Talk:Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton/Archive 2

Titles and styles of future children of Prince William and Kate Middleton
Once married, Prince William and Kate Middleton could probably soon have children. If Prince Charles or Prince William didn't became King yet, what will be the titles and style of these children? Will they be Prince or Princess, or not? And HRH or HH? I tried to find some information about this on Wikipedia but without success.. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed - the discussion has been archived here. I would like to reinstate the original text, but the consensus (at the time) appeared to be against any discussion about children's titles. If you think that such a discussion  belongs in the article, please say so and we will see if the consensus has changed.   Martinvl (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A discussion of the possible titles or possible future children certainly lies outwith the scope of this article. If this is a general question for information, then can I suggest you ask at Reference desk?--Scott Mac 12:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

During the lifetime of his grandmother, only the eldest son will be a prince. The other children will be styled as children of a duke - i.e. Lord Y Windsor and The Lady X Windsor. See heraldica. Surtsicna (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Surtsicna, and off course Martinvl, for the information. But what kind of princes? HH Prince(ss) X of Wales? I agree with Scott Mac that the subject probably lies outside the scope of this article. But in which Wikipedia article is this subject properly handled, and easy to find? I couldn't find it... it's lack of information. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Try British prince. I believe I've read something about this there. William's eldest son will be HRH Prince Y of Wales. Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I found it! Although I do find the text not very readable. It is also explained on www.heraldica.org/faqs, but much easier to read.
 * I have a second question: what kind of coronet would the coat of arms of the child of Prince William have? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, please ask your question at the Reference desk. This page is for discussing improvements to this article. It is not appropriate for general discussions like this.--Scott Mac 17:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If Prince William is given a peerage on his marriage, his eldest son would be "HRH Prince X of [William's title]", not "HRH Prince X of Wales". Proteus (Talk) 09:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As this depends on the children of a future marriage and the titles of the parents at the time this speculation seems to me to lie within the bounds of WP:CRYSTAL. Edgepedia (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh reverting the Crown
This information may have come from a good source but it doesn't make sense. If it reverts to the Crown, the Crown gets it, not Prince Andrew. Surely it would make more sense to say when the current Duke of Edinburgh no longer exists? 92.28.147.1 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry not sure what this has to do with the wedding. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's part of the "title after wedding" section, in the discursis on how Edward didn't get a Dukedom when he got married. It's a somewhat condensed account; what it means is, after the dukedom reverts to the crown, either because the monarch inherits it (if Elizabeth predeceases Philip) or because the Duke becomes King (if Philip predeceases Elizabeth) then there will be a new creation of the Dukedom of Edinburgh for Edward. --Jfruh (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nearly right - the title "Duke of Edinburgh" belongs to Philip and his heirs - the title should be passed to Charles and then to William. However, the title is in the gift of the crown, so if the holder becomes monarch, the holder will no longer hold the title and it will either go into abeyance or will be passed on to whoever the crown nominates. In this particular case the title has been earmarked for Edward who is the third son. Martinvl (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I know this is petty, but what about my explanation was not right? If Elizabeth predeceases Philip, the Dukedom will in all likelihood pass upon Philip's death to the then-present monarch, at which point it will be extinguished (not sure what the technical term is); if Philip predeceases Elizabeth, then it will pass to someone who almost certainly will become king and with the same results.  Which is what I believe I said.  What's not right about that?


 * (It would technically be possible for the Dukedom not to revert to the crown -- if for instance William has a daughter and then he and Charles die before Philip, Harry becomes Duke of Edinburgh but the daughter becomes Queen. Or if Charles, both his sons and Andrew die before Philip, then Beatrice becomes Queen but Edward inherits the Dukedom.  Pretty unlikely though!) --Jfruh (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * True, except for the abeyance part. The title only become abeyant when two female heirs are equally entitled to inherit it. Since the Dukedom of Edinburgh cannot possibly be inherited by a female, it cannot become abeyant. Once/if its holder becomes sovereign, it will simply become extinct. Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Still has nothing to do with this wedding. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, only in the sense that it could function as an example in which Prince William would receive an Earldom with the option of a Dukedom in the future. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Miss Middleton
Why is Prince William's fiancee referred to as just Middleton in this article ? Surely the lady is entitled to be called Miss Middleton. Leaving out her title somehow makes her soundlike a criminal or something.
 * Because WP:MOS says so. -Rrius (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Kate Middleton isn't officially Duchess yet or royalty so but for now she should have some dignity in this article. She should go by Miss Middleton Jbl7773 April 21 7:59 PM EST


 * We don't use Miss, Mrs, Mr, etc on any article on Wikipedia. There's no reason to make an exception here.--Scott Mac 01:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Predicting the future
There is far too much predicting of the future in the article. It is a Wikipedia policy that article's shouldn't predict the future and state that anything "will" happen - only that things are "planned", "expected", "scheduled", "intended", "due to happen" etc. While I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to phrase articles in this way it is also important to respect this policy principle - which is also a matter of common sense as no one knows what "will" happen and all kinds of unexpected circumstances are possible. Afterwriting (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I dispute that there is too much "prediction" in the article. I for one have supplemented references to newspapers by adding references to press statements from offical sources - Buckingham Palace, Clarence House, Prince of Wales press releases etc - stories gleaned from newspapers that are based on "palace leaks" have not been used. Although things can go wrong - the Prince of Wales postponsed his second marriage by a day because he had to attend the Pope's funeral, the probablity that this event will take place is extemely high.
 * The only section that does contain "prediction" is any title that might be bestowed on Prince William. That part of the article has stated that there has been speculation about a possible title, but the text is cites verifiable precedents form previous royal weddings rather than joining in teh speculation.
 * In short, I do not think it neccessary to amend the text - the article has been in place for over four months and the wedding is scheduled for three weeks time. It is hardly worth changing at this stage only to change it again after the wedding. Martinvl (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Timings
I've removed the table below from the article, as it's a rather obvious violation of the principle that Wikipedia is not a guide to the detailed arrangements for the actual wedding day. An encyclopoedia article only need detail the basic timing of events, and it should be presented in prose. It should read less like a train timetable and more like an article basically. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG Good Lord! Why are you so extreme and did you remove everything? Do you know how much time it did cost me to put everything in a nice wikitable? I dislike that overly bureaucratic behaviour from some people on Wikipedia! Is this removal a case of WP:BUREAUCRACY? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologise for your wasted effort, but that doesn't change the fact it's simply not appropriate for the article - see WP:EFFORT. And I haven't deleted it in its entirety, it's all here on the talk page if you want to reuse parts of the text to get it into some sort of proper shape for inclusion. As for WP:BURO, quite the opposite - you were bold in adding the content, and I reverted it because it's not appropriate - far from being excessive bureaucracy, this cycle is one of our most simple and non-bureaucratic ways of working - see WP:BRD. The bureaucracy only comes into it if more people disagree with my assessment of it as innapropriate and we have to have a longer debate or even a vote, but I don't think they will. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really needed this is not a guide to the wedding just an encyclopedia entry. If you really need it then a link to http://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/blog/2011/April/15/The-Wedding-of-HRH-Prince-William-of-Wales-and-Miss-Catherine-Middleton--An-update may be better although this official site is already in the ext links section. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Timings
Clarence House has released the following timings:

