Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 3

From Reading?
I'm removing her from the category of 'People from Reading'. She is not from Reading. She was born in the hospital in Reading, but I don't think that necessarily makes her from Reading. She was never educated in Reading, she has never lived there. Farrtj (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Her Royal Highness Princess William?
Is this right?? "Catherine's full style and title hence is Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus, Master of Arts" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.240.150 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering about that as well. I assume someone did a copy-paste and used the original as a template for the new one. May someone change it please? Also, regarding the coat of arms, has it been confirmed yet or are we just speculating with the designs? Those may also not be very encyclopaedia-worthy if the latter were true. Allan kuan1992 (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

By analogy with Princess Michael, I imagine the full title above is right (with the possible exception of "Master of Arts": I don't know what degree she has. I'd love to see an official citation of it though, and not just a link to William's full title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.14.2 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * University degrees aren't normally included styles and titles, but as she did a humanities degree at a Scottish Ancient she will have a degree called Master of Arts. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the title this article has for her is incorrect. Following the link on footnote #66, it clearly states "Prince William thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge and Miss Catherine Middleton on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge." http://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/blog/2011/April/29/Titles-announced-for-Prince-William-and-Catherine-Middleton I think that needs to be corrected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axis42 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed what was not in the source cited, even though the info may be correct.   Kenatipo    speak! 19:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, numerous media outlets have reported that since she was a commoner, she isn't to be styled as a Princess, just as Camilla became Duchess of Cornwall and not Princess Camilla. Nor, according to the reports, will she become Queen Catherine in the future (just as Prince Philip never became King Philip). 68.146.78.43 (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not correct. She certainly WAS a commoner, but that doesn't matter. She is married to a prince, so she is styled as a princess. Camilla is legally the Princess of Wales, but chose to be known by the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall to avoid the association with Diana. It had nothing to do with her being a commoner. As for Philip, the reason he isn't styled as a king is that men do not take their wives' titles. Provision had to be made specifically for Philip to make him a prince because otherwise he as the Queen's husband would still be "just" the Duke of Edinburgh, not an HRH. Any media outlets reporting that the Duchess of Cambridge's *former* commoner status would keep her from bearing the title of Princess or Queen in the future are simply wrong. 99.57.9.4 (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually there didn't need to be a special provision to "make" Philip a prince since he was a prince in his own right before marrying the Queen. He was born Prince Philip of Greece & Denmark. The Greek royal family is also a branch of the Danish royal family. Of course his mother was Princess Alice of Battenberg (later changed to Mountbatten). In the case of the men who marry a Queen Regnant they used to be given the honorific title of "King-Consort". In the modern era that has not been used but instead "Prince Consort" is usually used as was the case with Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria. However, the Sovereign may decide what to style the spouse of a Queen Regnant. Prince Philip is called "Prince" because he was born a prince. Duke of Edinburgh, of course, was conferred upon him when he married the current Queen. Inpectore (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * According to List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh Philip was not a "Prince" from 1947, when he renounced his Danish and Greek title, until 1957. —teb728 t c 07:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the Palace - "And according to protocol, while William was born Prince William of Wales, his bride, who is not a royal in her own right, does not have the title Princess William of Wales, although through marrying William she could technically be described as such. Explaining the slightly confusing picture, a palace spokesman said: "She is not a princess in her own right. That title has not been conferred on her. Her title is that of duchess. So she is not Princess Catherine. And to call her Princess William of Wales is misleading." {http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/29/royal-wedding-william-kate-cambridge?intcmp=239} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kassy88 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Honorific
I am aware I may be late to raise the issue; however, I need to say this on this stage: This article, as in endless other examples, does not make use of the appropriate Style, legally based, when referring to our Divine Monarchies. Such is in the very first line of the article, where it mistakenly and misleading, does not say: HRH Prince William of Wales.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.207.44 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you just have not noticed but Wikipedia never uses honorifics for anybody. Articles may note what honorific(s) a person is entitled to but our article do not use them. See the manual of style for honorifics. Roger (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Princess Kate"
Of course, the media and public will refer to her as "Princess Kate", even though as a princess by marriage she wouldn't be entitled to that style. Paul Austin (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously. But let's think of the best title for this article once she is married and if William is not given a peerage. It should be Princess William of Wales or, if the name persists, Catherine, Princess William of Wales. Seven Letters 15:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, what would her actual title be after the wedding? Is there a rule book or something?  And it's my impression that the tradition would be for the Queen to make William Duke of Somewhere right before the wedding, making Catherine the Duchess of Somewhere.  Do I have that right?  It's a little confusing, living in a country where we elect our Head of State, who doesn't have dozens of descendants running around with made-up titles.  No offense, and actually it's kind of entertaining.  Neutron (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Catherine will not be given any title (edit: reread what you said, sorry... I realize now you did not mean this). She will automatically be entitled to the feminine forms of her husbands titles by courtesy. If William is not given a peerage, she will automatically become Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales (to be understood as Her Royal Highness Catherine, Princess William of Wales). At that point, her full name, minus titles, will be Catherine Elizabeth (no surname). If William is given a title and becomes His Royal Highness the Duke/Marquess/Earl of X then Catherine will be Her Royal Highness the Duchess/Marchioness/Countess of X and will still be a princess, but as Princess William of the United Kingdom, masked by her other titles. This follows the tradition which the general population followed rigidly until the last century where a woman became Mrs. Husbandsname Lastname. 02:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Neutron: Seven Letters is correct. If William isn't given a peerage, Middleton will become HRH (Catherine Elizabeth) The Princess William of Wales. She could potentially be given permission to use a courtesy style such as "Princess" Catherine Elizabeth in the way that "Princess" Alice was.

