Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 6

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

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

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

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

Catherine:

William:

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


 * Should we include Diana in Catherine's box? Martinvl (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My thinking was no, because they never met and had very little to actually do with one another. However, I'm open to including her if people think we should. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say no as Diana died so long before she came on the scene.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and implement these changes since it's been 3 weeks and the only responses were favorable. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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


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


 * I haven't read the court documents yet, but it is possible that they refer to Catherine as Middleton because the news outlet that published the pictures referred to her as Middleton? Maybe to make it clear that they are the same person, perhaps? That makes the most sense to me, but like I said, haven't read it yet. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I'd never heard of this before, myself, Martinvl's suggestion that maybe it's a legal thing I suppose makes sense. Either that or it is an indication that whoever filed the documents was unfamiliar with how the British Royal Family handles surnames. I still think the issue needs to be addressed, so I decided to be bold and added a reference to the media's insistence on using Kate Middleton, but rather than do so in the main article body copy, I added the reference to the initial Footnote #1 which refers to her official surname. That might be an OK compromise rather than adding a statement to the main body copy. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * May I point out the English law is different to French law in many respects. The Government website on name-change ducks the issue ofg one's legal name (as far as England is concerend).  To give an example, I had a colleague a few years ago (I will call her Mary Smith, nee Jones).  She had worked in the Netherlands and presented her birth certificate plus marriage certificate to one authority and her passport to another department.  Lo and behold, the auuthorities wanted tax from both Mary Smith and Mary Jones - the Dutch system is different to the British system - they could not handle changes of name on marriage. In the case of the Duchess of Cambridge, one can only reflect what the media says, commenting on it would be WP:POV or WP:OR. Martinvl (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

coat of arms of Duchess of cambridge
In the section of Coat of Arms, the supporters are those of Duke of Cambridge.

However, as the Prince of Wales' website had update Catherine's new Coat of Arms therefore the picture on wiki became incorrect.

You can find the right one in the link below

http://www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org/the-duchess-of-cambridge/titles-and-heraldry/coat-of-arms-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ila1519 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to move the sentence "The Duchess of Cambridge’s coat of arms denotes that Catherine is the daughter of Michael Middleton and the wife of the Duke of Cambridge" to the section - "Symbolism" and to discard the current contents of that section as they apply only to half of the shield and are now appear in the section Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. I am hesitating about being WP:BOLD as I have recently been revoking unrelated work by an annonymous editor in this article.


 * We should also remember that in the not too distant future, the Duchess could well have a number of changes to her coat of arms:
 * Should Charles succeed to the throne, Catherine (and William) will loose the scallops on the labels as William will be heir to the throne, not son of the heir. In such circumstances William will also automatically become Duke of Cornwall, both of which could be reflected in his coat of arms
 * Should William be granted the title Prince of Wales, his, and probably Catherine's coats of arms will again be changed to reflect this.
 * Martinvl (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Great-grandmother's second cousin and her husband
This must be a joke. Why else would the article mention her great-grandmother's second cousin and her husband? Why on Earth would an article mention the subject's second cousin three times removed if that "cousin" had nothing to do with the subject? Catherine did not inherit anything from that second cousin three times removed. She was not named after her. In fact, she never met her, as she was born a decade after her death. I'd be willing to bet that neither of Catherine's parents met that woman. Mentioning her is a textbook example of trivia. Imagine if we mentioned all the Queen's second cousins three times removed. Pure nonsense. Surtsicna (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove it! :) Seven Letters 14:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Advice taken! ;) Surtsicna (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection of the artcile has been requested to prevent the annonymous editor from in-inserting this trivia. Martinvl (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Davis
The removal of the fact that Thomas Davis is Catherine's ancestor by 58.168.156.225 has been reverted. The notability of Davis is valid, relative to the notability of Catherine's ancestry. That is to say, Catherine's ancestry itself is that of a commoner, so any close relations which are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, like Thomas Davis, should be worth a mention, especially since they are so scarce. Note that a great-great-great-grandfather can be regarded as a close relative. Davis misses out on the chart in the "Ancestry" section by only one generation. Olliffe Φ  Obscurity  18:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Catherine has sixteen great-great-great-grandfathers. (Also note that relatives that presumably died decades or centuries before Catherine was born are unlikely to have had much impact on Catherine's "early life" so inclusion of such information in a section with that title is pretty silly.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2012
In external links add www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org (this is their official website)

Adamharley12345 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The site currently says: "Due to popular demand this page is temporarily unavailable." and has a short statement about pregnancy. A whois lookup doesn't really confirm the owner of the site. I may be being too careful, but do you have an official link or reliable source which indicates this is their "official" site? Wayback.archive.org just has this: which shows there has been a redirect there, but that's not much help. Begoon &thinsp; talk 03:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure exactly what constitutes "official" or how many "official" sites anyone can have, but I always start with royal.gov.uk when I need to fact-check something on any of the British royals. Fwiw, that unquestionably official site links to princeofwales.gov.uk, which bizarrely redirects to www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org/high-demand/baby and the "temporarily unavailable" notice. So, if I'm reading it right, either it's more or less an official site or the hackers have been busy. Rivertorch (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It might just be a temporary thing because of high traffic, to keep it away from the main site. I'm probably being too cautious, as I say. I hadn't noticed the redirect from the .gov.uk site - that would, as you say, almost certainly be kosher, I'd just noticed the reverse one from the .org (cached by wayback last year), which proved pretty much nothing. They probably had the .org sitting there for a while, in case they ever wanted to use it, and it redirected back to .gov.uk - then they decided to use it to steer all the current traffic away and stop the main site slowing down. Nevertheless, at the moment there's nothing really to see there - I'd be inclined to wait until it "settles down" before we add anything, if indeed we want to add it at all. (we already have a link to .gov.uk). But then I'm a cautious old thing... Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I think you're absolutely right to be cautious. I'm presuming, btw, that the .org site could be official in terms of being authorized by the Duke and Duchess and still have no actual connection to the .gov.uk site (i.e, it could be hosted elsewhere, have different webmasters, and so on). Rivertorch (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's possible, too, that it is the Duke and Duchess's "own" site. I was considering that .gov.uk hosts lots of UK government stuff other than just the part at royal.gov.uk, so if a huge surge of people hammering the site to look at pregnancy stuff was slowing down people who wanted to look at parliamentary or other government pages, you might wish to divert that traffic away from the server, and redirecting it to a separate .org site might help to achieve that. Since we basically don't know, I'll mark this as answered for now, to get it off the active requests list, and if it turns out it's a useful link in the fullness of time it can be revisited. Thank you, of course, to the original editor who posted the request - not only for drawing our attention to its existence, but for giving us this lovely little exercise in conjecture to amuse ourselves with... . Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The website appears to be Official, on the The Duke of Cambridge's Royal Page on the Official British Monarchy webpage it says at the very bottom "Visit the website: www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org. www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/PrinceWilliam/PrinceWilliam.aspx --Coasterghost (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well there you go - we didn't have to wait long at all - that's obviously all been done while we went round in circles. Looks quite useful to me. I've added it into the article.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect logic in opening paragraph
"The Duke of Cambridge is second in line to the thrones, after his father, of the 16 Commonwealth realms and, should he eventually accede to them, the Duchess would automatically become the queen consort" is incorrect. If they are not married at the time of his ascension, she will not be queen consort. This is worth mentioning, because it can happen frequently: two of the current princes have gotten divorced before ascending. I made an edit to correct this, and it was reverted. I would like to repropose this edit. Metzby (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming it's factually correct, the wording you used seems reasonable to me. Rivertorch (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a whole host of reasons why she might not become queen consort - she might die (the status of queen consort is not granted posthomously). The article Queen Consort suggests that it is not automatic - see comments there about Charles, Prince of Wales.  Also the citation Time Magazine does not use the word "automatic".  Furthermore,  Time Magazine also has teh following: "It’s widely hinted that Camilla would then take the title of Princess Consort, instead of Queen, to avoid public scrutiny".
 * I have reworded the sentence. Martinvl (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Child
Is it reasonable to propose an article Child of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? There is already plenty of available material written about this human embryo. Hmmm... This calls for a template: Future person Nankai (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. We must wait until such a child is born. Georgia guy (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Also, it's as much Will's child as hers, and in fact it's only because it's specifically his child that it is of any importance at all.  Constitutionally speaking, it's all about Will and his progeny; she is merely the vessel in which the Royal Sperm is nurtured.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I also agree - wait until the child is born and has a name - until then ensure that this artcile is kept up-to-date and also articles that record impending constitutional changes. Martinvl (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Year of graduation
Can someone tell me what year did she graduate from St. Andrews? and perhaps it should be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.224.115 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * She graduated from St. Andrews in 2005 (see 1 and 2). I'm not sure why it's not in the article, I would add it but since I just created an account that's not an option. ToriJana (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added it; thanks for providing the info and the citations. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph is not phrased correctly
The second sentence reads, "The Duke of Cambridge is second in line to the thrones, after his father, of the 16 Commonwealth realms and is expected to become queen consort." The Duke of Cambridge is obviously not expected to become queen consort. A grammatical version of the sentence could read, "The Duke of Cambridge is second in line, after his father, to the thrones of the 16 Commonwealth realms, and the Duchess is expected to become queen consort." It still sounds a bit unencyclopedic to me, but at least it's stating what it means. Dsrguru (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's not William who will become queen consort. I've edited the sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Pregnancy and child in line for the throne
Do we want to include something about the proposed changes to primogeniture? Much talk about her child being in line for the throne. Right now, that's only true if the child is a boy-child. Proposals are out there (announced the day after her pregnancy became public) to change the Succession to the Crown Bill to allow a girl-child to succeed. Jinian (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the baby will be third in line regardless of its gender. There is no law restricting the throne to males-only. What they are changing is the law that says that males take preference over their older sisters. So if their first child is a girl and their second child is a boy, the girl takes precedence because she was born first. Girls are definitely allowed to succeed to the throne in the absence of brothers, otherwise the current monarch of the UK would be a descendant of Ernest Augustus I of Hanover. Morhange (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, this proposed change to the law was announced well over 12 months ago - see 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The only change has been a new sense of urgency in getting the legislation passed. Martinvl (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But there's no reason for any urgency. The new royal child will be third in the line of succession, no matter what its sex is.  If it's a boy, it will never be supplanted.  The only possible issue is if it's a girl who has a younger brother in a couple of year's time.  Under current law, she'd drop down a place at that time.  But by then the law will have been changed so that this doesn't happen.  But even if it takes longer than they anticipate, whenever the law is finally changed it can be made to specify the girl's place is what it would have been had the law been changed prior to her birth.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What about the real possibility that the Duchess is carrying fraternal twins? The first one out is a female, third in line for the throne, only to lose that position when her brother pops out several minutes later. WWGB (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that would be awkward. Probably the best thing they could do is pretend that the boy popped out first and avoid all the hassle. Surtsicna (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My theory: If there are twins of different sexes, and no law in place, there will also be a Caesarean birth, and the new heir will be selected rather than random. They don't have to pretend, they can just decide. Interestingly, different cultures apparently interpret twin births differently: I believe that at least some say that the twin born second is the older one (on the first-in, last-out theory). Though that bit of sociology may be ruined by over-verification. -  Nunh-huh 22:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, they couldn't select or decide which baby they'd pull out first. The first one out would have to be the closest one. The space in the womb is not unlimited and they couldn't reach the one behind the first one without getting the first one out. I also suppose they wouldn't be able to see the baby's genitals while the baby is still in the womb. Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They pretty much can in most instances. You can root around before you pull :) Remember, the incision in the uterus doesn't have to be low transverse, the classical incision is vertical and near the middle. - Nunh-huh 22:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Death
"A nurse at a London hospital who took a hoax call about the Duchess of Cambridge has been found dead." Source; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20645838 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.245.75 (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, we know. See Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. WWGB (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A separate article has now been created on the affair. I disagree with the notability of the article, but have linked to it for Wiki's sake. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither aristocratic not royal
I have reinstated the word "aristocratic" in respect of Catherine's immediate family. The Wikipedia article refers to her immediate family, Burkes to her descent. According to Reitwiesner, she is descended from the Fairfax family who, although were large land-owners, were not aristocrats as Sir Thomas did not have a seat in the House of Lords. Sit Thpomas' father was however an aristocrat, but since he died in 1461, one can hardly consider him to be "immediate". Martinvl (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Royal geneaologists have never acknowleged Kate's ancestry with  a Sir Thomas Fairfax - Gilling: see "Anthony Adolph - Kate's Fairfax connection - a correction" and the Sir Thomas Fairfax - Gilling "talk" page. However, she does have aristocratic connections; Kate's cousin Edward Bullock, the surviving son of Lady Bullock, (AKA Barbara Lupton who died in 1974), confirmed with the Sunday Telegraph, December 16  2012, that his great grandmother Lady Maria FitzMaurice (died 1917) was the daughter of the Earl of Orkney whose family seat was at "Cliveden". This previously unpublished  aristocratic branch of the Middleton family tree will be in the next edition of Burke's Peerage according to it's editor. Please read this article - versions which also featured around the globe including the UK Daily Mail and the UK Express, Sydney Herald Sun, The Times of India etc etc. There is no confirmed evidence that Kate's immediate family or any of her lineal ancestors are "royal".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.114.13 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)  (Moved in order to maintain chronological sequence). Martinvl (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have undone a number of chages
 * Edward Bullock was hardly "immediate" family - he was a distant cousin, not a first cousin and his connection with the aristocracy was via a great-grandmother. Furthermore, it is WP:CRYSTAL to report on as-yet unpublished sources.
 * Did the editor who made the change with the comment "Royal genealogists do not associate Kate's ancestry with Sir Thomas at all - see Anthony Aldoph - Farifax Connection - a correction" actually read the artcile concerend. If the editor was unable to get a copy of the article (I have a paper copy by virtue of my membeship of the Society of Genealogists), then the statement in the article shoudl be sufficient to state that YES, ccording to Adolph, Catherine was descended from Sir Thomas.
 * The book "A genealogical and heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland" was written by John Burke and is authoritative - The link between Margaret and Edward III is well documented.
 * Martinvl (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * RE Kate's aristocratic connections