--

Gay rights
An admin removed the gay section saying it is "not notable". I have reinserted the gay rights section, because i disagree with that assessment. Over the past few weeks there were several newspaper articles from different markets discussing the issue. On that note in think it is notable enough. Pass a Method  talk  15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The appearance of something in a newspaper does not make it notable. Threatened publicity stunts are not notable - they are just stunts. I will be removing the section. Martinvl (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To this article? No, it isn't notable, really. It should just be included in a sentence about groups piggybacking themselves onto the wedding in order to draw attention to their cause. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So why is the Irish republican group notable? Why is Anjem Choudary notable? Why is UK Uncut/TUC notable? They all have newspaper articles, hence are equally valid per WP:GNG right? Pass a Method   talk  16:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If Martinvl is sincere then he should also remove the above groups since the "appearance of something in a newspaper does not make it notable" according to him. Otherwise, he's a hypocrite. Pass a Method   talk  16:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Threats of violent action that specifically targets this event are not the same as announcements of protests that are to take place alongside the event. That said, the whole section could do with a good rewrite. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A direct threat of violence is far more notable than the intention of a protest group to protest. Hundreds of people will protest along the way, just as they do at all public spectacles. Singling out one particular group is unjustifiable. What makes this significant? all they've done is said they will protect. Perhaps if there is coverage after the event we can look again.--Scott Mac 16:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Trivial details
In response to this revert: Shortly put, I don't see how Julia Gillard's "moderate republican leanings", for example, are noticeable here. This is first time I read this article and found such details to be out of place. Anyhow, I'm not much interested in whether it stays or not. My point is that it seems to be unneeded detail. --~ Knowzilla  (Talk)  17:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded; "moderate republican leanings" seems out of place for this article. Recommended for removal. Jaruzel (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposed; republican sentiments are important, perhaps this would be better in place in a separate section but as a prominent republican who has expressed interest at abolishing the monarchy following the reign of Elizabeth--Wahmae (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Participants in infobox?
I have removed this from the infobox. It is completely idiotic.

The article is entitled "Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton". The infobox is entitled in large letters "Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton" to then add "participants" "Prince William of Wales Kate Middleton" is beyond silly.

We might as well have "event - wedding" "outcome - married".

This is a case of an infobox in want of a purpose, and people filling in fields without asking, "what helps the reader and makes the article better?"--Scott Mac 11:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From a legal point of view, English Law requires five particpants at a wedding - the bride, the groom, the officiant and two witnesses. We do not yet know who the witnesses will be, but that will no doubt be made public on the day.  I agree with Scott that an infobox containing just William & Kate is silly, but I think that there is an argument that all five participants be recorded in the infobox. Martinvl (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find there are more than two dozen witnesses at royal weddings. They use special certificates not the usual pre-printed ones with just two spaces. DrKiernan (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just change the infobox so the field heading reads "Participants (other than bride and groom)"? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because who the witnesses are is not a very prominent fact about the wedding. It is important enough to put in the article, sure. But not to draw attention to.--Scott Mac 14:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The field doesn't say it's just for witnesses. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we need an infobox at all. We could simply have the image with a caption saying "the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton will take place in Westimister Abbey on April 29th 2011". There's really no other facts prominent enough to want to draw special attention to. The heading of the infobox simply repeats that of the article. The box adds nothing here.--Scott Mac 14:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. We don't need an infobox. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Unnecessary duplication. DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Louis Theroux is on T.V. at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.192.249 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone go through the other Royal Wedding articles and bring consistency on the boxes? At the moment we have:

Timrollpickering (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wedding of Prince George, Duke of York, and Princess Mary of Teck which has a lengthy list of participants in the infobox although not the officiant.
 * Wedding of Prince Albert, Duke of York, and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is infoboxless
 * Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh lists just the bride & groom
 * Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer lists eight family members but neither the officiant nor the bride & groom
 * Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles is infoboxless

Elections
If the wedding's impact on one election is worth mention, then, it would seem, so is its impact on another. Granted, the wedding doesn't interfere with the Ontario election itself, but the Conservatives are the incumbent party's main rivals and the weekend of the wedding is when they're to launch the platform on which they wish to defeat a party that's been governing for eight years. The wedding will thus have an impact on Ontario politics. We should certainly be proportionate; the Ontario matter doesn't deserve more or higher profile space in this article than the Scottish one. But, it deserves a place, nonetheless. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  12:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any world event may distract the media from a more local event. The point in Scotland is NOT simply distraction - it is that the Royal Family is a touchy political issue for the SNP, and people focusing on the British Royal Family so close to an election can be perceived as politically influential. The inference is that the Royal Family may be harmed by this perception. All you've got in Canada is some politician complaining that the event distracts from his campaign launch. I see no evidence it has been a political story there.--Scott Mac 13:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about the wedding clashing with a Canadian Ontario regional party's campaign launch as being trivia. I'm sure the wedding clashes with lots of things and upsets many plans.

Miesianiacal has objected on the grounds that as the section mention criticism of the timing so near to the Scottish elections, it should include this other information: he stated "if one's valid, so's the other".

The argument is simply invalid. Because one clash is notable, does not make another one so. There's a huge difference between there being notable political criticism that a Wedding clashes with an election in a constituent part of the UK, and with it clashing with the launch of a campaign of a particular party in a provincial election. In the Scottish case, a professor of politics has commented and suggested that it may harm the Royal family (the reason is because a British Royal even will be seen as Unionist - when a nationalist Scottish Government is defending itself in an election) - and there has been widespread comment on that fact. In the other, the regional Canadian party leader concerned has expressed frustration and the media suggests he might move his launch. It is hardly even a story. Saying "if one's valid, so's the other" makes no sense.--Scott Mac 12:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While I could care less about Canada (and while Miesianiacal clearly does, readers could be forgiven for thinking that the 16 realms consist of just the UK & Canada given his editing here and elsewhere), I do find it odd that the article only talks about the vote in Scotland. On 5 May there are several other important UK votes:
 * United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011
 * National Assembly for Wales election, 2011
 * Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2011
 * United Kingdom local elections, 2011
 * According to the New Statesman on the AV referendum :
 * "Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding on 29 April – ahead of the referendum on 5 May – has widely been seen as a problem, as the media interest will make it difficult to capture public attention for electoral reform."