As for having "dozens of descendants running around with made-up titles" this is because in times past there were high mortality rates, assassinations, etc. so these people held real status as any of them had the potential of becoming monarch (or consort). The modern day equivalent in the USA (I'm assuming you're American) is the (unelected) presidential line of succession. Furthermore Republics may give titles to people who inherit/marry into them, i.e. Her Excellency The First Lady (that's fairly made-up isn't it?).

And if you think about it aren't there as many made-up titles in the bourgeois USA as in any country with a feudal past? The American predilection for corporate Vice-Presidents makes my head spin. In plenty of cases these are phony titles whose purpose is to stroke the egos of those holding them. Everyone seems to be a "Manager" these days: Office Manager, Project Manager, Whatever Manager. Once upon a time, before title creep, to be a Manager was something substantial. What about the use of Esquire for U.S. lawyers and Mister for everyday people when few are actually either of these things. Then there are all the university faculty who in the U.S. are refered to as Professors without actually being one and medical practicioners styling themselves Dr without holding a PhD/ScD degree.

Middleton has no aristocratic pedigree (or title, "made-up" or otherwise) and coming from a rich family is a red-herring, since that doesn't convey social rank in UK society in the same way it does in the U.S. The article doesn't discuss the easy social acceptance of Catherine Middleton as a bride to the Royal heir and how this reflects huge changes to British society. This is an area for improvement of the article. Even in Charles' day Middleton would have been an unacceptable bride. My 94 year-old monarchist grandmother is delighted. She wouldn't have approved 40 years ago. The article ignores Middleton's significance in this respect. HansNZL (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a link touching on the significance of Kate and the change in attitude she represents link HansNZL (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, Diana wasn't called Princess Diana either, so we shouldn't call her Princess Catherine... WAIT A MINUTE, she was called Princess Diana, by EVERYONE. Catherine will follow, and it will have to be changed to Princess Catherine once the title is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.17.234 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Diana did actually often privately correct people who called her "Princess Diana", but it can be a pain to get the whole of the media to understand and grasp these things, especially the international media. In times past most (British & Commonwealth) newspapers had their limited coverage of the Royals handled by specialist correspondents & sub-editors who would know the rules of style and the basic forms, plus the more general conventions of the day were be to primarily use just the title so "the Princess of Wales" or "the Duchess of Cambridge" would be the standard form of referring to them. Nowadays, however, Royal stories appear on a much broader scale and there's a much degree of familiarity that encourages the use of forenames. This creates problems with Royal brides who don't have nice succinct personal name titles that can be used. It gets worse in other countries with more limited exposure to and understanding of titles. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course you can refer to her as Princess Catherine and people will understand who you mean. That just won't be her legal style. HansNZL (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the BBC, Middleton will be known as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. HansNZL (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not bound, and nor should it be, by the naming conventions of the regal or even legal systems (not to even get into the issue of legal or regal systems of which state, and again not to get into whether indulging banal nationalism by thinking in terms of nation-states is intellectually sound at all). For that reason, this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikishi_(wrestler)) for example, is quite rightly labelled 'Rikishi'. The article is about the man as a person, rather than his wrestling persona, yet rightly does not use his legal name. I should ask then, why this article doesn't use a similar rationalised principle (i.e, the most appropriate name for the article) rather than blindly deferring to an irrational authority? It strikes me as intellectually unsound and unencyclopaedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.43.214 (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection on the wedding day
This article will get a lot of attention on the wedding day and will need to be moved to a new page. The new article's title will probably only be known on the morning of the wedding, depending on whether or not William is given a title. If William does not accept a title, then the new article will have the title "Princess William of Wales" (as with Princess Michael of Kent), otherwise it will be "Catherine, Duchess/Countess of XXXX, (as with Sophie, Countess of Wessex). The first line of the article will have to be changed and the tence of a number of paragraphs will need to be changed from future to past.

In addition to the changes, it would in my view be inappropriate to publish the new article until they are legally married. This occurs, I believe, when the Archbishop says "I pronounce you man and wife".

Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The correct way to proceed is to first create a new article under the new title that simply redirects to this one and then initiate a renaming proposal here that suggests that this article should be redirecting to the new one. There would have to be a community discussion before this article is renamed (or redirected, which is functionally the same thing).--Brian Dell (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no problem is having the discussion ahead of the event - we can expect a large number of hits on the day. Martinvl (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal - we can and should discuss this now. It should be moved - she will certainly be best known by whatever title she is given. I wouldn't say it cannot be be until the Archbishop's pronouncement - moving it on the day of the wedding will be fine. The thing is, anyone can move the page - it doesn't need a renaming proposal. StAnselm (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless, of course, it starts to get into a controversial "page move war". Then a renaming proposal is definitely warranted, along with temporary page move protection. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have protected against non admin move so as soon as a new consensus name is ready an admin can move it. If one is not handy or a note to WP:AN will get assistance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see discussion below - with all respect, it is not clear to me that this page should have a new title at the moment of her marriage - per WP:COMMONNAME. Tvoz / talk 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Title upon marriage

