's sexual history is distasteful, I do too, but I hoped I'd made clear that this is undoubtedly relevant because of media discussion of both Kate Middleton's (presumed lost) virginity and Diana's much trumpeted virginity in 1981. I am not asking Wikipedia to launch an investigation off its own bat! The media has judged this to be a valid topic of discussion, whether we like it or not, and the royal family has made it so by actively promoting the virginity of the last bride of a royal heir. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Without reliable secondary sources specifically discussing this it would be original research which isn't allowed, and even more so in a BLP.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some preliminary sources, from a quick search. These were just the first few I found:
 * "With Prince Charles and Diana, the Palace looked high and low for a virgin," recalls Nicola Shulman. "They were obsessed with virginity, and in Lady Diana Spencer they found the only virgin left in the country." But with Kate Middleton now embodying the type of princess who has had other boyfriends (indeed, she has invited two of them to the wedding on Friday), perhaps the good girl archetype has shifted – and therefore, perhaps, the bad girl has too. Unlike Anne Boleyn and Diana, Princess of Wales, there is no need for a princess to withhold favours or use her sexuality as a weapon – and this should stand as a synecdoche for every other woman too. When William wanted to sow his wild oats, Kate didn't bitch and moan but rather had her own fun, which got William to run back when he realised he that he could lose her," says Lieberman. This episode in the royal relationship has captured the imagination of everyone from feminists to film-makers from the Independent
 * Certain media outlets recently caused a stir regarding the fact that Prince William's bride-to-be, Kate Middleton, is allegedly not a virgin. (Gasp! A woman in an eight-year relationship in 2011 might have had sex? Surely you jest.) While the Palace has chosen not to make a fuss over the status of Middleton's v-card (a dignity they didn't afford the virginal Princess Diana in 1981), The Powers that Be may put their foot down when it comes to the color of her dress. A white dress has long symbolized purity and virginity
 * Article about Diana being examined by a gynaecologist before her marriage, which cites several newspaper articles from over the years and suggests that the same demands are not being made of Middleton
 * An article from the Indian press about the different standards regarding virginity applied to Diana, Charles and now Kate Middleton.
 * An Australian article (ABC no less) which states that "a medically witnessed certificate of virginity is not longer considered essential for the brides of the house of Windsor"
 * A satirical article, which is good evidence of the public attention the matter is receiving
 * "When I was a child, in 1981, the virginity of Diana was trumpeted by the palace. Noone talks about William and Kate, yet we know they lived together before their marriage." from an article about a recent art exhibition
 * Hope this is a good start. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

MilborneOne I am a little affronted that you have unilaterally closed the discussion without addressing my comments. I have provided what I think is a solid justification for the inclusion of some discussion of this matter, intrusive though it may seem to those of us who think a couple's sexual history is their own business. I also made a quick attempt to provide sources, though I'm sure that plenty more could be found. I was reading this article and was struck by the absence of something I thought would be discussed, so came to the talk page to mention it. I can't help but wonder if this article is being 'guarded' by people with a certain not entirely neutral perspective on its subject, as any objective discussion of a royal bride must surely address the question of her virginity. To quote again from the Diana article: "Diana's Church of England faith, virginity, and native Englishness appeared to render her a suitable royal bride both legally and socially." I have always heard it said that royal brides are expected to be Church of England, virgins, and ideally of noble birth. It is mentioned in this article that "Unlike the majority of royal brides, and in contrast to every previous queen-in-waiting for over 350 years, Middleton does not come from a royal or aristocratic background and therefore has no title of her own", so that change is evidently considered relevant. The legal requirement that she not be a Catholic still stands. The only thing that is somewhat mysterious is the seemingly dropped virginity requirement, which was very much in evidence in 1981. This has been the topic of media discussion. I don't understand therefore why it wouldn't be mentioned in Wikipedia, which is not in general the most prudish of reference works and indeed talks about Diana's virginity in her article. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to MilborneOne for taking the prompt action of closing this prurient and offensive topic, which breaks the guidelines on BLP. . Rubywine (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rubywine, please address my comments rather than replying with what boils down to "We can't talk about this! We just can't!" I have explained why I am not being prurient. This is an encyclopaedia and it is here to document coverage of matters like royal weddings by outside sources, which in the case of Diana's wedding and this one have regarded the virginity of the bride as an appropriate topic of discussion. Plenty of offensive topics are discussed in Wikipedia: it is here to reflect the world as it is and not as we might wish it to be. The sexual double standard applied in the case of Charles and Diana (one should 'sow his wild oats', one must be a virgin), and the public interest in people's sexual history, is one of these topics that many of us quite reasonably consider to be an unfortunate feature of our society. It is nevertheless a feature and merits coverage, just as something like FGC merits discussion in the context of cultures that practise it.
