Talk:Duke of Cambridge

Untitled
I was wondering why we are putting Kate Middleton and Prince William in this when NOTHING has been confirmed about the two EVER by any of the official palaces! Until this is for sure I am taking it down.. there is NO official source for this. -- Lady Meg (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Two articles ?
Why are they two articles with the same title (Duke of Cambridge and Duke of Cambridge) ? 82.237.218.242 (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * They're the same article. Marquess of Cambridge is a dummy article whose content is one line: #REDIRECT Duke of Cambridge . —Tamfang (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Royal Dukedom
It seems odd that there is no distinction made here in Wikipedia between Dukedoms and Royal Dukedoms. As I recall, there are a number of Dukedoms traditionally reserved for royalty: Cornwall, York, Kent, Gloucester, the unfortunate Clarence, Cambridge, etc. etc. By the way, as of this morning, it is now official that William and Kate are the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Beowulf (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's Royal Dukedoms in the United Kingdom. Hot Stop (c) 07:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ... which needs updating ... —Tamfang (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Edward, Duke of Cambridge
On the Earl of Wessex page it is alleged that he held the title for a brief time.


 * No it isn't. It is alleged that he was intended to have the Cambridge title. —Tamfang (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dukes and Marquesses
It does seem odd that the dukes and marquesses of Cambridge are kept together in one article while the Earls of Cambridge have their own article. Some dukedoms keep their precussor titles in the same page, such as the Duke of Fife or Duke of Buckingham, while the Duke of Cornwall has its precussor title the Earl of Cornwall in a separate page. I suggest the dukes, marquesses and earls of Cambridge kept together in one article or each split into three separate articles. HLE (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It does make sense to keep the marquessate here, since the only creation of that title was for a descendant of a Duke of Cambridge. —Tamfang (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Style

 * "Coincidentally, Prince William is the great-great-great-great grandson of Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge, whose daughter Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge married Francis, Duke of Teck. Adelaide and Francis' daughter – Mary of Teck – became the queen consort of George V, mother of George VI, and the grandmother of Elizabeth II and her sister Princess Margaret."

The fact that Prince William, an heir to the throne of a hereditary monarchy, is descended from another member of that very same hereditary monarchy is hardly a coincidence. This entry is hard to follow and I'm not really sure what it adds to the article. --EcoChap (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Prince George Inheriting Titles
I'm not certain the section on "the only way" Prince George could inherit the titles is correct. For one thing, if the monarchy were to be abolished then it might also be that Royal Dukedoms and other Royal titles were abolished too. Also, no consideration is given to what would happen if the Duke of Cambridge were to renounce his claim to the throne or abdicate having succeeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oinky (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Duke can neither renounce his claim to the throne nor abdicate following accession without the Parliament passing a law that would make such renunciation/abdication legally valid. I agree, though, that the paragraph needs an edit. More precisely, it needs trimming. It's enough to state that George is heir apparent to the dukedom. Surtsicna (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't KNOW that the preceding is wrong, but it runs contrary to common belief, and so, if it is correct, it needs to be sourced. George VI's older brother Edward VIII abdicated. And MANY people have renounced their place in the line of succession to the Monarchy by the simple expedient of converting to a religious faith other than Anglicanism. I think if it required an Act Of Parliament to permit a change of religion, we'd have heard about it during the years when the UK was a member of the EU. It would have been taken to an EU human-rights tribunal if someone can't just up and change their religion at any time without governmental consent. But I agree that George meets the definition of Heir Apparent to the Dukedom, since, should he desire it, he can fail to attain it ONLY by dying before he gets it. He is not Heir Presumptive, because, should he desire the Dukedom, he can't miss out on it because someone else is born later than now. Under some definitions of "Heir Apparent", George is also Heir Apparent to the Throne, because, should he desire it, he cannot miss it because of a future birth pushing him further back in line. The ONLY WAY George can fail to attain the Monarchy is by dying before he gets it. That's an Heir Apparent, by some measures, but not the IMMEDIATE Heir Apparent.2600:1700:6759:B000:7844:D0DC:F581:8251 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Duke of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430090334/http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2011/Announcementoftitles29April2011.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2011/Announcementoftitles29April2011.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

First holder edit war
There is currently a slowish edit war carrying on between a couple of users over who should be listed as first holder in the infobox. Can we please discuss this here, rather than having a back and forth on the article itself, which helps no one. Thank you. As i see it, the question is, does "First holder" imply the first person of the current creation, which would be William, or the first person of the first creation, James. So, does the phrase "first holder" mean anything about the creation? Happy days, LindsayHello 08:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The consistent practice at Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Norfolk, Duke of Somerset, etc. is to list the first holder of the first creation. I see no reason why this article should be different from the others. First holder should mean first holder. When readers see someone described as the first holder, they should see the first holder of the title. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The only inconsistent articles are the ones that were changed by Mr Hall of England in December 2017, e.g.. [Mr Hall of England] is the only editor at this article changing the name against the consensus. All the other editors changing the name are changing it to the first holder of the first creation and each of them has only changed the name once. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not true: it's not consistent at all, and there are many articles which list the first holder of the current creation without any editing from (e.g. Duke of Bedford, Duke of Richmond, Duke of Montrose, Duke of Leinster). The underlying question seems to be "does the infobox relate to the current creation or all creations?". See Duke of Norfolk for an example where this is addressed inconsistently: some of the fields (e.g. "date of creation" and "monarch") list details for all the creations, whereas others (e.g. "subsidiary titles") relate to the current creation. Duke of Gordon is another (even more extreme) example. It's also worth noting that the coat of arms relates only to the current creation. On the actual question, I disagree. Despite the misleading wording in the introduction to this article, the Dukedom of Cambridge held by Prince William is not the same Dukedom of Cambridge that was held by the previous holder: it is a brand new title that just happens to share the same name. The first person to be a Duke of Cambridge was Charles Stuart, but the first holder of the current Dukedom of Cambridge is Prince William. Proteus (Talk) 09:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Leinster looks to be the first holder to me. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It lists the first holder of the current (second) Dukedom of Leinster. The first (and indeed only) holder of the first Dukedom of Leinster was Meinhardt Schomberg, 3rd Duke of Schomberg and 1st Duke of Leinster. Proteus (Talk) 09:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the hatnote. It's the only place in the article where Schomberg is mentioned. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's not ideal. Usual practice is to provide details of previous creations within the text of the article, even if they are completely unrelated to the current title and/or only had one holder. Proteus (Talk) 10:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I am basing the current and previous royal Dukedoms on this template.

Mr Hall of England (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But it's only been like that since you changed it. So, your argument is basically "this is my style" — that is a very weak argument. Choices should be made on what is clearer and more educational for the readers not on personal style preferences of the editors. An explanatory note or keeping that parameter blank (as it was originally) is much clearer. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

My personal view is that it makes sense to have the parameter filled, explicitly mentioning, if necessary, which creation is being shown. Leaving the parameter blank also has a lot going for it, especially in cases, such as the current one, when there are multiple creations. Despite the "creation =" parameter being present, i find that a silent use of the first holder of the current creation (William, for the Duke of Cambridge, his grandfather for the example given to the right) is rather disconcerting. That being said, infoboxes are only there to summarise key points from the article, so it's less important how we present what we put in the box than it is that we get the facts correct, both there and in the body. And that being said, the only thing that really concerns me is that we don't have a going back and forth between two styles or opinions. Let's come to an agreement, and stick with it. Happy days, LindsayHello 14:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)