 * This says one of William's possible titles would be Duke of Windsor. That is technically possible, in the same way that the Queen dancing naked on the tables at the reception is technically possible, but both scenarios are so utterly unlikely as to be ludicrous.  I think it will be a cold day in hell before anyone is ever given the title Duke of Windsor, given the history of the previous owner of that title.
 * We should not be forecasting extremely unlikely things like making Kate a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right. It didn't happen to either of Will's mothers, so why would it happen to his wife?  That is pure crystal ball gazing of the most off-centre variety, and must go, even at this late stage.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I agree with you on the first point and disagree on the second. As far as the article goes, both our opinions are entirely irrelevant.  What matters is the presence of reliable sources which make these claims, which are present in both cases.  If you have another reliable source which shares your view on the unlikeliness of these options, then the article can and should incorporate that qualification; but all claims in an article require verification from such sources, not the opinion or synthesis of Wikipedia editors. Happy‑melon 10:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Happy-Melon. We are not forecasting anything. Both the Telegraph and the BBC have published articles on this, and the BBC article has been referenced. I have no opinion on degrees of likelihood, but I do think it's helpful to make it explicitly clear that a departure from convention would be required for Kate to keep her own name.


 * Purely as an aside, the BBC and broadsheets have reported (very surprisingly) that the abolition of the law of primogeniture is expected this year, to accommodate a first born girl. If that is actually true, then there is more openness to change than I would have predicted. Rubywine (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen those reports, and more power to Nick Clegg for taking up the challenge. He'll have to get the other 15 Commonwealth realms on side first, though, but in this day and age I can't see there being too much opposition.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nick Clegg is not "taking up the challenge", he's doing what a long series of British ministers have done when down in the polls (and for those outside the UK, Clegg has had one of the most spectacular rises and falls in politics here, now being the national political punchbag) and raised this issue which excites some of their core supporters but doesn't actually offer meaningful change for many (99.99% of women are not going to suddenly become close to the throne) and which is a nightmare to amend so is unlikely to happen until there actually is a first born daughter. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see all these external reports as no different from some movie critic stating quite confidently, before the event, that movie X "will win the Academy Award for Best Picture". Nobody knows the future, no matter how expert they may be or think they are, so there is no such thing as a "reliable source" when it comes to predictions.  I'd take my original post further and suggest the entire text about possible future titles be removed, as not in keeping with WP:CRYSTAL.  I accept that it's very likely Will will be made a duke of something, and Kate will have an appropriate title upon marriage, but let's wait till it actually happens.  No need for Wikipedia to be breathlessly anticipating it, regardless of whatever the BBC or other sources are saying.  This is an encyclopedia, not a women's magazine. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As a general rule-of-thumb, if you can't mentally quote the nutshell of a policy or guideline, it's worth having a re-read of it. Experienced editors like ourselves can very easily misremember what the words behind the acronyms we throw around so freely actually say.  WP:CRYSTAL actually says the following:
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable... It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.
 * CRYSTAL does not say that future events that are uncertain should not be included. It does not say that sources need to have precognition to be reliable.  What it does say is that the speculation should be done by otherwise-respected sources in the field, not by Wikipedia editors, and that the article should reflect that balance of opinion, not introduce its own slant or try to make its own predictions.  It would be in line with the policy to rephrase the third paragraph, for instance, as "The BBC has suggested that..." instead of 'It is possible that...'.  It would not be in line with CRYSTAL to arbitrarily remove the section entirely. Happy‑melon 23:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Although, to put a different slant on it, CRYSTAL does not require the inclusion of all well-founded speculation, which is what your last sentence could be read as.  It's just that such an inclusion would not be inconsistent with that guideline, so the consensus would be within its rights to have it in rather than out.  The consensus seems to be "in" on this occasion. And it will all be academic in a few days anyway.  Thanks.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  03:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The text in this section doesn't make any predictions. It states what the potential titles are, and why; it doesn't attach a degree of confidence to any outcome. There's nothing breathless or speculative about the tone. It's neutral, it's relevant, it's properly sourced and it meets the guidelines. Rubywine (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Correction. It was appropriate in tone yesterday. Someone has given it the women's magazine treatment since then. Horrible, puffy, bloated rewrite. I'm disinclined to bother any further with this article. It's a losing battle and it will be over soon. Rubywine (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Having subsequently noticed that the rewrite contained the assertion that "similarly" to Kate, William has no title other than the style Royal Highness (Eh? William has the title Prince of Wales), I restored the previous version with minor amendments. I left in the introductory parapraph about Middleton's background and lack of title, although I think that it should be moved to another section. Rubywine (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Name change from Kate to Catherine
the media may call her Kate, but as she is now marrying into the royal family and she also does not like the name kate, surely her name should be changed to Catherine. this artical shows my point http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1330382/Kate-Middleton-use-Queen-Catherine-Prince-William-crowned.html Mikala19 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * She will receive a title on her wedding day (most likely a duchess, although the default option is Princess William of Wales) so the article's title will have to be changed then anyway.