 * Perhaps I can illustrate the problem with this article for you with a table comparing Wikipedia's inconsistent coverage of two widely acknowledged characteristics of royal brides traditionally considered pre-requisites:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! ! Nobility of the bride ! Virginity of the bride
 * Past situation
 * Every previous queen-in-waiting for the last 350 years has come from a royal or aristocratic background.
 * Previous royal brides have been expected to be virgins. This was manifestly the case with Diana, who underwent a medical examination and whose virginity was trumpeted by her family and in the media.
 * Past situation mentioned by Wikipedia?
 * Yes, including in this article
 * In Diana's article but not in this one
 * Present situation
 * Kate Middleton is from a non-aristocratic background
 * Kate Middleton is not believed to be a virgin, as evidenced by media discussion (see sources above)
 * Present situation mentioned by Wikipedia?
 * Yes
 * No
 * }
 * Would you care to account for the difference please? In general I think this article and others relevant to the royal wedding are written in a deferential and anodyne tone, avoiding delicate issues like this which are nevertheless manifestly relevant. I would like Wikipedia to stick to its normal practice of writing articles in a neutral and matter-of-fact way, addressing controversies where they are notable. I cannot understand why no one has a problem discussing the change in royal bride requirements over the last 30 years relating to breeding and background, but those relating to virginity (which I would like to stress again was made a topic of discussion by the royal family and the Spencer family in 1981, and which has therefore attracted comment this time) is strictly off-limits. Even discussion on the talk page is closed, with the implication that anyone who points out the omission is trolling or being otherwise unconstructive, despite my having provided sources. Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes
 * No
 * }
 * Would you care to account for the difference please? In general I think this article and others relevant to the royal wedding are written in a deferential and anodyne tone, avoiding delicate issues like this which are nevertheless manifestly relevant. I would like Wikipedia to stick to its normal practice of writing articles in a neutral and matter-of-fact way, addressing controversies where they are notable. I cannot understand why no one has a problem discussing the change in royal bride requirements over the last 30 years relating to breeding and background, but those relating to virginity (which I would like to stress again was made a topic of discussion by the royal family and the Spencer family in 1981, and which has therefore attracted comment this time) is strictly off-limits. Even discussion on the talk page is closed, with the implication that anyone who points out the omission is trolling or being otherwise unconstructive, despite my having provided sources. Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Rubywine, I'm afraid I've reverted your hiding of my discussion, which I initiated in response to the unwarranted hiding of my earlier discussion! Collapse top states, sensibly, that "These templates should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Refactoring guideline; they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing." I hope you are not suggesting that my editing is disruptive: this is a straightforward content dispute we are having here. I have put my case, calmly and civilly, and you have simply hidden the discussion or offered one line responses not addressing my posts. If anything I would suggest that these actions of yours are unconstructive, and are unbecoming of a sensible discussion about the content of an article. Note that I have not even edited the article, bringing the matter to the talk page rather than adding things in unilaterally. I really would appreciate it if you would either address my points, or leave the discussion here for others to comment on. If consensus is against me then there isn't a great deal I can do about it (though it will lower my and other readers' opinion of Wikipedia), but I would like someone to provide a decent justification for not including anything about Kate Middleton's virginity in the article rather than simply disregarding any suggestions to the contrary. For that to happen, discussion must not be hidden away by those who seem unwilling or unable to engage in it. Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You have said nothing that needs to be addressed. The WP:BLP guidelines to which you've been referred repeatedly, and have repeatedly ignored, state that "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." Following the BLP guidelines is not optional. There is nothing more to be said. This discussion should be closed. Rubywine (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry Beorhtwulf that you were afronted by the collapsing of the discusion, but it was clear from the two replies (and now supported by Rubywine) that the issue had BLP concerns and as this is a talk page for discussing improvement to the article it clearly on to points that the subject is unlikely to have reliable sources and has BLP concerns would not lead to an article improvement. Also remember that this is not a discussion forum so you would be more likely to get any answers to your questions in one of the reference pages. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to respond MilborneOne. Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Rubywine, I'm not going to push this any further after this, but I want to say that you have not specified exactly how this breaches the BLP guidelines. This is a topic of discussion in the media so there are sources readily available. I've even done Wikipedia editors' work for them by providing some above, but the discussion has been closed and hidden. I am not attempting to insert things that have not been gone over at length elsewhere. There is a striking contrast between the current situation and that surrounding the last bride of a royal heir, that is clearly worthy of encyclopaedic discussion, and justly gets a mention in the Diana article. I suspect there are academics who commentate on gender issues in contemporary British society who will at some point have something to say about the contrast between the presentation of virginity in 1981 and 2011 in the scholarly literature. I have to say that if rational discussion of all this does indeed breach BLP then I believe BLP to conflict strongly with Wikipedia's stated commitment to neutrality, and I believe neutrality and open discussion should trump deference. The wedding is very firmly in the public eye. Media coverage of it, much of it fawning and deferential, is totally inescapable. Have you seen how important the BBC consider it? The bill for the wedding is being met by the taxpayer during a time of drastic spending cuts. The wedding will entitle Kate Middleton to high public status, considerable influence if she wishes to use it, and a title of nobility. All told, it is a controversial matter. Discussion of all the relevant issues surrounding it is obviously encyclopaedic. Miss Middleton has chosen to marry someone with a very high public profile and has therefore put herself in the public eye. The royal family has put the issue of royal brides' virginity firmly in the public eye by making a huge fuss about it in 1981. It therefore merits discussion, and a policy that seeks to shield article subjects from reasonable and objective discussion of matters arising from their actions undermines Wikipedia's usefulness as a source of information, and its credibility as a neutral encyclopaedia. I wonder if you are assuming that people will think less of Kate Middleton if they learn that she's not a virgin (despite her behaviour being perfectly normal - it would be very surprising if she was), and that matters that are the subject of discussion in the media should therefore be kept quiet here. I think this is unjustified for the reasons I've stated with care and at length. We do not censor discussion of her lack of an aristocratic background because some people will find her common, or whatever other prejudice and snobbery surrounds royal weddings. I have better things to do than argue the toss all day and so I will leave all this to others. All I ask is that you do not attempt to close the discussion, whatever your views on the proper extent of this article's coverage of Miss Middleton's life. It is reasonable for me to put the case, and reasonable to expect an answer rather than a brick wall. Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Beorhtwulf, BLP and collapsed discussions are oft-misused as sledgehammers these days, though it's a policy that should be taken seriously. I think this is a valid topic for discussion about inclusion in the article. I don't think it should be included but that's a different matter. It is mentioned among some serious sources. The response to the suggestion to include it seems rather obvious to me: While it may have been an issue with Charles and Di, especially with statements such as that from Lord Fermoy, it is not an issue (in the same sense) in this wedding. I think this article from the Sydney Morning Herald sums up today's apathy well. Whether there's another article about virginity in royal weddings where discussion of the change in attitudes would be suited I couldn't say. But in terms of this biography it doesn't seem directly relevant, and in terms of public statements and the like, more than a little speculative. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * zzuuzz, while I can't agree with you that it isn't relevant (I think it is primarily because of the striking contrast with 1981), I would like to thank you for providing the most constructive response so far, and sticking up for the principle that, in your words, "this is a valid topic for discussion about inclusion in the article". Well done for finding that SMH piece: I think it sums things up very well. I think this topic is therefore worthy of a single sentence in the article, footnoted to the SMH treatment of it, but I'll leave that up to others to decide. As a compromise, perhaps it would be more suited to the article about the wedding rather than the article about Kate Middleton. Thanks, Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you dispute that Middleton is covered by the BLP guideline on privacy, I have raised a new topic for discussion on the BLP talk page: Presumption in favour of privacy / Public figures -- Rubywine (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, without getting unduly intrusive, it's by no means clear that Diana was virgo intacta at the time of her wedding, although unlike e.g. Fergie she did not obviously have a past. (In