Talk:Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton

Diana
Why is there nothing here about the woman in black, suspected to be Princess Diana? Or the supposed ghost when Wills and Kate were on the balcony? The Woman in Black is of much speculation in the wedding and media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clements1997 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Because, as you say, it's speculation and has no place in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Because that's nonsense. 79.243.196.15 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. 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/20121128031412/http://www.monarchist.ca/fr/node/130 to http://www.monarchist.ca/fr/node/130
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109115734/http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=3789 to http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=3789
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728065024/http://www.laredosun.us/notas.asp?id=12114 to http://www.laredosun.us/notas.asp?id=12114
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=104605
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101118133932/http://www.itv.com/news/william-and-kate-interview23642/ to http://www.itv.com/news/william-and-kate-interview23642/
 * Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110221120034/http%3A//www.privy%2Dcouncil.org.uk/files/pdf/document2010%2D08%2D17%2D090328.pdf to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/pdf/document2010-08-17-090328.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110923025758/http://www.visitmontserrat.com/News/p2_articleid/214 to http://www.visitmontserrat.com/News/p2_articleid/214
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324132325/http://www.london24.com/news/transport/avoid_central_london_on_royal_wedding_day_advice_tells_drivers_1_845188 to http://www.london24.com/news/transport/avoid_central_london_on_royal_wedding_day_advice_tells_drivers_1_845188
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318110546/http://www.royalweddingcharityfund.org/ to http://www.royalweddingcharityfund.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429083604/http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/the-2-9bn-royal-wedding-bank-holiday/5099 to http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/the-2-9bn-royal-wedding-bank-holiday/5099
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503042417/http://www.shoeblog.com/blog/kate-middletons-wedding-shoes to http://www.shoeblog.com/blog/kate-middletons-wedding-shoes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110502203441/http://www.vogue.co.uk/beauty/news/110429-kate-middleton-wedding-makeup.aspx to http://www.vogue.co.uk/beauty/news/110429-kate-middleton-wedding-makeup.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503060225/http://www.okmagazine.com/2011/04/pippa-middletons-bridesmaid-dress-also-designed-by-sarah-burton/ to http://www.okmagazine.com/2011/04/pippa-middletons-bridesmaid-dress-also-designed-by-sarah-burton/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505015349/http://www.celebuzz.com/2011-04-29/pippa-middleton-and-bridesmaids-dresses-what-they-wore-photos/ to http://www.celebuzz.com/2011-04-29/pippa-middleton-and-bridesmaids-dresses-what-they-wore-photos/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501060110/http://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/blog/2011/April/29/The-Bridegroom-and-Best-Man-Uniforms to http://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/blog/2011/April/29/The-Bridegroom-and-Best-Man-Uniforms
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110417021650/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/royal-wedding/article-23941092-kate-middleton-confirms-her-faith-for-the-big-day.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/royal-wedding/article-23941092-kate-middleton-confirms-her-faith-for-the-big-day.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110502055113/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/royal-wedding/article-23945045-william-and-kate-incredibly-moved-by-public-reaction.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/royal-wedding/article-23945045-william-and-kate-incredibly-moved-by-public-reaction.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304185102/http://www.cccbr.org.uk/pr/pressreleases/westminster-abbey-bells-royal-wedding.pdf to http://cccbr.org.uk/pr/pressreleases/westminster-abbey-bells-royal-wedding.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423072944/http://www.clogau.co.uk/AboutClogau/AbtClogau.aspx to http://www.clogau.co.uk/AboutClogau/AbtClogau.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430091158/http://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/blog/2011/April/29/Titles-announced-for-Prince-William-and-Catherine-Middleton to http://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/blog/2011/April/29/Titles-announced-for-Prince-William-and-Catherine-Middleton
 * Added tag to http://www.manufacturingdigital.com/sectors/consumer-products/top-4-prince-william-and-kate-wedding-memorabilia
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415005646/http://today.yougov.co.uk/life/big-day-remember to http://today.yougov.co.uk/life/big-day-remember
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501162643/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/anti-royal-anthropologists-arrested.html?ref=ra to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/anti-royal-anthropologists-arrested.html?ref=ra
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501055956/http://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/ to http://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429040328/http://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/blog/2011/April/28/Royal-Wedding-update--Official-programme--including-Order-of-Service--available-online-1 to http://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/blog/2011/April/28/Royal-Wedding-update--Official-programme--including-Order-of-Service--available-online-1
 * Added tag to http://www.direct.gov.uk/RoyalWedding
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110326231204/http://www.met.police.uk/royal_wedding/index.html to http://www.met.police.uk/royal_wedding/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415092657/http://www.royalparks.gov.uk/royalwedding to http://www.royalparks.gov.uk/royalwedding
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430023729/http://www.itn.co.uk/royal-wedding/ to http://www.itn.co.uk/royal-wedding/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110506060646/http://shows.ctv.ca/RoyalWedding.aspx to http://shows.ctv.ca/RoyalWedding.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Title Upon Marriage section - Titular link with Wales?