 * BTW, are there plans to move-block this article on the day until the moment comes, to prevent people jumping the gun? Or are we just going to allow it to be changed as soon as we get the announcement of any title on the morning of the wedding? PatGallacher (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ok im glad there is something being done. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikala19 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kate is the name she commonly uses, and of course she would use Catherine when/if she becomes queen, as that is her birth name. Mary of Teck was always called May in the family, but known as Queen Mary. Margrethe II of Denmark was known as Daisy, but she reigns with her birth name. Also, the Daily Mail is not really the most reliable source... Morhange (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I already move protected the article, see above move discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which I endorse. Any move should take place at the appropriate time and after appropriate discussion. WP:DEADLINE definitely applies; there really is no rush. We are not trying to beat the major news channels as the source of the latest news. Happy‑melon 09:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kate appears not to be the name she commonly uses: "Her full name is Catherine Elizabeth Middleton and [she] has always been known by the more official form by close friends and family." "She is referred to as Catherine in Royal circles" "Kate prefers to be called Catherine" "Catherine Middleton (as she is called by all who know her well)", says Emma SoamesOpera hat (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that she dislikes being called Kate? Jim Michael (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is only the news media who call her "Kate". Her friends, relations and the royal family all call her Catherine. There must be a link to this article from "Kate Middleton", but I don't think that the style "Kate" should be included in the title to the article, since she never uses it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Advanced move consensus
Ok, we've a few days to go and obviously someone's going to move the page once the dear lady has a new title. Could we please establish consensus beforehand so as to avoid some kind of move war? Precedent and policy dictate that she should be moved to Princess William of Wales (if her husband has no peerage; per Princess Michael of Kent), Catherine, Duchess of Somewhere (if her husband has a peerage; per Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall) or something like Princess Catherine of Wales (in the extremely unlikely eventuality that she's made a princess suo jure or at least given use of the style; per Princess Beatrice of York). Would anyone like to argue against the precedents and policy? DBD 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dont have a problem with a move when appropriate, bit concerned if we end up with Princess William of Wales, although correct most people would not understand it and see it as a mistake and possibly keep moving the article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the page should only be moved following an official press release confirming the new title. If Kate becomes "Princess William" then I expect an alternative name will become popular usage, and at that point, another page with a redirect could be created. I wouldn't worry about the article being moved to the wrong name until it happens. Rubywine (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I may be naive, but why will people struggle with the idea of the wife of a prince being called Princess John, or whatever? We are all familiar, I assume, with Princess Michael of Kent. I think it is widely understood that as Kate Middleton is not a princess in her own right (and we assume that the Queen will not create her one) she will simply be known by the feminine form of her husband's title, i.e. HRH Princess William of Wales if he is not created a peer, or HRH The Duchess of Cambridge (or whatever) if he is. But furthermore, Wikipedia does not deal in what people do understand but in what is accurate.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the other editors said this: "→Title upon marriage: come on, this is 2011, there is no way that anyone except a few comically reactionary, misogynist, and pedantic snobs will call her "Princess William". Although they've phrased it very bluntly, I agree with them. It's an archaic title which most people will find ridiculous and I will be surprised if that is the title she receives. Rubywine (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this. We should be mindful of Wikipedia's naming conventions - see WP:COMMONNAME for starters - we are to use the name a subject is most commonly known as: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."  At the present time, and I would guess for some time to come,  that would be "Kate Middleton", not "Catherine" and most certainly not "Princess William of Wales". These alternate names should certainly be included in the first bolded line of the article, and they should certainly be set up as redirects to this page, but at the present time I think we need to keep this article titled as "Kate Middleton". We go by the preponderance of sources, not by the official word from the Palace or anywhere else as to what an individual's approved name is, we go by how most readers would search for them. So it's Bill Clinton with "William Jefferson Clinton", his actual, correct name, set up as a redirect to Bill. There are dozens of such instances - Kate Middleton should be handled the same way, according to our encyclopedia's conventions, not those of anyone else. Thoughts? Tvoz / talk 18:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. And to User:Oxonian2006, yes, people are familiar with the convention that a wife takes her husband's name.  So, a Mary Jones who marries a James Prentice becomes Mrs James Prentice for formal purposes - that's if she agrees to accept such an out-moded formulation, which is pretty damn uncommon these days.  Many wives are content to change their surname and leave it at that.  The aforesaid Mary would still be known as Mary when considered as a human being in her own right - she would never be called James.  The days of the Mrs Patrick Campbells are well and truly over.  Many in the UK and elsewhere have heard of Princess Michael of Kent, but when was the last time the wife of someone so close to the throne (2nd in line) was called Princess ?  Even if, in the very unlikely event she does become Princess William formally, virtually nobody will actually call her that.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" (my sneaking suspicion as the most likely) is fair enough. So would be "Princess Catherine of Wales" or similar. I doubt it will come to this, but we might have to go with "Catherine, Princess William of Wales". I bet you the tabloids will call her "Princess Kate" or "Princess Catherine" whatever her formal title. PatGallacher (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you say. Whatever the formal title, I'll be quite surprised if the Windsors don't say something to the effect that Kate should be known as Catherine (just as they announced that Harry would always be known as Prince Harry on the day he was born). Rubywine (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The point of the move-protection is mainly to reinforce the WP:NODEADLINE principle (with a touch of WP:DONTPANIC thrown in for good measure :D). We can derive the possible 'official' formulations very easily, as has been done above – the fact that Princess William of Wales is certainly "outmoded" and "archaic" doesn't alter the fact that it is the official title she will hold if William does not receive a peerage and she is not created a Princess; most reputable news sources have style guidelines which will ensure that the official name is used, however archaic it may be. But as noted, WP:COMMONNAME applies, and the influence of that on the article depends unpredictably on the official title: Catherine, Duchess of Somewhere is likely to stick quite easily, Princess William of Wales rather less so. The "Middleton" name is likely to fall by the wayside fairly quickly, but that's not something we can be certain of or even speculate too much on at this point. In short, how COMMONNAME influences the article title depends on how the world reacts to the official title, and that's not something we can really discuss effectively in advance, or even immediately after the announcement. Happy‑melon 19:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this completely, Happy-melon as for both WP:NODEADLINE and WP:DONTPANIC, not to mention WP:NOTNEWS. And I agree that we won't know how COMMONNAME comes into play until after the marriage takes place and there are sources to look at, to see how they are referring to her (and him, for that matter, if he gets a new title).  