 * Similar comment has probably been made for all of them, but if Scotland is considered important enought to include, then the AV referendum, which could change the way UK-wide general elections are conducted, should definitely also be mentioned (I'll leave others to decide if Ontaria is comparable in significance to the others). MickMacNee (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The point isn't about us deciding about which are important enough for us to include - I'm sure lots of things will happen globally around that date. The point is for us to record what (according to sources) has caused comment or controversy. In the case of the run up to an election featuring nationalists vs. unionists in Scotland which will occur days after the wedding, independent political commentators are suggesting that a British Royal Event may be of political significance, and may serve to politicise the monarchy. Has that happened for any of the other events? If it has, maybe that should be included too.--Scott Mac 14:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The AV commentary is definitely evidence of political significance, the allegation is that the timing directly influences the likely outcome (although in whose favour is up for debate, even in that one NS piece). MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder, Mick, why it is you feel the need to make lame and somewhat hypocritical personal attacks. Scott Mac at least put forward a reasonable explanation, though, I don't entirely agree with it. As I said, I'm not calling for disproportionate representation of the facts in this article; the Scottish election is undoubtedly more important that the Ontario Conservatives' campaign launch. However, that campaign is nothing to brush off - again, this is the main rival of the incumbent party - and both are still examples of where the wedding is having an effect on the politics of the Queen's realms. Whether or not a commentator has commented seems of little importance. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks? Do me a favour. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing Scotland is more important than Ontario (certainly not). I'm arguing that the commentary in Scotland is not only that the "wedding will distract" but that the placing of the wedding immediately prior to an election may serve to politicise the Royal familly. Lots of things distract from each other - it is not generally notable. In this case, it is more than that, and it has caused comment. But I'm only arguing that the Scottish election thus merits passing comment. No more.--Scott Mac 14:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The "commentator commenting" is vital here, because it is an authoritative and independent source for the political significance.--Scott Mac 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Scott, I actually understand what you're saying. (Maybe I'm not being clear with my use of the word "important"; I just mean the wedding will have more impact on the Scottish election, as you're saying, and thus that fact is more important to this article than the conflict with the Ontario Conservatives' platform launch.) I just don't think it's a reason to completely exclude the conflict in Ontario. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Norwegian historian Trond Norén Isaksen, in her blog, has an interesting discussion on the timing of the wedding. I was debating whether or not to reference it when the wedding was first announced, but decided against it. It might be worth revisiting.  Before I use it I suggest that others have a look at what she wrote.  OK, it is self-published, but she is a professional, having had a number of commissions - I think that she sees the blog as a statement of the quality of her work - wild statements would undermine her credibility. Martinvl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * She's perhaps an authority on European royal marriages, however a "Norwegian historian specialising in the history of monarchies" isn't any type of authority on contemporary British politics.--Scott Mac 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The mentioning of both elections, should be deleted. It's impossible to know what impact the wedding will have on them. Unless somebody can create alternate timelines - where we can study the results. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to know the impact, yes. It is, however, factual and verifiable that the dating of the wedding near the Scottish election has been a matter of political comment. We record that commentary - we don't speculate as to whether it is correct or not. Even if it turns out it isn't, the verifiable fact that the dating was controversial in Scotland at the time is notable.--Scott Mac 21:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we not putting undue weight on the Ontario situation? The complaint was not about an election, but about a political convention when a politican had hoped to get some publicity, now he is sulking because he has been upstaged - the Ontario provincial elections are in October, not May - see here. Martinvl (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the inference from the Scottish story is that perhaps the palace should have taken into account the dangers and chosen another date. I doubt there's any suggestion that they ought to have phoned every provincial politician in the commonwealth and checked that they weren't planning any policy launches that day. We can debate whether the Scottish angle belongs here or not, but the Ontario one is just silly.--Scott Mac 21:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The way things are unfolding in Ottawa, the next Canadian federal election might be in May 2011. Anyways, the Ontario provinical election is being held in October 2011. An event that will occur 6-months after the wedding, is tougher to agrue for inclusion, when compared to an event that will occur a mere 6-days after the wedding. Also, geography effects things too, as the wedding is being held in the UK, not Canada. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If either of these non-sovereign elections were held on the wedding day, I'd understand their inclusion here. Afterall, some people would choose to stay home & watch the wedding coverage, rather then go to the polls. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read what I posted. Whether we think the timing will affect the Scottish election is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the choice of date caused criticism and comment in Scotland. The comments the professor of politics (perhaps Scotland's top academic in the field) verify that.--Scott Mac 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada is having an election on 2 May 2011. This fact will prevent PM Stephen Harper & his wife, from attending the Wedding of a member of the Canadian Royal Family. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article? GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems likely he won't attend, given the circumstances, but I haven't heard any definitive announcement either way, so far. If it is confirmed he isn't going, then I'd say it should get a one sentence mention. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be worth a mention after the event if it proves to be significant, otherwise not. Martinvl (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree on AV, and have added it - there are plenty of refs. I don't think non-UK events are relevant - the point is that that's just coincidental with no conflict. The conflict here is the potential clash between a state event, and political elections/referendum, both to do with the UK. Mdwh (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Would" and "will"
I have revoked a number of changes related to the use of the future tense. While I agree that we cannot foresee the future, the use of the word "will" implies "barring unforeseen circumstances". The word "would" is a conditional verb - "I would have come, but I have a prior engagement. No conditions were mentioned in the text. Martinvl (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Several editors have been doing grammar/tense cleanup, now that everything is "past-tense". (EC's are a grizzly bear today!)&mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Attire
Previously, the attire section which I added was removed. The text was as follows:



Assuming that Prince William does wear an RAF uniform, it would be of note whether he wore service dress or full dress like his great grandfather did in 1923. Do any editors know of any reliable sources which give any indication on this question and what is the consensus of whether the article warrents an attire section? I would happily conceed that the text above could stand some improvement and that after the wedding the facts will be readily available. Greenshed (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say their choice of outfits deserves some mention, seeing how much speculation there is about her dress. Hot Stop (c) 23:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * RAF full dress is now only worn by bandsmen. As well as being a Flight Lieutenant in the RAF Prince William is a Captain in the Army and a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy, all with equal seniority - but as the RN is the Senior Service this uniform ought to take precedence. In 1923 the Duke of York was a Group Captain in the RAF but a Commander in the RN, which is why he wore the higher-ranking uniform. I for one think RAF service dress looks frightful and hope he wears RN full dress (as Prince Charles wore in 1981, not No. 1 dress as Prince Philip wore in 1947 and Prince Andrew wore in 1986; ribands of orders are not worn with No. 1 dress) or even more impressive, his uniform as Colonel of the Irish Guards, bearskin and all. But I suppose we won't know until the day. (Who cares what she wears, eh?) Opera hat (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Irish Guards it is - but alas, no bearskin. Opera hat (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was good to see full dress, whatever the service. Was it coincidence that Prince William got an honorary colonelcy in the Guards just in time for his wedding? Greenshed (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wedding list section
I am surprised that under the wedding list section, the controversy over the non-invitation to former Prime Minister Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are not mentioned given how it made international news (just google the incident and look at how many links to international newspapers you get!). Unfortunately, I understand that a potential reason for this is on ideological grounds, some people may have strong ideological reasons opposing it and approving the opposition for the invitation to the 2 men and so I'll refrain from making any additions concerning Mr. Blair and Brown until the issue is resolved here. For the time being however, I'll put an update tag to attract attention to the issue on this section of the talk page.Festermunk (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it warrants a line, since it has been not only widely reported but also broadly interpreted as a political snub, which given that the monarchy is non-partisan is fairly significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspar esq. (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