my view this point should be removed from her article.) As I remember she did undergo a fertility test before the marriage, but not a virginity test. PatGallacher (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Refs for Diana:, , this one includes newspaper quotes about a gynaecologist, . I'm sure better sources could be found, I have always heard that Diana was examined to verify her virginity. Certainly a fuss was made about it by her family and everyone else. Beorhtwulf (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have had a look at these refs and they were mostly written some years after the event, maybe Diana's uncle made a statement along these lines at the time, but this could be an example of a story growing in the telling over the years. PatGallacher (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a variety of seemingly reliable news articles discussing the subject's virginity, specifically in the context of previous royal brides: Newsweek, Sydney Morning Herald, Telegraph, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. What section of WP:BLP is being breached? She is not a "victim" of not being a virgin, this is not personally identifying information, this is not a contentious issue, this isn't a gossip issue since it's been clearly identified in the articles as being officially addressed in the past and not in this case. I think that the prurience is on the side of those who have collapsed this discussion. Therefore I'm uncollapsing it. Sbwoodside (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Gossip
Much of this page is just gossip and is relevant to a magazine but not relevant to an encyclopaedia. Contributors should think about deleting anything that does not show the significance of this person. Given that this person has done very little significant in her life which other people of a similar age have not done this article should be considerably shorter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.43.239 (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

First Queen Catherine since Catherine of Braganza?
When was Catherine of Braganza, queen consort of the United Kingdom? She was queen consort of England, Scotland & Ireland -seperately-. We need a bit of elaboration on this, even though the UK is a successor Kingdom to the previous 3. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Catherine was queen consort of England, Scotland, and Ireland from her marriage on 23 April 1662 to 6 February 1685, which was the death of her husband, Charles II. She was never a Queen consort of the UK as the Act of Union occurred in 1707. This pertinent fact definitely needs to be elaborated on.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for god's sake. The Kingdom of England was obviously the predecessor state to the United Kingdom, and its monarchs are universally considered to be predecessors of the monarchs of the UK.  If you really want to be pedantic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has never had a queen consort.  But what good does such nonsense do anyone? john k (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the above: how profoundly anglocentric. The UK was created by a Union of two states, Scotland and England. Neither is the sole predecessor of the UK state. Also, the throne of the Kingdom of England, previously ruled by the Welsh Tudors, was inherited by the Stuart King of Scotland, James VI. To that extent, the eventual creation of the UK was occasioned by a takeover of the Kingdom of England by the King of Scotland, and the bloodline of the Kings of Scotland is as important as that of the previous kings of England. Only to the uninformed is England  'the predecessor state of the UK' and the English monarchy the predecessor of the UK monarchs.  The claim that these erroneous assumptions are obvious and 'universally' held is unsubstantiated. In any case, a universally held opinion is not necessarily the truth. Ceartas (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need that sentence. Should we say that Camilla will be the first queen named Camilla - of any country that ever existed? Should we say that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the first Queen (consort) Elizabeth in the British Isles since Elizabeth of York? It seems very trivial. Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Many sentences are not "needed". Without thinking it through, I thought for a couple of moments that the last Queen Catherine in England was Katherine Parr. Foolish me (unable to spell it even). Why not let Wikipedia readers make their own errors and stumble along their own way? But what does Camilla have to do with this?--Wetman (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence, as it was inaccurate. FWIW, here's a list of the British Queen consorts: Caroline, Charlotte, Caroline, Adelaide, Alexandra, Mary, Elizabeth. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, and I've deleted the sentences before it, principally because they were unsourced, but also because they were garbled and unnecessarily speculative.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, people are getting ahead of themselves here. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * None of whom had the title of "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (although I suppose that Mary and Elizabeth were Queens of that kingdom. john k (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)