As long as we keep in mind that our primary responsibility is to our readers, not to protocol, we'll be fine.  I'm glad that this article is move-protected -- that will give the editors time to sort this out and reach consensus on how it should be named.  My suggestion would be to set up redirect pointers when the new names are announced to satisfy purists, but leave this article named as it is until we have something concrete to go with. Tvoz / talk 23:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy-melon and Tvoz, you've made a good case for keeping the existing article title and waiting to see how the world reacts to Kate's official title. But with the readers in mind, my only issue with that is one of consistency. I feel that the article should be moved to the official title after it is announced, and that redirects should be created from WP:COMMONNAME (both current and future, if any) to the official title. My reasoning is that, with the exception of Harry, the main articles on the other royals all carry their official titles. Charles is commonly known as Prince Charles, not as Charles, Prince of Wales; William is commonly known as Prince William, not as Prince William of Wales; Diana was commonly known as Princess Diana or Princess Di, not as Diana, Princess of Wales; and Sarah Ferguson is commonly known as Fergie, and not as Sarah, Duchess of York. While your arguments are convincing, and I am open to persuasion, it seems rather unhelpful to readers to depart from the established Wikipedia convention in Kate's case. Is there a distinguishing criterion that applies to her alone, or some other principle that I'm missing here? Rubywine (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Rubywine: That's a false analogy. Harry was formally named and christened Henry, but the family - and the world - have called him Harry from Day 1.  The reverse of Kate - who was named Catherine Middleton but acquired the "Kate" nickname later in life.  It shouldn't require a royal directive for someone to be called what they were originally named.  But even if the palace did ask for this, would people comply?  Not likely.  It'll still be the "Will and Kate Show".  --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes ok but I didn't mean to suggest it was a perfect analogy. It was just a situation in which the Windsors announced that a member of their family should be known by a name other than their formal title. All I am saying is that I think they'll tell us to call her Catherine, one way or another. You can tell me I'm wrong after the wedding but not before. I do think that many people will call her Catherine quite happily, although yes of course they'll also be known as "Will and Kate", and probably for the rest of their lives. Similarly, William is popularly known as both Will and Wills but that doesn't detract from the fact that he is known as William. Diminutive names and nicknames don't always replace the original name. Rubywine (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait Leave the article where it is for the time being, including AFTER the wedding and the formal announcement from the Palace of her titles. Looks like all the probable title variants have been appropriately redirected, so not as if anybody will have any problem finding the article. Give it a month or two. When a "common" usage settles in with the press and public, for example "Princess Catherine", then move the article. We are in no hurry here and previous editors have already posted links to the relevant Wikipedia policies. In addition, it might be wise to ask for an extended move protection, as the current move protection expires on April 30. Nevermind, just noticed that the move portion of the protection is already indefinite. Safiel (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that one has to accept that the British royal family, though good, in its own way, at adapting to the times, is not quite like the rest of us. Of course, when I get married I fully expect that my wife will be known as "Dr Own Christian Name Own Surname", perhaps "Dr Own Christian Name My Surname" when we are addressed jointly. But Kate Middleton is not marrying me; she is marrying a man who is unlike any other person on the planet (with the exception of his father). The title Princess William of Wales would be perceived as misogynist? Well, if William and Kate's firstborn child is a girl, she will just become heir presumptive, and should they then have a son he will become heir apparent, nudging his elder sister into second place, as though Elizabeth II hasn't shown us that a woman can be just as good a monarch as a man (in fact, one of the best ever). Archaic? Of course. On 21 June 1982 the world learned that there was a baby called His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales who would one day become Sovereign of eighteen realms (including, at the time, Mauritius and Fiji), irrespective of his aptitude for statesmanship, as well as Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, whether or not he showed any particular devotion to religion. Prince William became a Bencher of the Middle Temple the same day he was called to the Bar, despite having no legal training, and he is a Fellow of the Royal Society, despite showing no interest in science. At the age of 25 he became a Knight of the Garter, an honour that other people might have to work for, for example by being Prime Minister, Senior Law Lord, Secretary of the Cabinet, or Chief of the Defence Staff. Ridiculous? Yes, I thoroughly agree. Whatever Kate Middleton's called after Friday's wedding, I'm apparently supposed to bow to her and call her Ma'am (though she still has to curtsey to her husband's grandmother). So I think that a misogynistic, archaic, and ridiculous title would be quite appropriate. I think my point is essentially that the prevailing norms among the rest of us don't really apply to the royal family, no matter that moves they may make towards modernity.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So, we'll be agreed on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge now, then? DBD 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I propose that the article should be moved shortly after the wedding. In a nutshell, we should maintain consistency. All the other royal biographies on Wikipedia use formal name, not common name, as title. For examples, see my earlier comment at 01:24, 27 April 2011. While I accept that all the other royal biographies depart from the WP:COMMONNAME guideline, I can't see any reason to single out this article for a title which departs from the de facto pattern. Rubywine (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Go Jimbo! :D <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 10:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So much for waiting for WP:COMMONNAME as we were discussing. Oh well, I suppose this was inevitable. Tvoz / talk 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not just inevitable but also logical, consistent and correct. See NCROY. Happy-melon, thanks for being responsive to the discussion and taking the initiative to move the article. Rubywine (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that WP:NCROY trumps WP:COMMONNAME, when an individual is so well-known and referred to under her/his common name, but I'm ok with the move anyway - with a nod to the value of consistency.  I think waiting for the dust to settle, as we always try to do, would have been better from a policy standpoint, but I didn't expect it and this is fine. Tvoz / talk 17:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