T-Mobile commercial
In addition to the first section I created, I also have noticed the T-Mobile commercial celebrating the Royal Wedding on Youtube which has gotten in excess of 13 million views after only one week which is a LOT. Should any mention of the commercial be given on the article? Just some food for thought. Festermunk (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC) It can't be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.137.199 (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, "it" can be ignored here. YouTube stuff in general & links, specifically, are not put in articles here. The T-Mobile mention would also be considered promotional and certainly not of historical value. &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Move?
Since it is not Prince William of Wales, but The Duke of Cambridge who will marry Miss Middleton, should we move to Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Kate Middleton? DBD 07:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for this, as per the observations of Tvoz at Talk:Kate_Middleton. Wikipedia naming policy does not follow technical or full names but rather common names.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Today really isn't the day to keep changing the title! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.140.113 (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

protests
I have an issue with the protests section. Maybe its a bit late to be talking about this, i don't know what happened on the day yet.

Firstly UK Uncut wasn't planning to do anything around the royal wedding and actually released a statement on its website calling stories that it was "bizare" here's the bit on its website http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/blog/royal-wedding

Secondly the claim that 60 anarchists have been banned from the royal wedding is misleading. The 60 people banned were the UK Uncut activists who sat on the floor of Fortnum and Manson, some of them would call themselves anarchists but to call them all anarchists is misleading. I've therefore changed it to make this clearer. Allie Cabab (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection
I think this page should be protected in some way (semi or full, I don't know) on the 29 April 2011 because it is an important day, and I should think there will be many IP vandals looking to trash the page. Maybe even protect the whole week around it. Problem with this is it will need updating when it is over, but I am suggesting it now to give us plenty of time to discuss. See what you think and write an : before your comment. RCSprinter123 (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Bit early yet to talk about protection only takes a few minutes to do if a problem arises. MilborneOne (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to pre-emptive preventative protection. We want to encourage people to edit, and if they come to a high profile article and can't that's bad. It is the same reason we don't protect articles on the main page if at all possible. If the vandalism gets out of hand, a protection for an hour or so can be applied. But as long as we have lots of eyes and quick reverts we'll probably be fine.--Scott Mac 11:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see both RCSprinter123's and Scott Mac's points of view. There are two type of additions that we should look out for - one is plain vandalism and the other is over-enthusiastic poorly written poorly sourced material. In addiiton we might be dealing with spam (Last night's addition regarding the visit to Anglesy might well have been spam - it was a cut and paste job, but properly referenced, straight from what looked like the website of some small radio company.  I discovered this when I saw the identical text on the article Kate Middleton).


 * As Scott Mac says, keep eyes open and more importantly, read up on how to request a lock before the day. Martinvl (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. For a start, its a complete myth that IP editors are mostly vandals - if anyone cares to actually examine any high traffic article like this, you'll see that more often than not it's an IP who reverts vandalism quicker than any registered user, and it's always caught within minutes, if not quicker. And it's an IP who usually adds the first information about any necessary update too. Sure, they might not do it 100% right, but preventing them from doing it at all damages the project far more than any short lived instance of childish vandalism does. This article is already highly watched even now, and will be right through the event; requesting semi-protection pre-emptively is completely and utterly unneccessary, and will not remove the need to check each and every edit, from wherever it comes. As always, the greatest quality issues come from the established editors, not IPs. MickMacNee (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could just semi-protect it and then people without a proper account wouldn't be able to. I think that's fair. RCSprinter123 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Semi-protection means that no new editor can edit it at all, even if they want to help. Semi-protection should never be user pre-emptively.--Scott Mac 21:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As has been said we dont need to protect the article - semi or otherwise, we have had very few IP edits and as MickMacNee has said they are not allways the biggest problem. Enough people are watching the article (about 68) if a problem arises and it only takes a few minutes to protect if it is needed. At the moment we have no reason to protect. MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall we just drop this discussion then? RCSprinter123 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.235.197 (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly the most watched event ever?
I think this event would be the most watched event in the history of television, radio and the Internet. I assume records would be set or broken on that day. Hundreds of millions to a few to couple billion people would be watching/listening to the big event on radio, TV and the Internet, even on mobile devices. Any thoughts on that? ELITE 3000 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If so, the reports afterwards will say so, and we can figure out how to incorporate the information at that point. -Rrius (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