 * Edward Bullock is ALIVE - his relative Stephen Lupton represented him at Kate's wedding - see the guest list. William Bortrick has the documents that verify that Kate's 2nd cousin Lady Barbara Bullock and her sons E. A. Bullock and R. H. Bullock CB have all been listed in Burke's Peerage (alongside their father Sir Christopher Bullock  whose grandmother was the daughter of the Earl of Orkney) since the 1939 W.W.2 edition, and subsequent editions. This is why he was keen to be quoted in the Telegraph.
 * Kate's cousin, E.A Bullock is currently listed in the 2011 UK Who's Who - hopefully this means something to you!


 * PLEASE understand that although you wish for Kate (and we understand that) to be a descendant of Edward III through Sir Thomas Fairfax, this is simply not possible. There is not enough EVIDENCE in 2013 - that is why one has to preface with "possibly " and "likely". Unless research emerges that proves any royal connection - and William Bortrick has certainly tried - YOU MUST LET IT GO.
 * You have caused trouble in the last 2 years trying to create "shrines" to Kate via this article and others. She DOES have an aristocratic branch of her family - be happy for her if you will. Burke's Peerage are well aware of the link between Margaret and Edward III, but there is no firm evidence of a link between Sir Thomas and Lady Margaret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.114.13 (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved to its correct place on the Talk page by me. Martinvl (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please define what you mean by "immediate family". I know of two different indicators which can be used:
 * Those people (or siblings of those people) who may not marry.
 * Those people who can inherit property from somebody who dies intestate.
 * Under the first definition, first cousins are not immediate family, under the second definitojs, first cousins are immediate family, but second cousins are not. Take you pick, EA Bullock is not immediate family.
 * Even if Bullock is immediate family, he himself is not aristocratic even though his great-grandparents might have been.
 * I have provided a citation that links Lady Margaret to Sir Thomas. A copy of the book is certainly available in the library of the Society of Genealogists (where I read it) and might be available in the London Guildhall Library (which certainly haas a number of books in that series)
 * Please clarify what William Bortrick has done.
 * The words "probably", "likely" are used because this is relatively new research. If you disagree, please tell me which links cause you problems - Catherine's pedigree is availalbe on the web, but do not just strike it out.  The only conclusive evidence would of couse be a DNA test which woudl be almost impossible to carry out.
 * Finally, please stop getting personal - everything that I have written in this article is based on solidly verifiable material. Martinvl (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never claimed that E.A. Bullock is an immediate family member of Kate. He is her living cousin and part of a branch in her family tree that has earls and marquess', countesses, sirs and lady's in it, ie the aristocracy. As the son a knight, E.A. Bullock is an integral part of the Order of Precedence - see the British Monarchy webpage.

Kate's own immediate family is NOT aristoctratic. This includes her 4 uncles 4 deceased grandparents and 5 first cousins. 2nd cousins on her paternal side are an altogther different matter.

Copies of ALL of the relevant research of A. Adolph and W.A Reitwiesner were long ago sent to the office at 78 Pall Mall London. As Chairman of Burke's Peerage and Royal Geneaologist, William Bortrick is "the man in charge" who has unfortunately had to dismiss the work of these 2 researchers - one of whom died in 2010. This is not the forum by which I can divuldge the vast amount of research  done on all genealogical matters regarding Kate.

Please refer to the Sir William Gascoigne web page - and the footnotes attached (number 20). You will see then that (even by your own reckoning), research regarding this ancestral connection is inconclusive.

Bortrick's volume "Ancestry of the royal families of Europe" will be published before the birth of Kate's baby; in it  there will be references to Kate's ancestry comnnections through her 2nd cousin (3R) Barbara Lupton, Lady Bullock. (see Sunday Telegraph Dec 16 2012 for our quote)

In his volume there will be no reference to  Sir Thomas Fairfax nor his "possible" connections to Kate's great grandmother Olive Middleton (nee Lupton).

A. Adolph says on his blog that it is "certain" that Kate IS a descendant of JOHN FAIRFAX died 1614. We accept this. The ancestry outlined beyond that as you yourself know, is inconclusive.

I will not enter into any more discussion with you but we may try to contact you personally, if you don't mind, RE appearing on Johnathon Freedman's Radio 4 BBC show to look at WHY you are so keen to overlook the established aristocratic branch of Kate's family tree in preference for a "fantasy" branch based on little evidence and which the original researchers have admitted only in July last year is "inconclusive".