'Fashion icon' section
I think that this heading is slightly biased and a replacement like "Praise for Fashion" and "Acclaim for Fashion" may be more neutral. Alan McBrazil Burger (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the heading 'Fashion Icon' is wrong but I think "Praise for Fashion" and "Acclaim for Fashion" are a bit confusing. I suggest "Public image and style" would be a clear and neutral title. And in fact I'm going to edit the article to that effect. Rubywine (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.138.49.205, 28 April 2011
Recheck the date of birth, wasn't she born in June?

71.138.49.205 (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * She was born in January and christened in June - see [Prince of Wales website]. Martinvl (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

✅ Martinvl (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop press new title
She is now Duchess of Cambridge, not Princess Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.157.178 (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not yet, she is still Kate Middleton until she marries. MilborneOne (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would the title be Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge or simply Duchess of Cambridge? Has Cambridge ever had a Duchess before? (Wow! already bluelinks!) Roger (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Has Cambridge ever had a Duchess before? Of course, for instance Prince Adolphus (7th son of George III) became Duke of Cambridge in 1801 and was married to Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel, they had three children, one of which became the 2nd Duke of Cambbridge. But Duchess in her own right? The misognenic nature of the nobility, makes it very rare that a woman holds a peerage in her own right. Only the most ancient English titles as well as many Scottish titles can be held by a woman, and then only if there is no male direct heir. And if there is no male heir but multiple daughters, such an English title goed into abeyance. -- fdewaele, 29 April 2011, 11:33 CET.


 * Rather more women than that have had peerages in their own right. A number of Royal mistresses were given titles in past centuries so as to make them respectable (erm yes...). It was also not uncommon to give a peerage to a statesman's wife - either because the man himself wanted to remain for the time being in the Commons (e.g. Pitt the Elder, Disraeli) or because he had died prematurely (e.g. Canning). And some more recent peerage creations have rules allowing them to be inherited by women, largely because by the time they were created it was clear the man had no direct male heirs but there was a wish to perpetuate the title. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but that's a drop in the ocean of noble titles. And often that title was not inheritable by their own daughters. Or only in very special cases is there a remainder to female offspring in a new noble title (for instance Field Marshal Earl Roberts, whose titles were created with special remainders to his daughters and the heirs male of their bodies, as his sons had already predeceased him). What I meant were those titles which out of their nature or creation can always be inherited by a female, and not merely under speciakl circulstances. And titles like those are extrelmely rare and date mostly from medieval times (for instance Baron de Ros) or are Scottish. -- fdewaele, 29 April 2011, 15:40 CET.

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?
It seems to me that the most likely new title for this page should be Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge given William's new dukedom, in line with Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. User:Canuck My page89 (talk), 08:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My prediction was right! I propose we move the article to this title as soon as the archbishop declares them man and wife. PatGallacher (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And how do you know that "Kate Middleton" will cease to be the most common name used? Britmax (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would people refer to her by her maiden name after she just got herself married into royalty in the highest-profile marriage for 30 years, becoming a Princess and a Duchess into the bargain? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pat Gallacher, but I also request that we restrict discussion of the move to one topic, not three. I have addressed the point about common name twice under Advanced Move Consensus. Rubywine (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "common name" principle really doesn't seem to apply much to article titles of royals. For example, Prince William's page was today given the "Duke of Cambridge" to the article title, yet I still imagine people will still largely refer to him a simply "Prince William", despite his official dukedom. User:Canuck My page89 (talk), 09:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The article says she'll be (among other titles) "The Rt Hon. The Lady Carrickfergus". Are we sure that's right? Why not Baroness Carrickfergus? The source given just lists William's titles, including that of Baron Carrickfergus, and doesn't say what the female form would be. I checked Katharine, Duchess of Kent, as I know the Duke is also Baron Downpatrick, and the article gave "Baroness Downpatrick" as part of her full title, not "The Rt Hon. The Lady Downpatrick". Same for Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, who is given the title (in the WP article) of Baroness (not The Rt Hon. The Lady) Culloden. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: this BBC article says that she will become Countess of Strathearn and Baroness Carrickfergus in addition to Duchess of Cambridge. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the royal announcement says "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For consistency with other royal biographies, the title should be Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Most royals have multiple titles, most of which are rarely used. The de facto convention for royal biographies is that articles carry the formal title or titles which are in common use, not the full complement of Ruritanian hilarity. Hence William's article has been retitled Prince William, Duke of Cambridge not His Royal Highness The Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. Rubywine (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely; that's why there is an order of precedence in titles and styles. Also remember Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), which prescribes much the same guidelines. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 10:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that the Baroness Carrickfergus title should be used. Obviously, she's referred to by the most important one - Duchess of Cambridge. I was pointing out that the section which told us what her multiple titles were going to be seemed to be in error, listing (among the others) "The Rt Hon. The Lady Carrickfergus" instead of "Baroness Carrickfergus". Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Article titles says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.". Official names says "New editors often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, this name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."

So where is the evidence that Catherine and/or Duchess of Cambridge are the common names for Middleton? It's not clear to me they will be - and even if they do, that's crystalballing. We can always change it later.