ITV and the BBC last night were estimating a global audience of about a billion. Comparable to a FIFA_World_Cup (soccer). Bit hard to see how you could get figures accurate enough on either to make an informed decision on which was the more watched. Old_Wombat (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Nuns
Does anyone know anything about the nuns were that were sitting near the altar during the ceremony? I'd be interested to know ixo (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was curious about them as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Were they Roman Catholic or Anglican nuns? Greenshed (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to one forum they are members of the Community of the Sisters of the Church, an Anglican order of nuns in England, Canada, Australia, and the south Pacific. One of them is chaplain to Westminster Abbey. And one of them wore Reebok trainers.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hymns section needs some work
There is a glaring error (most likely due to a too-strict reading of the cited article's opening line) in the Hymns section. The cited article's text enumerates a total of three hymns that were among those the Royal Couple selected: "'Prince William and his fiancee Kate Middleton have chosen three of their favourite songs for their royal wedding day - Jerusalem, and two others with a strong association with Wales.'" The Wiki editor then only describes the three, which other news articles with Hymns sub-heads have limited their coverage of, to the exclusion of all others. One glaring omission is the Welsh-related Ubi Caritas et Amo by Paul Mealor mentioned in many other news articles this past week, and which Prince William specifically commissioned for the wedding. I think John Rutter's anthem was also overlooked. One good reference covering all the sacred music is at the Australian Broadcasting Company's online magazine site. I'm going to let the dust settle (and the EC's die down!) before I attempt any more edits. Feel free to jump in on this one. &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC) clarifying per WP:RTP &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that both Mealor and Rutter's works are covered in "Music" section above "Hymns"; perhaps some copy editing to either combine the sections or clarify the various motets selected by the couple might be good.&mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * These were already covered in the music section, but I have just revised it to include the hymns as part of the general music section. Also removed the rather whimsical original researchy reasons given for choices. Rob (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The picture has shrunk
The image in the lead has been reduced too much. It looked much better before.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSIMAGE encourages us to not lock image sizes. However, it does list lead images as one of the exceptions. I don't, however, see a need to make the lead image in this article any bigger. Maybe more people think otherwise. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good CC images are being constantly being added to flickr. Hopefully, we'll get better ones by the close of today.--Scott Mac 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't people just upload them to Commons?.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why on earth should Flickr users want to do that? The fact they choose to release them under CC is enough cause to thank them. I suspect most people uploading have no interest in Wikimedia.--Scott Mac 18:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was able to find a nice photograph of Charlene Wittstock taken today. I immediately uploaded it and put it into the article. Hopefully it's not a copyright violation. It didn't seem like one. I believe there will be quite a few photographs on Flickr within a few days. Surtsicna (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just keep looking here and beware the obvious screenshot copyvios.--Scott Mac 18:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Official Live Stream
The link to the "official live stream" under external links is spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.239.32.254 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You're right. Removed.--Scott Mac 18:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead
The lead seems to be a little bit (a big bit) to long. I added a ribbon, but someone revert it right away. If it's a highly-seen article, like the reverter said, it has to be readable for everyone. It seems to be more a slab than a lead. → Kind Regards, Lppa Let's talk about it! 20:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree here - it's a long article, and per WP:LEAD should summarise the article's contents. To my mind, a longer lead looks much better than a straggly one. Also, with this being very high traffic, it's pretty inappropriate to stick a banner right at the top of the article. Sheeze, it's almost like some editors want Wikipedia to look bad. Bob talk 20:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not my goal, my goal is to make things move. It's clearly to long. Do you know what's resuming an article? Anyway, even if it has to be complete, it has to be less long. → Kind Regards, Lppa Let's talk about it! 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That can be sorted out in good time. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Clothing
There needs to be a paragraph on the maid of honour's dress, which received lots of press attention, especially because it was white. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Alt text
Does anyone know how to write alt text for the few images? I've already added one, but, because I don't have the vocabulary, I'm not sure if I could do the others. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  01:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The "last high-profile royal wedding in the United Kingdom"
The article previously claimed that the "last high-profile royal wedding in the United Kingdom" was that of Charles and Diana in 1981. This ignores of Andrew and Sarah in 1986, which at the time was as much of a big deal of that of William and Kate. (IIRC, we devoted an entire week at school to it!) On this basis, I have removed the claim. --RFBailey (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That Dress
Folks, please note that there is also the article Wedding dress of Kate Middleton. I know that, this morning, us Brits are reading all about it in the morning papers, so there are plenty of reliable sources out there, and presumably all over the world, too, judging by Google. So if anyone can help out with that article, that'd be great. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 07:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They are also talking about the dress on all the talk shows here in Italy. Comparing it to the one worn by Grace Kelly, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Title too long
Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton is unnecessarily long. There are not two Prince Williams that we need to differentiate, and he's still best known as Prince William. Suggest removing to Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.--Scott Mac 10:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree, per precedent set by other British royal wedding article titles. GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As discussed further up the page, I agree with the proposal (but would prefer Kate - that's the common name, which is what Wikipedia article titles generally use). The precedent of using concise, common, recognizable names for article titles is far stronger and more useful than the incidental precedent set by a few other royal wedding articles (which I would happily see renamed as well).--Kotniski (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Number who watched

 * The current sources do not appear to support that it was watched by 2 billion worldwide. Instead they say that it was predicted to have 2 billion. This should be corrected to either make clear that they are predictions or else include statistics which have actually come about after the event. Or both. There are UK figures for after the event: but the US ones won't be til later today. Munci (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would wait until there is some sort of concrete number available that either confirms or differs from the estimate, until then we could make it clearer these are pre-event estimates. But I doubt whether we will ever get a clear answer since the diversity of media makes it extremely difficult to know who watched it. I haven't actually seen anything to backup your assertion that it wasn't watched by 2 billion people. Remember that although the UK has a small population and despite the hype in the US it may not have been watched by many - but they only make up a tiny portion of the nations that would have been interested. In particuar it will have been extremely popular in commonwealth nations like India which has an enormous population, events like this are also extremely popular in European countries especially Germany, France, Austria, Hungary and Denmark. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not asserting that it wasn't watched by 2 billion. I'm asserting that there are no sources as of yet to support 2 billion as a fact. There are only sources to support it as a prediction. Munci (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

not styled as
Quoting the article:

"Upon her marriage, Middleton therefore became Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus, but is not styled as 'Princess Catherine'."

This leaves me wondering "what is she styled as?"

Surely not as Middleton. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also since "Arthur Philip Louis" is not given as part of Prince William's name in the article, why is it included in the bride's name? Thanks.  Wanderer57 (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * She is styled, HRH, The Duchess of Cambridge. The full name is included because....it's now her full title. Why can we not mention it if we don't refer to William by his full name? It's in his own article, if anyone is really that confused. MickMacNee (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with MickMacNee, I don't see why we can't say it. It seems clear that she is styled as HRH, The Duchess of Cambridge but full name is much longer and since it was a result of the wedding it makes sense to say it here. Queen Elizabeths title(s) are so long we have an entire article dedicated to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II 80.176.136.41 (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I would not say that you "can't say it". Rather that as it was not thought necessary to include Prince William's three middle names when referring to him, it seems unnecessary to include them when referring to her. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Balcony Kiss
Is it not appropriate to show the much anticipated (and once repeated) balcony kiss with a photo somewhere in this article? Phil ip.t.day  talk  15:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft in flyover
Does anyone what kind of aircrafts that just flew over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.81.139 (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was military aircrafts. It was all planned as a tribute to the brithis military. JanFredrikB (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First formation: Battle of Britain Memorial Flight with a Lancaster Bomber, andHurricane and Spitfire fighters. Second formation 2 Tornadoes and 2 Typhoons. Woody (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * GR4s in fact. In rehersal, with pilot details, here. Presumably the Typhoons were both the single seat variety? Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Agree two GR4s from No. 41 Squadron RAF with two Typhoon FGR4s from No. 6 Squadron RAF. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Usage of pre-wedding name
It's worthy to clarify, whether she became Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus or Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (which is the current title of the article on her, so that there would be compliance). --Ehud (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Her offical title is now "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge" - see [Royal web page]. Martinvl (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
There appears to be a slight issue in that the map appears to be hardly different from that used by the BBC, it varies only in colour with additional symbols, to me the image appears essentially the same in most respects. There is an assertion which appears incorrect that the changes are far enough. Should permission not be sort from the BBC for this use. --Wahmae (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Permission would be pointless. Unless the BBC released it under the CC licence, which they've never done, it isn't free.--Scott Mac 01:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason it's similar is because it's the same route and the same map - these are factual pieces of information that the BBC doesn't own (and can't be copyrighted - see Feist v. Rural). Plus there's fair use to fall back on, if necessary. Mdwh (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The map could use an icon for the hotel Kate is residing just before the wedding. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 05:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maps contain artwork, which the BBC would claim is their own intellectual policy.--Wahmae (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tumblr lkew7gxwKd1qze0z6o1 500 this picture would be good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.166.58 (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That image will be deleted soon as it is likely unfree. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I just uploaded another picture from the wedding, of the couple on the balcony alone. Will be uploading more in the next few days. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Catherine_balcony_wave.jpg Dogbertio 14 (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice picture, however it is very pixelated. Any chance of another? 124.254.78.121 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Page title
The current title seems rather long, I would suggest moving it to, Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton or Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton - the latter is shorter and that's what she is generally called. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine, Dukeness of Cambridge. That's what we have on the norwegian wiki. JanFredrikB (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All due respect to our Norwegian friend who hopefully meant "Duchess", but "dukeness" is only a perjorative or mocking form of "Duke", not the feminine title. And as others have probably pointed-out elsewhere, the title for the Prince's wife is not bestowed until after the wedding. &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Kate Middleton that's what she's been referred to leading up to the wedding and will be known as Kate after today. Completely agree, the current title is far too long.