I do hope I have answered your questions. Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.114.13 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(Moved into chronologuical order by me) Martinvl (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have undone the last changes - Peter Middleton's aristocratic ancestry is of no relevance to any coat of arms that he might bear - they stayed with the male branch of the family. It is therefore irrelevant to mention his ancestry in the section about coats of arms, unless one goes into detail as to why he did not inherit a coat of arms. Martinvl (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now read your response and moved it to its correct place (please append responses to the section in future, not insert them at the top of the section). I look forward to the publication of "Ancestry of the royal families of Europe".  Until then however, it should be remembered that Wikipedia looks for "verifiability, not truth". Martinvl (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I found an electronic copy of Suffolk Bartholomeans on Google. I have added it as a citation to the article so that once "Ancestry of the royal families of Europe" is published,it will simplify any corrections or commentaries. BTW, I am quite happy to be contacted personally on this matter. Martinvl (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated the WP:Wikilink to the word "aristocratic" and added on to the word "royal" - see WP:UNDERLINK, where is states that "articles explaining technical terms" should be Wikilinked. Martinvl (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hilary Mantel
At the present time there is nothing encyclopeadic about Hilary Mantel's assessment of Catherine. This sort of assessment is best kept for at least a year to see if anybody else refers to it. If they don't, then neither should Wikipeida. Martinvl (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bullock connection
I have removed the paragraph on the Bullock connection as it is a connection by marriage, not a blood connection. Lady Bullock (Catherine's second cousin) is a blood relation, Sir Christopher Bullock (who is descended from the aristocracy) is not a blood relation, but is a relation by marriage and given the distance between Lady Bullock and Catherine, Sir Christopher's descent is not particularly relevant. Moreover the blood versus marriage connection was not made clear in the article, so if somebody reinstates the sentence, please make the blood/marriage connection clear. Martinvl (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work to get this bit a bit clearer - I will endeavour to make the blood relationship between Caterine and Lady Bullock clearer ( as pointed out by the Sunday Telerapah / Times of India etc and then put in. Cheers Harro]
 * I have again removed the references to Lady Bullock for the reasons given above. Martinvl (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also see section "Gentry" below. Martinvl (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Religion
Is she really a member of the church of england? I've read she was jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.216.133.208 (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know but I haven't heard that. I'm sure it's easy to reference, because at the moment it isn't so really should be removed per WP:BLP! – anemone projectors – 14:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * She was baptised as a Christian (Protestant - Church of England) as an infant and confirmed by the Bishop of London shortly before she was married. I have added a citation to theat effect. Martinvl (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really helpful! – anemone projectors – 16:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Gentry
I have removed the word "gentry" as it is nebullous. Insterad, I have expanded the sentence about the role of the Lupton family, leaving it to the reader to decide the social class of the family. Of course, if someone want to write an article "Ancerty of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge", fell free to do so, but this article should make only the briefest mention. Martinvl (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is she jewish?
Is she jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.138.192 (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Why does this kept getting brought up? The Duchess of Cambridge was baptised as an infant and confirmed as a communicant of the Church of England shortly before her marriage. To whatever troll who keeps bringing this up enough is enough. She is a confirmed, professed and practicing Anglican; otherwise the Duke of Cambridge would have been removed from the line of succession. Stop bringing this up or I will report you. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * She's not Jewish, but if she were, it would have no effect on the line of succession. It's not as if she's Catholic! - Nunh-huh 15:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, but I've read a number of sources that say many older members of the Royal Family are not very hospitable to Jews; it is also clearly mentioned on the Monarchy website that anyone who marries someone who does not convert to Anglicanism and/or is not Protestant at the time of succession to the throne shall be disbarred. This is very clearly stated on the Monarchy's website and in any reliable book on British constitutional law. Even if it were not, the Establishment in Britain has always been anti-Semitic and the marriage of a Jewish girl to the next heir-apparent to the British throne would NOT be looked favorably upon in those quarters, no matter what Convention on "Human Rights" may have been entered in to. Respectfully please don't tell me you are so niave. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There has never been any restriction on marriage to anyone but a Catholic. One's spouse doesn't need to be Anglican or become one, and one's spouse remaining non-Anglican or non-Christian does not disbar one from the succession. If you have read that it does, that source is in error. To succeed, you must have never been a Catholic, and never have married a Catholic (the latter bit is in process of being changed), and if you are not in communion with the Anglican church you must become so to succeed. But your spouse needn't.  All of this has to do with law rather than anything that is likely to happen. - Nunh-huh 20:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully you contradict yourself. If you are Catholic, you are by definition, not Anglican. If a member of the Royal Family (who must be in communion with the Church of England, ie. be Anglican in order to be in the line of succession) marries said Catholic while they are still Catholic, the person in the line of succession automatically loses their rights of succession; see Prince Michael of Kent's article. And though you write that it's in the process of being changed, that is absolutely NOT relevant in any way, shape, manner or form. All that matters is what the Act of Settlement of 1701 states and I quote "The monarch shall join in communion with the Church of England". Simple as that. It doesn't provide allowances for one to be Hindu, Sufi, Muslim, Baptist, or any other voodoo nonsense. If you become our Lord dread and Sovereign, you MUST be in communion with the Church of England, ie. be a believing and practicing Anglican. Period. Now if you need clarification on what that means, I suggest you get a second opinion; THIS British constitutional expert has already provided their learned opinion in an obviously foolhardy and ill-advised attempt to banish your stupendously astounding ignorance. I have no more time to waste on trying to fill the voluminous space between your ears with useful knowledge. Good luck living life with such stupidity and priggishness. What can not be cured must be endured, so best of luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.121.132 (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I gather this is directed at me, despite the indentation, but if so I also think you have misunderstood what you've read. - Nunh-huh 04:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * He's writing about the rules that apply to the monarch, but Catherine is not and never will be the monarch. Catherine could be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, Mormon, Methodist or the High Priestess of Voodoo - anything except Catholic - and it would have zero effect on William's place in the line of succession.  So, there's no problem with her being Jewish.  But the fact is, she isn't.  End of story.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  05:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not quite the end. In order to be eligible to become monarch, William must be in communion with the Church of England; re: Prince Michael's removal. It is not enough that HE is Anglican; his spouse must also be Anglican at the time of marriage. Now there is nothing preventing Catherine from becoming whatever she wants (not that she will) but at the time of marriage, she absolutely had to be in full communion with the Church of England. Period. I don't know where you get your sources from and I don't care; all that matters is that she was, is and shall always be Anglican because of the Establishment and the status of the Church of England and of the Royal Family's relationship with it. If she wanted to privately be whatever you think she is, that wouldn't be an issue, but she simply isn't. This isn't a hypothetical question; you asked specifically if she IS Jewish and the answer is NO, she is Anglican, because to be in the line of succession, you must meet all qualifications under the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701, among other legislation. She is Anglican, she always will be Anglican. Deal with it. I will not touch upon this issue again; I will report you for trolling. You have been warned. Good luck 74.69.121.132 (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, there's another aspect to the Jewishness question: Jewish ethnicity. Plenty of Christians and other non-Jews are ethnically Jewish, because it is passed through the maternal line and X generations ago there was a Jewess who's passed her Jewishness down through her daughters and grand-daughters and so on till the present day (for example, my 2 sons are members of the Russian Orthodox Church but are Jewish because their great-grandmother was a Polish Jew named Goldberg).  So, it's perfectly possible that Catherine would pass that test.  BUT, to my knowledge, there is ZERO evidence that she has any such ancestors.  Her genealogy has been very extensively researched, and anything like this would have been brought to attention by now, and it would certainly be appearing in any decent biography.  But it isn't (appearing), because it hasn't been (brought to attention), because it doesn't (exist), because she isn't (Jewish). Funnily enough, not everybody is.  Once again, end of story.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And another not-quite-end, as our ip friend is still peddling misinformation: there is no religious requirement that the spouse of the monarch be Anglican; there has never been any religious requirement other than that the spouse be non-Catholic, even before the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. If our numerical friend is convinced otherwise, I invite him to think about whether the current Prince of Wales and his current wife were united in an Anglican ceremony and whether he thinks that presents a difficulty to his succession, to recognize that spouses per se are not in the line of succession, and to consult other sources. If he will trust the BBC: Royal Marriage Rules, namely "There is no legal bar on [potential heirs to the throne] marrying a Muslim, a Jew or, indeed, an atheist.".- Nunh-huh 07:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Why exclude it?
Can one of those who removed it please explain why that widely published speculation about the gender of the baby cannot be added to the article. Bo.Clive (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As you have asked the same question at Prince William I will repeat that this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid and we dont do speculation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * See my reply at Prince William. The content isn't our speculation, it is the documented speculation of others. Bo.Clive (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I echo what User:MilborneOne said. Please read WP:CRYSTAL where is says "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.".  Moreover, apart from correcting a typo (20013 => 2013)the rest of what User talk:Bo.Clive and User:Fat&Happy wrote is merely a more wordy way of writing what was already there. I have therefore again reverted. Martinvl (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You quote wp:crystal out of context, and you had introduced the errors again. Bo.Clive (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Baby names and regnal names
Several years ago there was an article on WP called something like "Regnal numbers of future British monarchs" or "Names of future monarchs of the United Kingdom". It must have been deleted long since for although it showed the quirkiness for which Wikipedia is known, it might have been deemed not quite encyclopedic (unlike "List of bus routes in Ambridge" and the like). It was along the lines that a future prince named "Henry" would become "Henry IX", or a Malcolm would be "Malcolm V".

I'm almost surprised it has not been recreated in the speculation here!