Also note that we have Elizabeth II, not "Queen Elizabeth II". I do find it amusing that there's a rush to change the article title the moment her "title" is made up, but we're almost 60 years late on updating the queen's... Mdwh (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Check out WP:NCROY, which are specific guidelines covering the naming of articles on royalty and nobility. We're fully in line with them. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WP hs been around only since 2001, so at worst we're only 10 years late. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
Stop the press! She's married now! James is speaking now! Thanks, Cthornton799 (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Grammar: muddled tenses

 * "Their wedding took place on 29 April 2011, after which she will officially be known as"

Typical of the very poor English with which Wikipedia is riddled.

If the wedding 'took place' (past) she is already 'officially known as'. If 'she will officially be known as' (future) the wedding can not yet have taken place.

Clearly this will soon be corrected, but that is no reason to promote semi-literacy. Perhaps, one day, Wikipedia will employ literate editors and have a chance of becoming a 'proper' encyclopaedia.


 * This is not the way to deal with a grammatical error. Edit the article, or request an edit, don't make a speech about it. Rubywine (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion, 'Rubywine'. There are others. A more careful reading would show that whilst dealing with a grammatical error was one, there were other, wider, more fundamental points pertaining to clarity of expression that should be expected of an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.108.81 (talk)


 * This isn't like Britannica. Nobody is "employed" here.  And it's open to all comers.  Some inherent variation in quality is to be expected, but, as you point out, "clearly this will soon be corrected".
 * We have rules too. Those who participate in discussions on pages like this are requested to sign each and every post with 4 tildes (~).  Welcome to Wikipedia.  Thank you. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, JackofOz. I notice that you, too, did not accede to the request (rule?) to sign each and every post with 4 tildes (~). Just as well, really, or we'd all be known as four tildes in the same way that all Aussies were known as Bruce in the insightful Monty Python sketch. Very confusing. But, we digress. Thank you for your welcome to Wikipedia, albeit several years late. May I extend a similar welcome to you. This is more fun than watching the TV with the wedding herd. [Your turn again]. Oh go on then... in the interests of playing by the rules: I remain your faithful servant, Four Tildes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.108.81 (talk)


 * Four consecutive tilde characters  are converted into a unique signature for the user. I suspect that you already know this and are being unnecessarily awkward; please don't, it is needlessly disruptive. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 11:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, you're supercilious attitude is really uncalled for. If you see a grammatical error in an article, then fix it yourself. It must have taken more tme for you to go into the talk page and lament over the state of the English language on Wikipedia. It's particularly irritating given that you act as if you "know" above the others when you're ignorant of how signing a talk page, and the code that comes along with it, works. JackofOz did sign with four tildes--it automatically becomes his signature, it doesn't remain four tildes. So. I've finished. Therequiembellishere (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "You know, you're supercilious attitude is really uncalled for. If you see a grammatical error in an article, then fix it yourself."
 * "You know, your supercilious attitude is really uncalled for. If you see a grammatical error in an article, then fix it yourself."


 * Done.


 * Now perhaps you could point me to the Edit link on the article page...?
 * Your obedient servant, Four Candles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.108.81 (talk)


 * The Wedding day is not a WEDDING!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.82.82 (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to get back to the idea of editors here being "employed" - paychecks, anyone? Tvoz / talk 18:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Family
Why is there no mention of her uncle Gary Goldmith, who though no doubt the black sheep of the family is as notable as any of them? (There could also incidentally be a separate article about him, as a lot has been published about him.) 93.96.236.8 (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because a) He isn't as notable unless you read gutter press and b) Why would you mentioned him? He's just some jackass who happens to be related to her Cls14 (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Or, write an article yourself if you have reliable sourcing for it and can demonstrate his notability, and see if it stands. This article has enough to deal with now and is not the place for a discussion of a random uncle. Tvoz / talk 18:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably because he's called Gary Goldsmith, not Gary Goldmith.Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Surname after marriage?
Why is she does not have a surname after marriage? Usually, British commoners would marry into a royal member of the family, example (Diana, Princess of Wales; and the surname held out after marriage).