 * Other royal weddings are in the form "Wedding of Royal's Name, Title, and Spouse's Pre Marriage Name" - e.g. Wedding of Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, and Marie-Chantal Miller or Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling. We could change "Catherine" to "Kate" but otherwise I think we'd have to address the full set. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless there is any kind of policy page for royal weddings, I'm not sure "other stuff exists" trumps the arguments given from the official policy page on Wikipedia article titles. Mdwh (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Consistency with other articles on similar subjects is rather more than "other stuff exists" and a key part of the consistency clause. Unless of course you want to address the whole set at once? I don't see how this one is any more of an exception than many others. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Another issue is that for those other examples, the names alone wouldn't be sufficient: Pavlos and Victoria are too vague. Obviously I'm not suggesting it should simply be "William", but rather than "Prince William" is sufficient to qualify, simpler, and overwhelmingly the common name anyway. Indeed, Victoria is actually "Crown Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Västergötland"; Pavlos is actually "Crown Prince of Greece, Prince of Denmark". So it is not true that there is any kind of consistency or consensus here. It's not clear that we should be putting in full titles, rather than the sufficient common name. Mdwh (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are additional titles subordinate to the Crown Prince/ss though. The British Royals are similarly listed by their highest peerage and not the full collection. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd support Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. "Prince William" is more than sufficient to qualify who is being talked about, and there's no need for full and complete titles (should we have "William Arthur Philip Louis"?). Also note how even for the Queen, the article is Elizabeth II, without "Queen" - all that's required is what's necessary to indicate who we're talking about. (So in this case, William is too vague, but Prince William is clear.) Article titles says "shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones" and "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.".

(Not to mention the amusing grammatical ambiguity of conjuring up images of a wedding between three people: the prince, the duke, and Middleton...) Mdwh (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I support the current title. As Timrollpickering has pointed out, this is how all the other articles on royal weddings are titled. See Other stuff exists. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article you link to only refers to "Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." But here, we do have policy pages, as I linked to. So that section doesn't apply. I don't see anything that refutes the points I've made? Mdwh (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Wikipedia titles should be as succinct as possible. This title is unnecessarily long. --Pgp688 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I support the current title, but to use the more frequently used name Kate Middleton, rather than Catherine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chezza xx (talk • contribs) 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The current title is wrong. He wasn't styled the 'Duke of Cambridge' until he was married. So it should either be 'The Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Catherine Middleton' or 'The Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge'. You can't have 'Duke of Cambridge' + 'Catherine Middleton'. Zestos (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Zestos, I believe you are incorrect there. William was made Duke of Cambridge as soon as the Queen announced it so 08:00 as he was already titled. Catherine only became Duchess upon the marriage however. Woody (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. My mistake. That's what I get for listening to a radio DJ instead of a journalist! In that case, the current title seems to be the right choice. Zestos (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict as I was distracted while writing this) The current convention is for the peerage titles to be granted on the day of the wedding but prior to the wedding itself. See for example Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh where the unmarried person who made the journey to the Abbey was already a Duke. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tim: As this Time Magazine item points out, today Buckingham Palace announced the titles were being bestowed after  the wedding ceremony. Cheers. &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not how the Buckingham Palace announcement itself reads - specifically it says 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. (My emphasis.) The difference in tenses makes it seem pretty clear William became a Duke before going to the Abbey. Time Magazine is not reliable on such things. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tim: Thanks for the informative verbatim link! But, my main point, in line with this section's thread and the gist of your original comment, is that the unmarried Kate held no titles walking up the aisle. Hence the Wiki article's page title, as other similar ones, should reflect the "maiden-name" and status of the betrothed. &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking back at past articles, it has been Prince and bride's name not full title: Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles isn't this the correct way, as they are the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, but the title of Prince would take precedent? So Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton seems more in line. Chezza xx (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Wedding of Prince Albert, Duke of York, and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Wedding of Prince George, Duke of York, and Princess Mary of Teck are clearer precedents. Princes of Wales and Crown Princes(esses) have more awkward titles. It's very rare to ever use the Cornwall titles outside of Cornwall itself - Camilla is a special case - and the Prince of Wales title takes precedence. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I certainly support Chezza's last suggestion. Article titles should use common names as long as they're not ambiguous; their common names at the time of the wedding were Prince William and Kate Middleton, and if there's ever been any other wedding between a prince William and a Kate Middleton, I think we'd have heard about it.--Kotniski (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My issue is per WP:TITLE there is no need to make the title too long. Duke of Cambridge isn't needed in the title to make it clear what the subject is. And that is a policy. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree, remove Duke of Cambridge. It isn't his commonname and he's identifiable as Prince William.--Scott Mac 23:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave the title the way it is, as it follows the article titles of the other British royal weddings. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The official program (ie, the one that the guests at the Abbey received) is now available as a PDF. It has in it "THE MARRIAGE of HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE WILLIAM OF WALES, K.G. with MISS CATHERINE MIDDLETON". Is this helpful or more confusing? Old_Wombat (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I support going with the title on the official programme (or an abridged version) as pointed out by Bill, sorry, Old_Wombat. Supt. of Printing (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is the programme is printed before the announcements on titles. To take the previous big British Royal Wedding, I suspect the programme read "THE MARRIAGE of HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ANDREW, [Whatever] with MISS SARAH FERGUSON" as "Duke of York" did not come until the morning (though a fairly safe bet given the title was available and is traditionally given to a second son). The Queen and Philip's wedding is probably the only comparable British one we actually have an article on - in the days of the future Georges V & VI the peerages were given out much earlier - and I have no idea what would have been printed as Philip's names and titles changed twice in the week leading up to the ceremony. Since the article on William uses his title it makes sense to use it here as well, per the precedents on his grandfather, great grandfather and great great grandfather. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

See. Woody (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

","
I was taught that when having a sentences, it would be gramatically correct if it was "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine Middleton", without the "," before and. Why is this not the case here? Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 08:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably British English typography. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 10:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * However this extra comma seems to be the case in the other article titles. Btw, I am British. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 13:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have left out the second comma as well, and I'm British. The Oxford comma rule doesn't apply because there are only two of them. Opera hat (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Colonel of The Irish Guards
Prince William is not an Honorary Colonel of The Irish Guards, he is THE Colonel of THe Irish Guards. There is only one Colonel of The Irish Guards at one time. It is not an Honorary Position, it has duties connected with it, which include keeping in contact with The Regiment,dealing with appointments to certain regimental positions like Regimental Lieutenant Colonel, Regimental Adjutant and Commanding Officers.Keeping the Colonel-in-Chief of The Regiment( The Queen) informed of Regimental Business.