Howard Alexander (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Birth of baby
As the day is coming closer, how do we deal with the baby when he or she is born? If we get a name immediately, it should be simple enough, we just create an article called "Prince James of Cambridge" or whatever. If we get a sex but not a name immediately, do we create "Prince Unknown of Cambridge"? How has Wikipedia handled other recent royal births? Which was the most recent? PatGallacher (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would there be an unseemly haste to create an article for an unnamed baby? Can people not just wait?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

For better or worse Wikipedians do tend to act with what might appear to some people to be unseemly haste, since WP:BEBOLD is one of our mottos, and trying to stop them would be more trouble than it's worth. The most recent birth of a member of the British royal family with an article in his own right is James, Viscount Severn in 2007, he was just created as "Viscount Severn". With his sister Lady Louise Windsor in 2003 the article was only created several days after her birth, but Wikipedia may have been in its infancy. Theoretically a boy might be "Earl of Strathmore", but British royals don't normally use courtesy titles that way. PatGallacher (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We can thank our lucky stars it isn't Denmark, where the baby is not named until its baptism, which can be many weeks after its birth. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The baby definitely will not be "Earl of Strathmore". As you say, the princely title he or she would be entitled to would certainly trump the courtesy title. Furthermore, William and Catherine appear to be styled Earl and Countess of Strathmore when in Scotland. Jack is right; thank God the baby is not a Danish prince(ss). With the recently born Danish princes and princesses, we had to wait months, not weeks; the name of the youngest, Princess Athena, was announced four months after her birth. The article about her, her brother and her cousins were titled Prince NN of Denmark and Princess NN of Denmark while they were unnamed. Surtsicna (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would recommend we have a decent article on standby somewhere in Userspace, ready to move to Prince NN of Cambridge or Princess NN of Cambridge as soon as the child is born, then appropriate redirects can be created and the article fully protected against moves until an official announcement is made regarding its name. NB: We don't even actually know its style until that is first used either – Prince/ss X of Cambridge is our best guess/assumption, but who can see the future? DBD 18:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That won't stop other eager and well-intentioned people in the meantime creating such atrocities as The new British royal baby, Princess Catherine's new baby, The Duchess of Cambridge's new baby, Kate's baby joy, and so on. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * DBD, I too have thought of that. The article would contain all the usual information (such as the infobox, line of succession box and ahnentafel), names of the baby's parents, relevant grandparents and relevant great-grandparents, and the information about the baby's constitutional position (especially if female). It's a sensible suggestion. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we also put up a massive banner: "Yes, we know there's a royal baby. Stop losing your shit and calm the fuck down. We're on it."? No? :P DBD 10:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above suggestions, just a couple of points. We do know how the child will be titled, see the last bit of British prince. The potential courtesy title is Earl of Stathearn, not Strathmore. PatGallacher (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that is not even potential. It has been made clear that the child will be a prince or a princess. Besides, a son would have been a prince anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * British princes do not use courtesy titles; the only reason Prince Edward's children do is because he and his wife requested it, but legally they are still Princess Louise & Prince James of Wessex. The only title used by British princes is a royal dukedom, but you would never see Prince George, Earl of Stathearn. When the current Duke of Kent was a child, he was Prince Edward of Kent, not Prince Edward, Earl of St Andrews. Morhange (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (AH! Bad Morhange. As their articles makes clear, it is uncertain whether the Wessex children are princes. DBD 08:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC))


 * If the baby is male, he will be known as Prince X, the Earl of Strathearn (NOT Strathmore and Kinghorne, that title belongs to Michael Bowes-Lyon, the Queen's first cousin once removed. Ironically the 14th Earl was the father of the Queen Mother, this unborn baby's great-great-grandmother). Technically I believe he could be known as the Earl of Strathearn until he likely inherits the Dukedom of Cambridge or the Dukedom of Cornwall and title as Prince of Wales. Of course if it's a girl, she would be known as "Princess X of Cambridge". Time'll tell if equal preference primogeniture means she'd receives the title of Princess of Wales. Cheers!67.247.147.235 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No - I think that you are getting confused with courtesy titles - when a peer has two titles from the same authority, his heir uses the lesser of the two as a courtesy title. Prince William's title are from three different authorities - Cambridge (English), Strathearn (Scottish) and Carrickfergus (Irish). I believe that the baby will be known as Prince(ss) X of Cambridge. As a precedent, the Queen's uncle (brother of George VI) was known as Prince George, Duke of Kent.  When he died in 1942, he left two sons Edward and Michael.  Edward became Prince Edward, Duke of Kent while his younger brother became Prince Michael of Kent. (See family tree at Duke of Kent). A similar pattern can be seen in the family of the Duke of Gloucester where the following sentence can be seen "Prince William was the heir-apparent of his father's peerages, Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster, and Baron Culloden. Upon his death, his younger brother Prince Richard of Gloucester became heir-apparent and succeeded to these peerages in 1974.". Martinvl (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Template
I have created a template at User:Martinvl/Sandbox/Prince X by taking the article about Prince Harry of Wales. I invite anybody who wishes to help in preparing this template to do so, but will they please add their names to the list below (after all it is in my user area). Initially we will have to replace text relating to Prince Harry with text relating to the new baby. I have already stripped out material that will not be replaced during the first few months of the child's life including military career, education and the like, but have commented out sections that might be needed in the near future (such as date and place of christening etc).

Once the announcement has been officially published (probably on the web by St James Palace), then anybody who has been assisting in the preparation of the article can update it to reflect the child's name, date of birth etc and place it in Wikipedia Main space. We can deal with article such as  at a later date. Martinvl (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice one. DBD 13:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Practicalities of article launch
The BBC have published a possible timetable of announcements of the royal birth here. This suggests that we should be ready for an article concerning the birth of an unnamed prince. Any suggestions? Martinvl (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If we are given a certain indication as to the child's style, then Prince NN of Cambridge or (what-have-you); if not (which I suggest will be the case), then Unnamed British prince. (If we afterwards know a name before a style, then Prince Bob or Bob (British prince)?) DBD 13:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not just not start the article until we know? Britmax (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the precedent that the baby will be known Prince(ss) NN of Cambridge is very strong (unless the Queen dies before the baby is born, in which case Prince William will inherit the title Duke of Cornwall plus the income from the Duchy).
 * Secondly, I would hesitate to create an article with a name that will change possible within hours of publication. I suggest therefore that we agree a time lag between the birth and the latest that we publish.  I suggest that if no name has been published within 48 hours (or should be wait 24 hours or 36 hours), then we publish under temporary name of Son/daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.  This will give us a short breathing space to get it right rather than quick. Martinvl (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I second the suggestion Prince NN of Cambridge/Princess NN of Cambridge. There is nothing that indicates otherwise. A boy child will have this title regardless, and as per the queen's previous statement, any daughters will be princesses as well. This is the same thing we've done with the Danish royal children, and though we won't have to wait three months for the name (probably a day or two at most) I think the precedent to do Prince/ss NN of Title is fine. Morhange (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We've been working on the assumption that we'd publish absolutely ASAP because in whatever gap there is (and indeed outside of it), people will start creating crap/misnamed/etc. articles willy-nilly... DBD 20:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case we need to agree the article name. I suggest that unless the name is announced at the same time as the birth announcement, we use either Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge or Daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Martinvl (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They seem a touch clumsy, but I can't think of much better, so I'll be content enough with either. DBD 14:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's there already: Royal baby. As bizarre as it is to have an article about an unborn person (certainly the first of its kind on Wikipedia), there is no doubt that the subject is notable on its own. So, should the article about a foetus be nominated for deletion (only to be recreated within a few days, when it's "out") or should we build it up and possibly nominate for DYK? Surtsicna (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Leave that article there for the time being and check it out for useful information. Once the birth has been announced, replace what is there with a redirect to our article.  Meanwhile, I am logging that and all other such articles in the template in my sandbox.


 * Beginning to wonder if an article about the baby was ever going to be created, I created that article yesterday after doing a bit of research into how to create and present a new Wikipedia article. The subject matter is eminently notable and can easily be reliably sourced. I suggest updating that article (the one that I created) as events unfold, and ultimately appropriately renaming it when the new baby's name is announced. Please all feel to contribute to it - as we all should know, nobody owns or controls Wikipedia article content. Bo.Clive (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that the baby is notable. If the article is going to be kept, wouldn't it make much more sense to move it to a new title once the baby is born and named rather than redirect it to our draft? Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that - that is what I meant above. Bo.Clive (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say (having been following this discussion) that I've redirected some of the existing redirects to this new article, just not the sex-specific ones since we don't know the sex. Though if Catherine ever has a second child, some of the redirects would then more closely refer to that child. I'd suggest, if the new article is to be kept, that when the time comes, it's moved (not cut/pasted) to a new name and the draft currently in user space is then merged with it. – anemone projectors – 13:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that two weeks after the birth that all articles relating to the birth that do not meet with the Wikipedia naming convention be listed for deletion. Deletion will take a further week. That will be enough time for the initial hype to die down and will also ensure Wikipedia's integrity. Martinvl (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "all articles"? There is only one, and there will be only one. Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Martinvl, do you mean all the redirects? It's probably right that they're deleted. We won't need a redirect for Kate's baby joy in a year's time for sure. – anemone projectors – 16:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you visit this page you will see a list of over 100 entries, many of which could, I think, be removed in a bulk AfD. Martinvl (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But why delete them? They're only redirects... DBD 18:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They are redirects to articles and anchors that will date quite quickly. When will the section Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge be renamed Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? When do you expect the couple to have No2? How may of the articles will be valid then, or should they point to No 2?  I akm actually being generous by allowing two weeks before we request a delist. Martinvl (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. They perform an important role in the certain MADNESS of the immediate post-birth in that they might stop people creating articles at those titles. Hopefully. DBD 08:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow! I had no idea there were so many! I only changed a few. Perhaps some of them will be useful and some should be pointed to the article on the child. – anemone projectors – 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Had a laugh that one of the redirects if from K-middy. Morhange (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * She is called that by celebrity gossip magazines (P Middy redirects to Pippa Middleton)! – anemone projectors – 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Announcement of her pregnancy
The lede tells us it was officially announced on 14 January 2013. A visitor from Mars (for whom all our articles should be written) would believe that January was the first time anyone outside her immediate family knew she was pregnant. But we all knew over a month earlier, because she was in hospital being treated for a condition that only pregnant women have. It was that very condition that led to the speculation she might be having twins. And it was that hospitalisation that led to the Jacintha Saldanha episode.