Is there any happening on married royals (name + royal title + place name) and no family name? ApprenticeFan work 14:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Her (married) family name, genealogically, is (Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-)Glücksburg. Of course they don't use surnames the way other people do, and they've used many different titles and different kinds of names in different countries. It seems clear that Philip's descendants are occasionally using the name "Mountbatten-Windsor", which is a term similar to using "freedom fries" instead of French fries, i.e. a term really referring to the families of Glücksburg and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, merely concealing it due to WWI era nationalist sentiment. "Mountbatten-Windsor" thus constitutes a part (cadet branch) of the House of Glücksburg genealogically. Garn Svend (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "When Kate Middleton - Kate Mountbatten-Windsor that is – and Prince William have their children, their kids won’t have the real family name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/ Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, but rather an adopted moniker. But really, Mountbatten-Windsor has a much better ring to it."
 * As the wife of a Prince of the UK, she no longer HAS a surname, but when one is used it is likely to be either Windsor, or Mountbatten-Windsor. Jcuk (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's right. Catherine does no longer has a surname after marriage, Mountbatten-Windsor usually holds a surname like Sophie, Countess of Wessex or Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. ApprenticeFan  work 15:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are not surnames, but titles. That's something completely different from a surname. Garn Svend (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Garn, UK law. JCUK is correct. Technically the Royals have no surname, but tend to use 'Windsor' or 'Mountbatten-Windsor' or other variations if they need to (William and Harry, for example, are known as 'Liietenant Wales' and 'Captain Wales' respectively in the military, where some kind of surname has to be used).  Indisciplined (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in UK law, I'm interested in genealogy, which cannot be changed by law at will and which does not know any country borders. Garn Svend (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's nice, but seeing as how names in the UK are regulated by either common LAW or LEGAL letters patent, what you're interested in is irrelevant to their names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.14.2 (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes but genealogy does not necessarily have to have anything to do with names. It's to do with genes. As people have stated, royals generally don't have surnames like most people do. Cls14 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I did not at any point say it had anything to do with names. In fact, I pointed out the opposite, the names these people choose to use in various situations are irrelevant when it comes to the fact that they belong to certain ancient European princely houses (i.e., Hanover in the case of Queen Victoria, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in the case of her successors until and including Elizabeth II, and Glücksburg in the case of any agnatic descendants of Prince Philip). That's simply something that cannot be changed, they can choose other names and titles to use in various situations, but they cannot choose that they do not belong to the families they are descendants of. Prince Philip, of course, has never had Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg as a name or a title (being royal, he did not use a (sur)name in the traditional sense, and his titles were prince of Greece and prince of Denmark, and his styles were Royal Highness (in Greece) and Highness (in Denmark)). Garn Svend (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But you're now giving us chapter and verse about something that is completely irrelevant to the question. The question was about her "Surname after marriage". This is decided by what they choose to use, and not by the arcane rules of genealogical and dynastic protocol.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox still has her last name as 'Middletlon'.. shouldn't this be removed? She is married now and that is no longer her last name. She takes on the tradition of the English royal family (House of Windsor) as not having a last name, correct? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Should it not be Princess Catherine, not Princess William?
I do not see how it makes sense for her to be called that. If that is right, it is incredibly sexist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twizzar (talk • contribs) 23:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just the way it works in the UK, due to the tradition that only males could inherit the throne. There is, however, a current proposal before Parliament to remove this restriction, although it has a long way to go. Meanwhile, royal wives formally take the names of their husbands, but only formally. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Like her deceased mother-in-law, (Princess Diana was not a real title), she goes by her husband's title "Princess William of Wales" or is reffered to as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If Charles were not the Prince of Wales but the son of the Prince of Wales, as William is, he would have been "Prince Charles of Wales" and Diana would have been "Princess Charles of Wales". And Camilla would also be "Princess Charles of Wales", but I'm sure they'd have found an alternative title for her to avoid confusion with her predecessor, as they've done in real life.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it useful to consider a less exotic parallel. Bob Smith marries Sarah Jones. Sarah Jones is, traditionally, now Sarah Smith. Even more traditionally (if old-fashioned), she can be properly referred to as Mrs. Bob Smith. Now, what if Bob is an HRH? Keeping in mind that HRH's don't really have surnames, the princely version of Mrs. Bob Smith is Princess Bob. I also find it a bit sexist and certainly old-fashioned, but that's the royal family for you. It's also worth noting that it's harmless in practical terms: only in the very most formal situations would the Duchess of Cambridge be referred to as Princess William. Instead, everyone will be technically incorrect and just call her Princess Catherine. 99.57.9.4 (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When Charles succeeds the queen, then Will can be made Prince of Wales, and Kate will be Princess of Wales, just like Diana. But, we don't know when the queen will die; after all, the queen's mom did live to be over 100! User:Canuck My page89 (talk), 04:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very real possibility that the Queen could even outlive Prince Charles, meaning the Catherine could go straight from Duchess of Cambridge to Queen Catherine. Safiel (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an alternative: if Prince Charles were to predecease his mother, William could be made Prince of Wales as heir apparent (making Kate Princess of Wales). There's precedent for that: when George II's son Frederick, Prince of Wales died in 1751, the King's grandson George was made Prince of Wales a month later. George eventually succeeded George II as George III in 1760. -- fdewaele, 30 April 2011, 11:40 CET.
 * Sexist? The woman married into a family that reigns by the Grace of God, on the basis of their birth, and it's that much of a problem for her to use her husband's name (thanks to whom, by the way, she is royal in the first place)? The so called "sexism" is the least of the "problems". Surtsicna (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguity
"is the wife of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, eldest son of the Prince of Wales, who is second in line, after his father, to the British throne." Who does the "who" refer to? Is Prince Charles second in line after the Duke of Edinburgh, or is Prince William second in line after Prince Charles? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  00:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be better worded. The Duke of Edinburgh is not in the lineage. It goes Elizabeth -> Charles -> William -> Harry. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was my best attempt to state something that is essential to the article in a reasonably succinct way, which happens not to be easy. Not everyone who visits the article is going to know why the Duke of Cambridge is more important than the Duke of Somerset or whatever, especially when the former was known by a different name until yesterday (and probably still will be very often). I have attempted a rephrase. Simply deleting the text was a glib response that ignored the purpose of the article, and the needs of readers.  Alex Middleton (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Duke of Edinburgh is in the line of succession to the British throne, albeit currently at #522. Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Mother
Should the infobox state her maiden name, married name or both? Jim Michael (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I am by no means familiar with the conventions of infoboxes, surely the mother's name should not remain as simply 'Carole Elizabeth' as that has never been her full name. If there is no rule as to whether it should be her maiden name, married name or both, then should her current legal name (Carole Elizabeth Middleton as I understand it) not be the default? JakRatchet (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)