Prince William could have worn a sword in church like The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales,but it was probably easier for him not to do so on this occassion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.0.15 (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But this source suggests it is an honorary appointment, i.e. bestowed by the Queen as an honour? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Being a Colonel Irish Guards is a position not a rank as far as I know he is still a Lieutenant in the Army. MilborneOne (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not so! William was promoted to Flight Lieutenant in the RAF in 2009 when posted to 22 Search & Rescue Squadron at RAF Valley. The equivalent Army rank is Captain. Prince Harry was promoted Captain on 16 April 2011, so William outranks Harry by around two years in the same rank, whatever the status of his being an Honorary Colonel in the Irish Guards means. So the citation added to the main article is superfluous. All the necessary information is available on the various Wiki pages on William's and Harry's Service careers. There's really no substitute for research prior to commenting or editing. 86.182.182.107 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps research can explain why he is called a Lieutenant in the March 2011 London Gazette entry for the Colonel Irish Guards. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 'honourary' <> 'no duties'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 'honorary' <> 'bestowed, not achieved', i.e. not worked for (whether or not any duties are attached)? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Grace van Cutsem
Grace van Cutsem girl who held her ears:

Line of succession to the British throne #1886, 1887 "van Cutsem"

child of either of them would be #1887 or 1888 behind Prince Charles of Wales?--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

i think i have it all figured out - from the wedding portrait this girl is a very distant relation to the queen and essentially represents the european continent in general - a smart move to include her--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the van Cutsems are old friends of the Prince of Wales. Edward van Cutsem was a pageboy in 1981. Opera hat (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

George II of Great Britain is way back in her and Elizabeth II bloodline--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

George II of Great Britain Louise of Great Britain Sophia Magdalena of Denmark Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden Princess Sophie of Sweden Olga Feodorovna of Baden Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia Anastasia de Torby Georgina Kennard Natalia Grosvenor, Duchess of Westminster Lady Tamara Katharine (born 20 December 1979); married Edward van Cutsem (November 2004) --70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Grace van Cutsem is the granddaughter of Natalia Grosvenor, Duchess of Westminster --70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Grace van Cutsem is the greatgranddaughter of Georgina Kennard who died one day before the wedding --70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

still not sure maybe not--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wedding_guests_of_Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge,_and_Catherine_Middleton#Bridesmaids_and_Page_Boys --70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

hugh her father is edward van cutsem's brother so the line is almost correct but no direct bloodline to queen elizabeth II - instead grace is the neice to Lady Tamara Katharine cutsem listed above --70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

so essentially grace's aunt has a direct line to the queen--70.162.171.210 (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the point is here, she is a daughter of a family friend so I am not sure what her family tree has to do with it. You dont have to be related to be a bridesmaid. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * life is a fickle thing - someone that was nearly no one that only 0.00001% of the population had ever heard of on April 28 became someone that 8% had ever heard of at 10AM on April 29 that became someone that by 3PM was known for the simple natural action of reacting to loud sounds was now known by 17% of all human beings on the face of the earth - because of that notarity you wil admit more people are curious as to whom she is and thereby she could "TODAY BECOME THE OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON FOR SOME EAR-PLUG COMPANY" ...

--70.162.171.210 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * not sure why someone thought they could remove an obviously not impied promotion from the discussion (i have restored it) - my last comment was mearly to answer the last posters question as to why I even openned this section of discussion--70.162.171.210 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum. If you're trying to make a point related to this article, please get to it. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Image
First up, let me say that I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I suggest we use this image from Flickr as the image of the RW. The copyright statement says that The photos are for editorial use only, and they are must not be re-sold or commercially exploited in any way. But mediums where we can use “editorial use only” images are newspapers, news broadcasts and other non-commercial applications. Considering the fact the WP is a non-commercial application (probably), we can use the image as the photograph. I think this is worth a discussion/debate. GaneshBhakt (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we can't use such images. Images on Wikipedia need to be free content, i.e. free to re-use anywhere else for any purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair Enough GaneshBhakt (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We can certainly use images under fair use, which this would easily qualify - it's US law that applies here, not UK law (which seems to allow the royal family private copyright, whilst simultaneously giving them the privilege of head of state). Though if we have free images, it's probably better to present those. Mdwh (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

En dash
Please space the en dash in the "Guest list" section in the line "a breakdown of guests was published by category−the list made no mention of foreign heads of state" Thanks! 68.35.40.154 (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jamietw (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

2 billion is kinda hard to swallow
considering it was only watch by 24million poeple in the uk even tho common wealth countries like india have neally a billion poeple remember that it was 3am in indian when they started the broadcast and 41.% of the population falls below the poverty line the 800 million europeans at that time was probly working or at school so i doubt it was even close to a billion poeple watching —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.94.38 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is only an estimate figure, and just to correct you it was the middle of the day in India. In the UK, the 24M figure is only overnight, official figure will not be released for another week, which will include rebroadcasts and internet views. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 23:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If it includes rebroadcasts and non-live viewing, that should be mentioned - firstly, viewing figures don't usually include these, secondly, I think many people would read it as meaning who watched it on the day. Mdwh (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As one of many in the States who recalls time-shifting their sleep cycle and activities 'way back for the "Charles and Diana" Royal Wedding, I can assure our Anon IP friend that the UK viewership pales by comparison with the number of USA viewers who were indeed up at "3am" or earlier (on a workday, no less!) to watch all the pageantry "live" for this Royal Wedding. And as "AxG" mentioned, the estimates & overnights should be borne out by impending data. The Nielsen Company's reports for the last three Summer Olympics have all exceeded the 3-billion mark in total viewers, with the Beijing Opening Ceremony posting over 2-billion for the one evening. &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, it seems unlikely. The reference gives no details about how they came upon the 2 billion figure and to be honest it seems very unlikely that ~50% of the world's population that were awake were watching it. Unless some we can find a source with information about how these figures are reached then I would support removing it. I remember similar claims about billions watching the funeral of Michael Jackson, but if you check Funeral_of_michael_jackson you'll see it is no longer true. SmartSE (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree - we need a good source for this. Certainly something better than a news article that doesn't give any indication of the source. Also note that this two billion figure was speculated before the event took place! (E.g., So there's a risk that this is simply the same "estimate" now being misreported after the event as fact. I've updated the article with a citation needed tag (although I wouldn't object to someone removing the claim altogether, until we get a source). Mdwh (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I also removed it from List of most-watched television broadcasts - which was claiming 2.5-3.5 billion(!) Mdwh (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * An article in the Australian "Sun Herald" on the Sunday after the event also doubted the two billion figure and quoted a figure of 750 million, but without a referenced source or even a contact.Old_Wombat (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the 2 billion figure isn't a reference to the number of people who watched it LIVE, but who watched re-runs of it. I could be wrong howeverFestermunk (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Order
I have just rearranged the order of many of the sections. If you look at an earlier version and compare the Table of Contents, you can see clearly where everything has gone to.