Why are we pretending we did not know till the Palace told us? --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The first announcement is covered under Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, but I agree the wording is inaccurate and have edited it. Helen  Online  08:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Helen. It still makes no mention of the December announcement, and it still reads as if the world at large had no knowledge of the pregnancy till January.  I've edited it to make mention of the two announcements: 3 December (the pregnancy), and 14 January (the due date).  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013
I suggest that the phrase '... would be eligible to take the throne regardless of its gender.' under the heading 'Engagement and marriage' should be changed to '... would be eligible to take the throne regardless of its sex.'. Since a distinction between 'gender' and 'sex' is often made, it seems appropriate to use a word that cannot possibly be ambiguous.

86.137.43.223 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have avoided both sex and gender as we just keep going around in circles. Helen  Online  15:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In regard to 'going around in circles', I am not sure of the recent history of this article, but I did suggest an identical change to the article of the child, and have simply repeated it on this article. Thank you for your edit. 86.137.43.223 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. It was sex originally in the other article, but has changed several times. Helen  Online  15:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Katherine NOT Catherine
Someone please edit the page to the correct spelling. If it were "Catherine" she would not be called "Kate".108.175.136.129 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC) B.F.M 7/23/2013


 * You're just making that up, all by yourself. Her legal name is Catherine with a C.  Her more common name is Kate with a K.  Those are the facts.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just out of interest, why do you think having the name "Catherine" means she would not be called "Kate"? Britmax (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Some men named Robert do indeed retain the R in their nickname and get called Rob or Robbie. But most are Bob or Bobby.  Not a big deal.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And there's Polly for Mary and Peggy for Margaret. There's just no simple correspondence between name and nickname. - Nunh-huh 00:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Princess William
She is "Princess William" per "Titles and styles" section. There was much discussion of certain points after the marriage and after the pregnancy was announced, some false inferences and rebuttals, and things have been moving on. If there has been a decision not to include "Princess William" in the opening sentence, I have not found it in the Archives. If there was a decision, can it be reconsidered now? It could be inserted thus:
 * Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (Catherine Elizabeth "Kate"; née Middleton; born 9 January 1982), is the wife of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, '''and as such she is also styled Princess William."

Qexigator (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: "...she is the wife of Prince William..." hence the concern which had been expressed in earlier discussion about mistaking her for a dowager or divorcee were and remain groundless. Qexigator (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. While a person can have more that one title, only a single style is used. That is the point of having a style in the first place. It's how you are referred to. In her case HRH the Duchess of Cambridge. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Catherine Middleton
Did I miss something? Why isn't this page titled Catherine Middleton like Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Mary of Teck etc.? Also, one thing she isn't is Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. That would be her title if she got divorced. She is The Duchess of Cambridge as per the Styles and Titles section. Jwasanders (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Miss? No more she isn't. She's gotten married to that man, and now produced a male heir to her g-granny, innit. Then again, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon goes to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, dontcha know, like Catherine Middleton. If you're worried about divorce, see above. Qexigator (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

She is also styled "Her Royal Highness," this should be included in her full title at the top of the page.151.230.133.20 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be a first for a Wikipedia article on a member of royalty anywhere in the world. Do you see an article on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom?  In a word, "No".   --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * She can't be compared to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Mary of Teck or Alexandra of Denmark because she isn't Queen-consort yet. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Princess William edit war
I am one of the editors who has removed references to "Princess William" (note I have also replaced "Baroness" with "Lady" Carrickfergus) in Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, as per the official website of the British Monarchy cited and the Telegraph source cited, i.e. this is supported by reliable primary and secondary sources not the unofficial speculation of a former employee of the Royal Household on television.

Here are some further sources to support "Princess William" not being included (note I removed the second source from the article as the Telegraph source cited was another similar article by the same journalist on the same day which does not include the "Baroness" error):


 * Royal wedding: Prince William asks the Queen not to make him a duke, Richard Eden, The Telegraph, 12 December 2010:
 * "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.'
 * This presents a thorny dilemma for the monarch, however, as princesses, traditionally, receive their titles through birth rather than marriage.
 * If Prince William is not given a new title, his 28-year-old bride will, automatically, become Princess William, not 'Princess Catherine'."


 * Prince William and Kate Middleton's new titles revealed, Martin Beckford, The Telegraph, 29 April 2011:
 * "Buckingham Palace said in a statement: 'The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince William of Wales.
 * 'His titles will be Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
 * '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.'
 * If the Prince had turned down the titles, he would have remained HRH Prince William of Wales.
 * His wife would likely have been known as HRH Princess William of Wales, rather than HRH Princess Catherine, as she is not a princess in her own right."

It appears that Prince William accepted the new titles so his wife would not be known as "Princess William" (as she could not be known as "Princess Catherine" which he would have preferred). Helen Online  07:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * She's still Princess William though? She just has a higher title that she is known by. This is why you have Katharine, Duchess of Kent and not Princess Edward of Kent. I'm fairly certain Kate is Her Royal Highness Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge, etc. Morhange (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, they have removed the "Prince William" part from his official page. I don't think his WP article is 100% correct. Helen  Online  07:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * See above: "Prince William thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge". "Prince William" falls away. Helen  Online  07:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * British royals are only adressed as Prince X (and their consort as Princess X, fort instance Prince Michael of Kent and Princes Michael) when they don't have a peerage title. (Making abstraction of the colloquial use of the title, for instance Prince William, Prince Charles, Prince Harry, Prince Edward,...). When they have a peerage title, they (and their consort) are adressed by that title. As Prince William has been given a Dukedom upon his marriage, the discussion is moot. -- fdewaele, 11:11, 2 August 2013.

Another source:
 * Royal baby: Duke and Duchess of Cambridge register birth of Prince George, Gordon Rayner, The Telegraph, 2 August 2013:
 * "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have formally registered the birth of their son Prince George, with the Duchess giving her occupation as 'Princess of the United Kingdom'."
 * "The Duchess is entitled to use the title Princess William of Wales, but has never described herself as such because the couple decided to be known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge after the titles were conferred on them by the Queen on their wedding day."

Title update
The birth certificate of Prince George of Cambridge shows the Duchess' full name as "Catherine Elizabeth, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge". The entry was signed by Prince William. This is about as authoritative as we can get. Martinvl (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is interesting although I'm not sure about authoritative. My father lied on my birth certificate. :) Helen  Online  14:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Did your father go to the Registrar's office, or did the registrar go to your father's home? In William's case, the registrar came to him and he probably had a legal advisor on hand (and the registrar should also have known the legal ins and outs).  I know that when I got married, my wife told the vicar that her father was a "surveyor" and the vicar questioned what type of "surveyor" (he was a "window surveyor" - the guy who measured up for double glazing).  Also, assuming that the registrar did her homework, I think that everything on the certificate was already in the public domain, so all that William had to do was to sign the certificate. Martinvl (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Referencing to the "duke", "prince" etc.
Both William and his father are princes. Kate is a duchess. However, for the sake of clarity, all references should be more specific. Prince William, Prince Charles, Duchess Catherine. Otherwise, it isn't clear who you are speaking about.
 * "Duchess Catherine" does not make sense. She is "Duchess of Cambridge" but not "Duchess Catherine". "The Prince" should refer to the Prince of Wales, "the Duke" in most cases to the Duke of Cambridge and "the Duchess" to the Duchess of Cambridge. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Surtsicna. That's like the same mistake the media kept making in calling William's mother *Princess Diana* instead of *the Princess of Wales*. Royal women are supposed to be referred to by their titles, so Kate would be *the Duchess*.  Diana only became *Diana, Princess of Wales* after she was divorced, as a courtesy from the queen that acknowledged she was the mother of direct-line heirs.  In fact (I could be wrong) but I always thought that preceding a title with a first name ie, *Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall* or *Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge*) indicated a lady was divorced.  I mean, you never heard anyone say *Wallis, Duchess of Windsor*.  I'm going to look that up in my *styles* references. ScarletRibbons (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Referring to her as *Catherine*
I was told in no uncertain terms that I could NOT refer to anyone, living or dead, by their 1st names on WP, & if a female had a title, she had to be referred to as that throughout her article - ie, *Lady Amy* or *Lady Dudley* for Amy Robsart, even though *Lady Amy* was wrong before she was married as she was the daughter of a knight & had no title, & wrong after Northumberland was attainted & all his children lost their styles as offspring of an earl & a duke, & she did not become *Lady Dudley* until Elizabeth I knighted Robert Dudley near the end of Amy's life nor was she then *Lady Amy Dudley* as legally she was no longer the wife of the son of an earl & duke. I thought it was simpler to refer to her as just *Amy* throughout rather than explain the changes that occurred with her name & styles, but was told it was against WP *rules* (though I wasn't pointed to a link for it). Noblewomen are usually called by their 1st names round here as far as I can see, even when they have surnames & are not *of* something! Mary Boleyn is called *Mary*, not *Lady Carey* or *Lady Stafford*, Catherine Neville is called *Catherine* & not *the Duchess of Norfolk*, etc, & they're not royals.