This section states that Prince William now has a titular link through his 'four' titles with the four nations of the United Kingdom. However, I do not believe that Prince William's previous name of 'Prince William of Wales' is a titular title? Surely this designation is purely a courtesy title in assocation with his father's position as Prince of Wales, and is not a titular title at all? Furthermore, given his new peerage titles, it is extremely doubtful whether Prince William would now use this designation anyway? If there is agreement I suggest this last sentence of this section be either revised to reflect this fact, or removed altogether.Ds1994 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-13235825 mentions it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously Prince William is linked to Wales through his father's title, but the name 'Prince William of Wales' is NOT a titular title, it is a courtesy title. On this particular question the source material you provide is irrelevant in this context. My question still stands in this regard - the association can be mentioned but not in a titular capacity. At the very least this particular point in the last sentence should be removed. Do you understand the difference between a substantive title and a courtesy title, and the use of the term 'titular' in this respect?Ds1994 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Titular just means title, it doesn't specify if it by courtesy or substantive. The source is not irrelevant as it is what supports the assertion in the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it was certainly a courtesy title, a title that the Duke of Cambridge no longer uses. In this context alone the last sentence still remains extremely tenuous. Particularly so as the three peerage titles held by Prince William are substantive titles, and are not merely 'titular'. Also, please improve your English, your syntaxal construction is dreadful. You should not be commenting on this section if you have a poor command of the English language. This is my last contribution on this topic, as I am not discussing a specific English topic .Ds1994 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2018

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

Not moved. There is no consensus after extended discussion, and a reasonable policy-based to maintain the current concise title. bd2412 T 02:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton → Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton – Per consistency with Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer; Wedding of Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and Sarah Ferguson, Wedding of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, and Sophie Rhys-Jones and Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles.  CookieMonster755 ✉  02:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 01:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:c930:addd:2833:3b84:ca3a (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per consistency. There's no reason to make an exception of this article. Timrollpickering 11:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency.Deb (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per consistency.--Martilito (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination, Timrollpickering, Deb and Martilito.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral/Weak oppose per WP:CONCISE. It's already a pretty long title (and it might be worth it to attempt to change the other titles back). "Prince William" already redirects to the Prince's page, so that part's not an issue. (And, it doesn't really matter much, but it kinda looks like it's the wedding of three people, haha.) Hmm. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason as Paintspot. And the other articles should be moved as well. Opera hat (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and propose we reverse course on the others to be more concise. -- Netoholic @ 05:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support moving the others. Whichever follows CONSISTENCY.  CookieMonster755 ✉  20:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per above arguments. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. No other Prince William married a Catherine Middleton. "Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton" is the shortest unambiguous title. Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral I think Surtsicna made a good point which is applicable to the other pages as well. Why not give a move request for those pages to shorten their titles as well? Keivan.f  Talk 18:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Another thing is that Prince William was not called Duke of Cambridge before he and Catherine Middleton married. Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer and Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles are different because Charles was known as Prince of Wales before the marriage. Half of this article deals with events up to the wedding itself, i.e. up to the moment Prince William became Duke of Cambridge. What do you think, Keivan.f? Surtsicna (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is no different from Wedding of Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and Sarah Ferguson, Wedding of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, and Sophie Rhys-Jones and Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh where in all cases the groom received the peerage on the morning of the wedding. Timrollpickering 11:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then change those. This article is older than all those you mentioned and its title is concise, precise, verifiable, and entirely sensible. Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact is that there's been only one 'Prince William' who has married a 'Catherine Middleton', and none of these princes or princesses were known as the 'Duke/Duchess of X' before their wedding day. That is why I disagree with moving them to the title that Opera hat suggested. For example, instead of moving it to "Wedding of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer", the page could simply be moved to "Wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer". It seems that a separate RM is necessary for those pages though. Keivan.f  Talk 13:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This article originally had the proposed title and at least two of the others were created before this one was moved away from that format. The proposed title is just as sensible. If you feel others should be in a different format, propose them yourself. Timrollpickering 13:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The proposed title is not just as sensible because half the article is about the preparations for the wedding and the groom was not known as Duke of Cambridge before the wedding day. As mentioned below, nobody reported about the upcoming nuptials of a Duke of Cambridge. Sources referred to the upcoming wedding of Prince William. It is also not just as sensible because it is not concise, i.e. it is much longer than it has to be. Surtsicna (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Over and above accuracy issues, Prince Andrew is much more recognisable than Duke of York, ditto Edward and Wessex, ditto all the other royal princes/princesses. Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support keep the consistency, need to do this with Harry and Meghan as well.Mr Hall of England (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Consistency in different cases can be detrimental. Charles was Prince of Wales before he married, but William was not Duke of Cambridge before his marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. William was made Duke of Cambridge before the wedding. Timrollpickering 11:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hours before the wedding, on the wedding day. He was definitely not known as Duke of Cambridge before the wedding day. Nobody talked about the impending nuptials of a Duke of Cambridge. The wedding everyone expected and talked about was that of Prince William. Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been WP:BOLD and moved the other articles in Category:British royal weddings to more concise titles. The consistent title would now be Wedding of the Duke of Cambridge and Catherine Middleton. Opera hat (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, User:Timrollpickering is reverting me. Is it in order to set up a move discussion for the rest of them while this one is still in progress? The longer titles go against WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Opera hat (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * New RMs are not a problem but mass moving a whole set of articles whilst a discussion is going into consistency for an outlier doesn't make for the easiest of discussions. Timrollpickering 12:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll do it after lunch. Opera hat (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer for those bridegrooms who already held their titles and Talk:Wedding of Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and Sarah Ferguson for those who were granted titles on their wedding day. Opera hat (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - unless all the other Royal Wedding articles are changed to match this article. What's most important, is consistency. Either have them with all royal titles or none. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are again trying to impose a single format without any regard to accuracy or recognizability. It is incomprehensible to me that you would be fine with half the article titles being wrong for the sake of having them all under the same format. Unhelpful does not begin to describe it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be quite cumbersome, to change a bunch of article titles. Therefore, best to just change this article's title, to match the others. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not that cumbersome; I did it in literally seconds earlier on today. Opera hat (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it would definitely not be best to change an article's title simply to match others. If the groom did not hold a peerage before his wedding day, it is nonsensical to include it in the article title. If Catherine is listed by the name she used before the wedding day, William should be too. Surtsicna (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * William was given the title Duke of Cambridge just before marrying. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, just before marrying. He was not known as Duke of Cambridge until his marriage. No source called him Duke of Cambridge before he married Catherine. None. Surtsicna (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * He was given the title by his grandmother before he got married (a matter of hours, I believe). He didn't become Duke upon his marriage. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's absurd pedantry. He did not become Duke of Cambridge upon his marriage but neither was he known as Duke of Cambridge before his marriage. The wedding everyone (including reliable sources) talked about was that of Prince William. His father, on the other hand, was known as Prince of Wales before his marriages. Surtsicna (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * William was already Duke of Cambridge, when he married. Therefore, my stance won't change on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, pedantry. No reliable source called him Duke of Cambridge until after the marriage. Your often professed preference for consistency over verifiability is unfortunate for Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE and arguments by Surtsicna: "No other Prince William married a Catherine Middleton". The short form should be adopted on ALL such pages IMO. The further down the royal 'pecking order' one goes, the less recognisable the specific Dukedom/title becomes. The simplest recognisable form of the royal should be adopted, (ie Prince Forename) and the simplest recognisable form of the name of the non-royal - on the morning of the wedding (ie before they took the vows). eg Wedding of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer … Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten etc. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.