There has been an addition in a more detailed description of the service.

There have been two minor deletions.
 * I reworded the promises that they made to each other as a general, rather than gender-biased statement. Given that this is the 21st century, one wonders why anyone would find it necessary or acceptable to comment that Kate "didn't promise to obey".  The Church of England has offered a different option for the last forty five years, so it hardly demands a comment when some intelligent female makes the same vow as her husband. Doesn't every woman in the 21st century?
 * Secondly, there is a paragraph that tells the reader who the members of the bridal party were. This list included one arbitrary comment about just one of the members of the party, Grace van Cutsem.
 * So she's three and a bit overwhelmed by noise. But this doesn't rate a mention in an encyclopedic list of the personnel.  The sort of place that information of that type goes is in a description of post-event fervour. It is interesting, I suppose, that such a minor non-event should be plastered all over the internet.  But the hands over the ears, along with that hat, that lack of hat, the elegant young man wearing his OBE on the wrong side, the fellow in the morning suit picking his nose, the cleric whose unfortunate comment was quite easy to lipread and the guardsman with two left feet are all trivial matters with no real impact on the event.  Amandajm (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

request a pic about the wedding cake
hey. does any guy have a pic about the wedding cake. i think the cake is an important component for a wedding event. and the article should have the pic as well--Coekon (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only images I've seen are those released on the The British Monarchy Flickr account, which you can view here. Although the cake is magnificent, I doubt they could be added to this page due to the licensing on them - NachoDuck (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would be fine to add them under fair use (especially if they aren't replaceable with free images). Especially as the monarchy is part of the British state, not some private individual or corporation. Mdwh (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But Crown Copyright applies, as the image is not usable under fair use either. I think you will find for it to be fair use it has to be for educational, critical usage, not a not for profit. Wahmae (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Liturgy
I believe the newspaper source for the liturgy is incorrect. There is no such "1966 Book of Common Prayer". The last Book of Common Prayer was the 1662. The liturgy currently in use in the CoE comes from what is called the "Book of Common Worship". There is a major difference. Legally, there can only be one "Book of Common Prayer" and it requires approval from Parliament to revise. As of yet, Parliament has never approved any of the proposes put forth by the House of Bishops. Canonically, the BCP has a particular authority that the Book of Common worship cannot have. At best it can be merely an approved suggestion (hence it used to be called the Alternative Service Book). Series One matrimony follows closely the 1928 proposed liturgy and is very similar to the 1662 rite. I have not made this change, because I would like some verification, but I believe I am correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.67.115.201 (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be quite correct. This source explains it a little better. The current Evening Standard source does not even seem to support the text any more, so I think it should be changed and the article corrected accordingly. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"the Abbey"
I just returned the caps to "the Abbey" and "the Palace" which had been editted to "the abbey" and "the palace", on the grounds that in England "the Abbey" with a capital A always means Westminster Abbey, and "the Palace" with a capital P always means Buckingham Palace. In each case, it is the commonly used, abbreviated form of their full name, rather than a generic description, in the same way as "the Queen" refers to Queen Elizabeth II. Amandajm (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That, however, doesn't conform with Wikipedia's Manual of Style; in particular MOS. "The Abbey" is not the proper name of "Westminster Abbey"; it is, rather, a specific designator that refers to Westminster Abbey using a common noun. Hence, it shouldn't be capitalised.
 * There's been some debate recently around the way that section of the MoS is written. But, thus far, nothing's been changed. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  12:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are exceptions to every rule. In the UK there are a considerable number of "palaces". Holyrood Palace, Hampton Court Palace, Westminster Palace, Lambeth Palace etc. However "the Palace" means Buckingham Place and only Buckingham Palace. As i pointed out here, it is not being used as a generic term. It is what the building is called. The press reports "A statement was issued by the Palace"  without any mention of the word "Buckingham".  If the press writes "The prince is getting married at the Abbey" then the word "Westminster is understood.   In the same way, the term "the City" (when used in the UK) only means one thing: the City of London i.e. the square mile business district.
 * Let me repeat, the terms "the Abbey", and "the Palace" are not being used generically. It is the generic use of these terms that Wiki MOS cover. In each of these cases, and the case of "the City", the terms designate most specific places  and are clearly understood by British people to have those specific applications. The term "the abbey" could mean any abbey in the world but "the Abbey" means only one building in the world. It is used in the same way as "the Pope" means Pope Benedict, (in an article that refers to him) while "the pope" could refer to any pope in the last 2000 years, the Queen (in the Commonwealth) means Queen Elizabeth II, while "the queen" could mean any queen anywhere at any time.
 * Please accept the explanation that the term is not being used generically, but most specifically. If you are not British, and you are not aware of this usage of the terms, then just accept that what you are being told is the case.
 * Amandajm (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you, Amanda, since I would typically also do this (if writing elsewhere) because I think it "looks better". But I can't help also thinking that where the subject of the paragraph has already been introduced and is known, there is less need to capitalise, i.e. first use rule in any paragraph (or even in any Wikipedia section/article, if no other instance is also used). But I also tend to think that "The Palace" is more frequently used in UK to refer to Buckingham Palace than "The Abbey" is used to mean Westminster Abbey (but maybe only because there are more abbeys than palaces in Britain). This is all a bit informal, however, and I'm sure there must be some easily found reference to the correct use of captilas in English language usage/ grammar books? If so then MoS might need updating. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this requires a change to the MOS. In general, the rule of the MOS would be perfectly correct. If the article referred to some other abbey and some other palace, then there would be no question about the l.c. for subsequent uses. The use of lower and upper case could also differ, depending on the sense in which Westminster Abbey (or Buckingham Palace)  was referred to:
 * "The abbey was established under Benedictine rule in the 10th century."
 * "The abbey was rebuilt by Edward the Confessor."
 * "Many famous people are buried at the Abbey."
 * "Prince William and Kate Middleton were married at the Abbey."
 * In the first two a generic sort of religious building is being referred to. The second two sentences refer to an institution, with all its accompanying history, symbolism and associations.
 * It isn't about the re-occurence of the word "abbey" to describe the building within this article. It is about the fact that if someone within the UK refers to "the Abbey", then it is generally understood to mean Westminster Abbey.
 * The examples given in the Wikipedia MOS of this type of use are "Moon" to refer to the specific body that we always call by that name, and "moon" to refer to all those other moons. LIkewise "Sun" and "sun".
 * Amandajm (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd still be happier with some refs. The sun and the moon seem unambiguous to me through use of the definite article. In fact I'd never use "The Sun", unless I was talking about the newspaper, or maybe a pub! And I think that you might find your last claim about "the Abbey" contested by those who live, for example, in the Wye Valley. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)