As for males, I was told they had to be referred to by their title - ie, *Leicester* - or last name - ie, *Dudley*. I was banging head on keyboard going, but - no one just says *the king* all the time or refers to them as *Plantagenet* or keeps changing their titles - ie, Henry of Bolingbroke going from Earl of Derby to Duke of Hereford to Duke of Lancaster to King of England ---

So how does Kate get to be consistently referred to as *Catherine* throughout the article, without her title appended? I've only been here a few months & I would appreciate it if someone could actually explain this to me, as my main interest is British history & I am quite confused. ScarletRibbons (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The rules are quite clear, see WP:SURNAME and WP:HONORIFIC:
 * A person may be referred to by their given name in the case of royalty (which is an exception to the surname or pronoun only after first mention rule).
 * Styles and honorifics should not usually be included in front of the name, unless being discussed explicitly.
 * I only discovered these rules recently myself. I usually find the relevant rules by googling "wiki mos xyz", where xyz relates to my query e.g. name, honorific. Helen  Online  10:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Basically she's referred to by first name due to "no good alternative" (and WP:COMMONNAME). If we referred to her by a surname, there would be a firestorm of complaints that it was the wrong one (there are about six different candidates, not counting (any of!) Saxe-Coburg-Gotha), or that she doesn't have any (as if).  If she were referred to incessantly as "the Duchess of Cambridge" it would be both long-winded and seem excessively deferential.  One can't refer to her as "Cambridge" -- that's hubby.  It's not strictly speaking a matter of gender;  I think one could use that form with females holding titles in their own right (for example, the aforementioned Anne Boleyn as "Pembroke", if one were to lack some other means of referring to her).  But that's uncommon, and I'm not certain about the "correct" form for that.  84.203.33.254 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever may have been determined for the purposes of WP, it can be expected that an article about historical persons may follow different conventions, such as commonly used in the source literature of a given genre, than one about a living person. In this case, the use of the first name "Catherine" does not have the feel of undue familiarity, but the degree of objectivity (not too warm, not too cold) that is suited to such an encyclopedic article, for simplicity and clarity of expression when communicating the information to readers, free from gush or censure. Qexigator (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so, royalty, 1st name good. I can see *modern* people referred to by surname as most news media no longer preface those with Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Ms anymore.  There just seems to be no consistent rule when it comes to dealing with the female nobility.  Some get the royal treatment & go by 1st name alone, even if they have a surname; some have honorifics such as *Lady* appended so many times within the text it's annoying; some are referred to inconsistently (ie, the aforementioned *Lady Amy* or *Lady Dudley* both used interchangeably) or wrongly; but none of them seem to go by surname at all.  Yes, I've seen the *Mountbatten-Windsor* arguments on several royals talk pages as some people can't accept that royals generally do not use surnames except when they have to (I've seen Princess Anne's marriage license cited as a *for*).  I just thought that after crossing my eyes at the repetitious *Lady Dudley* stuff (history books don't do that, it's almost always 1st name unless they're talking about, say, 2 Elizabeths on the same page & need to differentiate somehow for clarity), this page would be resplendent with *Lady Cambridge*.  TYVM for your responses.  ScarletRibbons (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we insisted on a surname-specific take on WP:COMMONNAME she'd be "Middleton", and royalist editors would pitch the proverbial fit. Actually, a large number of fits laid end to end.  The "surname" issue is often conducted in terms of whether royals have surnames.  If they ever use one, that's certainly evidence they have one.  (Not to say the legislation saying that they have one.)  Do they ever have to use one?  I'm not sure, certainly Wills just signed a legal document without any recourse to one.  But contrariwise, think RAF flight suits, university, and other ostentatious use of "Wales" as a surname.  I think it would be more accurate to say that they don't use surnames except when they use a surname, essentially whimsically, as part of a calculated PR strategy, or whatever the heck it is that they're actually doing.  Referring to her by one of her many "married surnames" would be very marginally sourced at best, and immediately get into "undue weight" issues.  Referring to her as "Cambridge" would cause rampant confusion with hubs.  "Lady Cambridge" wouldn't satisfy the royalists (by giving her an "inferior" style), the republicans (still using a title), or Wikipedia policy (not what the sources ever call her).  There's some truth in what you say about disambiguation by context:  if the article were chock full of other "Catherines", other "Duchesses of Cambridge", and so on, that would influence which choice was clearer.
 * WP doesn't have a "consistent rule" in the sense that it would if Debrett's were in charge of what's "good style". Its rule is to follow what the sources say.  So, if the best available sources predominantly use one form of someone's name, we should be using that here, subject to what makes sense in content.  Not to apply a single naming "form" across WP as a whole.  84.203.34.64 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

She IS Princess William
I work for a royalist publication and I have had to go to great lengths over the last few days to try and seek confirmation from the Royal Household that the Duchess of Cambridge IS also Princess William. I shouldn't have had to do this as, under English Common Law, a wife takes her husband's title and style so it should have been obvious she was Princess William.

Her official title, I was told in no uncertain terms, is 'Her Royal Highness Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus'.

If you're relying on the Royal Website (royal.gov.uk) to get information about titles, then you're looking in the wrong place too, there are a lot of misnomers and much more on there, which I won't go into now.

I can provide further info if necessary, but the titles and styles section must be amended. UK Royalist (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable reference ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So far all that we have had is an IP number making unsubstantiated comments. If you do have some reliable references then your comments will have some credence. Better still if you plan to be a regular contributor to Wikipedia, open an account and don't just be a number. Martinvl (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have now signed my post. UK Royalist (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "A Kensington Palace spokeswoman told us, 'Upon marriage to HRH Prince William of Wales, Catherine Middleton was entitled to use the name of her husband: Princess William of Wales, as the wife of a Royal Prince.'"
 * Thanks, unfortunately that doesn't tell us anything we did not already know. A reliable source recently added already says she is entitled to use the title of Princess William of Wales but is not described that way. It would be misleading, not to mention unsourced, to include a title neither she nor the Palace uses. Helen  Online  10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we can straightforwardly lie that her son was styled as "Prince George" before any source knew his name, I don't see why we should refrain from mentioning the title she is actually entitled to use. The Palace did not refer to George as "Prince George" before 24 July either, and we obviously don't care about "misleading" and "unsourced" claims, so what's the problem? Surtsicna (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of a thing called WP:Consensus, Surt? Please revisit it, and then please accept that you are very much in the minority on the question to which you refer.  Very much in the minority.  At least please have the good grace to keep your sour grapes to yourself, they're stinking up the place.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the RfC, I see 6 people who are in favour of the bullet and 7 who are opposed to it. Even if I forgot someone or counted someone twice, that's hardly "very much in the minority" and hardly a "consensus". Whatever. I was trying to point out to our double standards when it comes to sourcing and inclusion. In this case, we've got sources that support the claim (and those sources are as reliable as possible) yet we choose to omit that information entirely. In another case, we've got no sources that support the claim yet it's still there. That's terrifying. But let's not allow my sour grapes to stink up the place. Surtsicna (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if you'd made that point in that way, free of sarcasm and bitterness, I wouldn't have said what I said. Thanks for clarifying.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no sarcasm in my original comment, but there was bitterness. A lot of it. I am bitter that basic principles such as WP:Verifiability can be ignored so easily, at least in these two cases. In this particular case, we are ignoring widespread reports of the subject's "newly-discovered" title. Why are we doing it? I have no idea. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A number of people including me have gone to quite some trouble to explain their reasoning. You don't have to agree with their conclusion, but please give their arguments due respect.  If you really "have no idea", maybe re-reading what others have said on this point, and trying to at least understand their position, if not agreeing with it, would be the thing to do.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where exactly can I find your previous comments on this matter? I thought your first comment here was about my failure to accept a supposed consensus. I apologize if I'm missing something. Surtsicna (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is off-topic for this page. It's all there at Talk:Prince George of Cambridge.  See my valedictory there.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand royal titles if you're saying titles should be set by what people choose to call members of the Royal Family. She IS Princess William through marriage and it should be included because it is part of her title, in the same way as Head of the Commonwealth is one of Her Majesty's titles, but she is not referred to as such in ordinary circumstances. To exclude her title of Princess William altogether is possibly one of the worst oversights Wikipedia could possibly make. The part which lists the Duchess's titles on Wikipedia is for her FULL title, which DOES include Princess William. / And while we're at it, she shouldn't be referred to as 'Lady Carrickfergus' as royal titles are never abbreviated to Lord or Lady (see the Countess of Wessex's title as an example, she's never called Lady Wessex). You need to stop using the Royal.gov.uk website as Wikipedia's source for titles, despite being the official website, it is by no means the most reliable for full titles, we have established. UK Royalist (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note we are not just going by one website. We have used the royal.gov.uk website and a Clarence House press release as primary sources and two reporters from The Telegraph as secondary sources. It is not Wikipedia's job to "put the record straight" assuming that were necessary, that would be original research. Helen  Online  08:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As part of my job, I frequently work with the press offices at Clarence House and the other Royal Residences and there has been no such press release, in fact quite the opposite. The Palace have now been asserting that she is Princess William in addition to being Duchess of Cambridge. Here are 5 different sources which refer to her as holding the title of Princess William. It's not putting the record straight, it's including what should be included as a matter of routine. The last one is perhaps the most definitive as it is from possibly the most reputable royal reporter currently working. 1: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13099871 2: http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2013080513943/kate-middleton-princess-birth-certificate/ 3: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-baby-news-kate-middleton-2117399 4: http://www.hollywood.com/news/celebrities/7787979/prince-william-of-wales-and-catherine-middleton-are-married?page=all 5: https://twitter.com/BBCPeterHunt/status/363281917858168832 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UK Royalist (talk • contribs) 08:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The Clarence House press release is cited in the article. Regarding the additional sources you have provided, the only one that could probably be used here is the first one and it doesn't change anything:


 * BBC: "The alternative is for the palace to dust off a long-defunct royal dukedom (Albany, Connaught, Clarence, and Cambridge are among the vacant ones), and William and Catherine would become the Duke and Duchess of somewhere."
 * 1) Hello (WP:PUS): "This is her 'occupation' or 'job description', and does not mean she should be addressed as Princess."
 * 2) Mirror (WP:PUS): "She generally sticks to Duchess of Cambridge for royal engagements. But sources say she was probably listed as princess on the birth certificate because it is the more senior title." (BTW I understand Duchess is the more senior title).
 * 3) Hollywood.com (WP:PUS): "Last night, it was revealed that the Queen gave both Prince William and Kate new titles: Duke of Cambridge and Duchess of Cambridge. Kate can additionally be called HRH Princess William of Wales, or HRH Catherine of Wales."
 * 4) Twitter (self-published so not allowed for this purpose, see WP:TWITTER): "Kate, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is also Princess William of Wales." Helen  Online  09:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Her name is Catherine Elizabeth. Her titles are Princess of the United Kingdom (as the wife of a Prince of the United Kingdom), Duchess of Cambridge (as the wife of the Duke of Cambridge), Countess of Strathearn (as the wife of the Earl of Strathearn) and Baroness Carrickfergus (as the wife of the Baron Carrickfergus). By convention she is styled socially as "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge". Princesses whose husbands are not peers are styled using their husband's name in just the same way as other commoners, e.g. Lady Colin Campbell or Mrs Humphry Ward. This style is only used where the husband does not have a peerage title (in most cases, the majority, in the Royal Family, the minority) and is unnecessary in the Duchess of Cambridge's case. It's a social style only, not a formal title - though Princess Michael of Kent is known as such, her name remains Marie Christine and her title is Princess of the United Kingdom - and as the Duchess of Cambridge is never styled Princess William, it's silly to say that she is. Opera hat (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Isn't that like saying that the Queen Mother was never styled "Dowager Queen Elizabeth", so she wasn't a dowager? Except, she was.  Or like saying Charles's wife is not styled Princess of Wales, so she's not? Except, she is.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  12:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Those examples are not the same. The Duchess's name isn't William (it's Catherine), her title isn't William (it's Princess of the United Kingdom and Duchess of Cambridge), and she is never styled William (she's styled Duchess of Cambridge). So there's no reason to include "Princess William" in some original-research list of "titles and styles". Opera hat (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with Opera hat. Moreover, if women in the UK were actually free to make up a style for themselves that includes the princely title to be used at the Court of St. James's and in the Court Circular, then Wallis Simpson would have been Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor once she was deprived of Royal Highness. There would have been no point: 1. to the insistence of George VI, 2. to the lengthy Government debate of the legalities pursuant to executing the King's wish, or 3. to the implementing letters patent which withheld from Mrs. Simpson the royal style which HRH the Duke of Windsor sought futilely to obtain for her after their marriage in 1937. George's explicit intent was to deprive her of any style which would have implied to the public that she was a member of the Royal Family: he couldn't deprive her of Edward's ducal title, since wives are entitled to use of their husbands' peerage titles by common law, but not so HRH nor the princely style, which the Government debated internally and concluded remained entirely in the gift of the Sovereign. In the end, the letters patent only forbade her use of HRH -- and omitted mention of "Princess" because it was unnecessary: She couldn't compensate herself for the deprivation of the HRH by unilaterally adopting a style not sanctioned or used by the Crown, and the style of the wife of a royal duke never includes use of the princely title. Styles may not be altered save by the Sovereign's pleasure, and that pleasure has not (unlike with Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester) been exercised to accord Kate use of the prefix "Princess" -- although she is a princess -- in the exact same way Wallis was. If Edward could have rationalised it, Wallis would have used it. But he couldn't and she didn't, so Kate can't. FactStraight (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As stated in the article, the wife of a baron who is not a baroness in her own right is known as Lady [Barony] not Baroness [Barony]. This concurs with a primary source. See also Debrett's. Helen  Online  15:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is just the worst for title and correct form! - Okay then, if that's how it is on Wikipedia I guess we'll have to go and edit Prince Charles article and remove his titles of Earl of Chester, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Earl of Carrick and Baron of Renfrew for starters seeing as they're not used regularly/he's not referenced to as that?
 * It's absolutely ridiculous that Wikipedia would not reference The Duchess of Cambridge's full title in the full title section. She is Princess William because that's what English Common Law says. A wife takes the style precedence and title of her husband; one of The Duke of Cambridge's titles is Prince William, therefore his wife is also Princess William. Another example of why the Duchess of Cambridge is also a Princess is HRH The Countess of Wessex, wife of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. She can - even the Royal Website says (and there's further evidence too) be styled as The Princess Edward, this applies to all members of the Royal Family. Wikipedia needs to stop inventing their own rules for what constitutes a full title and include the actual full title.
 * Also, regarding FactStraight's point about Edward and Wallis, The Duke of Windsor never held the title of Prince in the end as he was given the Dukedom of Windsor instead. Wikipedia even says that he stopped being a Prince in 1937, hence why we don't call him Prince Edward posthumously and why Wallis was never styled or referenced to as Princess Edward!
 * and the last point about Lady [TERRITORY] and Baroness [TERRITORY], this rule doesn't apply to royalty. Lady Carrickfergus would be correct if the Duchess of Cambridge didn't have an HRH, but she does so the title should never be abbreviated. Take The Countess of Wessex as an example if you don't believe me, do you ever call her 'Lady Wessex'? No, because she's a royal countess, not of the nobility! UK Royalist (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thing is, what you assert English common law to be in a particular case isn't a reliable source. Wikipedia is (supposedly) based on what reliable sources say.  That's especially so for things like names and titles, where it's meaningless to make assertions about what someone is "legally called" is they're never actually called that, and no definitive statement about what's "lawful" has actually been made.  Doubly so for royal titles, which are matters for "the royal will", which can be and has been expressed in several different manners, some of them seeming contradictory.  The Daily Express source provided also doesn't back up the theory you've expounded, and even if did, there's the question of due weight.  If her actual title as used is one thing, and a few people argue that it could be another, it would be absurd to give those near-equal prominence.  It would more appropriately be dealt with in the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" section, or as at present, in a footnote.  84.203.35.31 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Lady" (versus "Baroness") Carrickfergus is supported by a primary source, which is acceptable for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" (see WP:PRIMARY), as well as a secondary source added today. Note that Clarence House has registered the www.ladycarrickfergus.org domain (and not www.baronesscarrickfergus.org)‎, which redirects to www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org. Helen  Online  10:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from the royal.gov.uk website, it is also in the Kensington Palace media pack for the birth of their first child: "On the occasion of his marriage, The Queen conferred a Dukedom on Prince William of Wales. The Duke received the titles of Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus. As a result Miss Catherine Middleton became Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn and Lady Carrickfergus." Helen  Online  10:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the interest of full disclosure, I've also seen secondary sources uses "Lord and Lady CF" and "Baron and Baroness CF". But I think that's not strong evidence of UK Royalist's claim that there's one rule for non-royal wives of barons, and another for royal wives of barons, but that there's only very finite amount amounts of attention being paid to such silliness by the mainstream press.  But at any rate, "Lady" is the general convention, not merely an "abbreviation", as it attested and sourced on WP's own topical article.  The "UK Royalist" (is that the name of the "publication" in question?) has offered no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any different convention, much less any subject-specific sources at all.  84.203.35.94 (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have too and agree with your assessment of them. Not all sources are equal (see WP:NOTOR and Suggested sources essays if necessary) and I am more inclined to use reliable sources that discuss the titles rather than just use them. Helen  Online  11:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * UK Royalist, citing Sophie, Countess of Wessex (and earls and countesses in general) is a straw man argument, we are not discussing them here. Helen  Online  11:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a problem with the quality/reliability of the sources here as such (... well, other than that they're "wrong" in this instance), and we should avoid concluding that we should favour primary sources over secondary ones (as several editors in this subject area seem to instinctively want to do -- both the people wanting to use the "official website" over RSS, and the person citing their "horse's mouth, more official than the official" source). But in this case, the "median" view of the secondary sources coincides with that of what the primary sources say, which is pretty good cross-confirmation.  Mentioning "minority" views (even if one suspects they're "speculative" or "wrong") isn't to be ruled out, but they shouldn't be given undue weight, which is likely the case where one has any number of sources saying one thing, and one saying something different.  (Or one of each of two different things, as here.)
 * You're if anything being unduly kind when you say "straw man argument". I'd say "entirely factually incorrect"...  The wife of an earl is a "Countess", the wife of a Baron is a "Lady".  I won't go so far as to say this makes any actual logical sense, but as such conventions go, it seems to be as well-established as any of them.  If there's some variation in either case for "royal" exemplars, a source continues to elude.  84.203.33.254 (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, call me slow on the uptake, as the OP linked to said site in the first place, but to answer my own earlier question: presumably this "publication" is indeed royalcentral.co.uk. Methinks UK Royalist, if his claim is true, has a massive CoI here (and what would be a massiver one if there were any risk of RC being regarded as a reliable source). Here's more in the same vein from the same source, as pompous, full of royal precedent pedantry, and generally content-free as the other. 84.203.33.254 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interestingly a whois check shows the website is registered to an individual, that said if we ignore the blog bit it is unlikely to be a reliable source except for the views of that individual. MilborneOne (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of the situation is this. Buckingham Palace decides, normally before a person becomes a member of the royal family, what title he or she will use. That doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to use any number of other titles. Before Lady Diana Spencer married Prince Charles, it was stated that she could use either the title "Princess Charles" or the title "Princess of Wales". In practice, it was decided that she would use the title "Princess of Wale" and she was never known as "Princess Charles". Likewise, when Charles married his second wife, it was decided that she would use the title "Duchess of Cornwall" even though she was entitled to use the titles "Princess Charles" or "Princess of Wales". And of course when they're in Scotland, they use their Scottish titles instead. So I'm not sure I understand why we are arguing about this.Deb (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought it was fairly clear from the thread, but it's because of edits like this. Evidently from people whose issue with primary sources isn't the obvious CoI/POV issues, but that they're not "official" and "legally correct" enough.  84.203.42.145 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's just a failure to understand key WP policies (especially WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS). Helen  Online  17:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeing. I don't recall that we've ever included all a person's possible titles if they don't use them on a day-to-day basis.Deb (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For the WP record, there is a follow up article in the Express which doesn't seem to change anything (and is not a great source anyway, see Suggested sources). WP already lists Catherine as a British princess by marriage. How she is described is another story. Helen  Online  08:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Right then, if you are all so insistent on following to the letter what 'primary sources' say, someone needs to go over to the page on Prince William and amend his title to remove the titles 'Prince William', Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus in accordance with what Royal.gov.uk says is the Duke of Cambridge's FULL title http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/PrinceWilliam/Stylesandtitles.aspx UK Royalist (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Still awaiting a response to my previous point, just above. If Wikipedia is keen to follow primary sources, most of the titles listed on the Prince William article as his should be removed. If not, then obviously Wikipedia has no hard and fast rule on titles at all and you're just editing them on a whim. UK Royalist (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to discuss Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, please do so at Talk:Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Please also first read the relevant policies at Verifiability and No original research. Helen  Online  11:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Lady Carrickfergus versus Baroness (of) Carrickfergus
I found an interesting archived comment by a WP user named Dainamo: "The use of 'Baroness X' is however now acceptable to distinguish a woman who has got the title in her own right in contrast to Lady X, Baroness of Y the wife of Lord X, Baron of Y." I can't find another source to back it up (yet) but it makes sense in the context of Sarah, Duchess of York who became Baroness of Killyleagh (not Baroness Killyleagh) on marriage according to her autobiography. Helen Online  14:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "In her own right" is correct in the case of The Thatch: she was granted the peerage, not hubby, hence the "Baroness".  SF's case is quite different:  she holds those styles via her (ex-)husband.  I can't find a proper source either way, but I strongly suspect that her autobio is wrong (some primary sources are even more suspect than others!), and "Lady Killyleagh" is correct.  If there are indeed reliable sources for "Baroness of Killyleagh" during her marriage, that would be some support for the "royals baronies are different" theory espoused above.  (Or else, of further inconsistency.)  84.203.33.254 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think SF's autobiography is incorrect (it states she became Baroness of X), her addition of the word of makes all the difference. SF was not a Baroness in her own right agreed, so according to Dainamo she was Lady X, Baroness of Y (should be X?) and not Baroness X. (I think Lady X is consistent/interchangeable with Baroness of X. Just to confuse matters, a Baroness X in her own right can choose to be called Baroness X or Lady X per Debrett's.) Helen  Online  15:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW I am not suggesting it is different for royals, SF just came up in the edit war. Helen  Online  15:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been in confusion over the "Lady/Baroness" thing, having hypercorrected other people's edits from "Baroness" to "Lady" because I always thought that "Baroness" was reserved for female barons, as opposed to barons' wives. But it turned out I was wrong.Deb (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The main difference the "of" makes is "far fewer google hits", though as reliability starts off "low" and gets rapidly lower thereafter, that may be fairly moot. If there's a systematic nuance of usage here, it's eluding me for the moment.  Are you saying that if "X" is a barony, "Baron X" is the male holder and "Baroness of X" is his wife, whereas if held by a female, it's "Baroness X"?  (Like what peerages need is more confusing and counterintuitive usage of prepositions...)  SF might be the best (of a bad lot) of the sources on SF, but I'd be verrrrry cautious about extrapolating beyond that single case.  (Insert usual WP:SYNTH/WP:OR exhortations here.)  Sorry, I thought you were saying royal titles were different, perhaps under the influence of UK Royalist making such a claim.  Debrett's is saying (per my understanding and Deb's former one) that wives of barons are "Lady X", whereas it's baronesses suo jure that have the "option" of being either Lady or Baroness.  I don't follow the logic of Dainamo's comment in the original context, much less how to extrapolate it here (or why we'd want to!).  In Mags T's case, the issue is titles of the form "[Title] [surname], of [titular peerage] in the County of [Countyshire]", and which shortenings of that are "correct" or "acceptable".  84.203.42.145 (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dainamo's comment as a general comment, without factoring Thatcher into it at all, as well as SF's autobiography just helped the penny drop for me (distinguishing between Baroness of X and Baroness X). I am saying that if X is a barony, Baron X is the male holder (addressed as Lord X) and Baroness of X is his wife (addressed as Lady X and not Baroness X), whereas if held by a female, she is addressed as Baroness X (or Lady X if she chooses)? That is what makes sense for me at present in any case, I am still looking for sources. Helen  Online  17:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no harm in having a theory, good luck in your hunt for sources. :) Actually, I'm somewhat over-paraphrasing Debrett's:  they're saying that in the most formal contexts, the wife or widow of a "Baron X" is "Baroness X", just as a own-right Baroness would be, but the ex would be "Lady X".  The distinction between less formal usage of "Lady" and "Baroness" for the suos is, they're effectively suggesting, a "done thing" issue.  Perhaps the applicability here is that one only ever refers to someone by their tertiary (arguably quaternary!) title when one is being referred to in the most formal, pseudo-formal, or theoretical pedantic exercise circumstances.  The only other case is where someone is very self-consciously "slumming it" or pandering to the "locals" by being addressed or referred to in such a manner.  That'd really need to be directly sourced, though.  (There were reliable sources introduced for possible such use of "Master of Strathearn" on that article, near-miraculously, but apparently no willingness to use them.)  84.203.42.145 (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes it's complicated, I missed that earlier thanks. I am just focussing on everyday titles for now. I found an example, unfortunately Scottish and they have different types of baronies so not ideal: "Patricia Ayre née Mitchell, Lady Kilmarnock, is the Baroness of Kilmarnock." (wife of David Ayre, the Baron of Kilmarnock). Helen  Online  18:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even that case seems far from clearcut, as I see plenty of instances of both "Baron Kilmarnock" and "Baron of Kilmarnock", some of each of which look at least potentially reasonable grade. In fact, as according to WP's own article claims the full form is "Baron Kilmarnock, of Kilmarnock in the County of Ayr", one could even argue both are correct.  Either way, it's a hopeless task to adduce a general "rule", here.  84.203.34.64 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, done looking for sources. Helen  Online  20:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Scanning the above I think you're both confusing a Scottish_feudal_barony with a peerage. No modern peerage is created as Baron of x and no peers wife can be Baroness of x. Baroness X is the form used for women created baronesses for life (under the life peerages act) Lady X for the wives of barons (and Knights) when that is the title they are known by. This was a deliberate choice made post '58 to distinguish female life peers. However when listing all the Subsidiary_titles a wife holds from her husband you can use baroness as this creates no confusion. Garlicplanting (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding of The Rules say: Duke of A (without exception), Marquess of B (with 5 exceptions), Earl of Place or Earl Surname, Viscount C (Viscount of C in Scotland) and Baron D (Lord D in Scotland) – see Peerage and ; regarding Baroness/Lady The Rules say: "A baroness in her own right ... can decide whether to adopt the continental style of Baroness [X] or else the more traditional Lady [X]. ... The wife of a baron is known as Lady [X] and the use of her rank [i.e. baroness] is socially incorrect." (from Debrett's Correct Form 2010 ed. pp. 82–83). So Catherine is Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn and Lady Carrickfergus. DBD 15:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first website is pretty much SPS even if generally sound. On your latter source I'm not sure you are reading your own source; emphasis on 'socially incorrect'. Barons are always called 'Lord' in a social context never Baron but that's never stopped the full formal listing of titles including Baron because context is everything. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)