Talk:William, Prince of Wales/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Naming, Part One

Is Wills really Prince W. of Wales? - montréalais —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 15 August 2002 (UTC).

Seems strange to me, too. First, I thought that there could be only one Prince of Wales at a time. Secondly, I thought that "William, Prince of Wales", not "Prince William of Wales" would be the more correct.

S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.202 (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2002 (UTC)

The Prince of Wales and all his issue (or children) are styled "of Wales", until that title descends to the next generation. Once Charles becomes King (and thusly passing his title to the next generation): William shall exclusively be Prince of Wales, and Prince Harry will no longer be known as Henry of Wales. Instead Harry shall be styled either Mountbattan-Windsor, Windsor (as according to Queen Elizabeth's wishes), or he shall be styled after a Duchy or Earldom that he maybe granted (by Charles). (Forgive this text being in bold, but I did this so that the answer would be very clearly stated). User:SKC Sunday, 25th December 21:56 UTC (not signed in).

AFAIK he's not prince of wales. He should probably be at William Arthur Philip Louis Windsor. -- Tarquin

Michael this page didn't need moving, and it certainly didn't need moving to a page with an incorrect title. Mintguy

The children of a Prince of Wales are called Prince/Princess . . . of Wales. It is the correct title. Furthermore,

• Wiki does not include royal surnames in titles, because most royals do not have surnames.

• William does, but it isn't Windsor (How many more times is this going to have to be corrected? It is been the subject of numerous conversations, and was decided by checking with Buckingham Palace!) but Mountbatten-Windsor.

Calling Prince William [William Arthur Philip Louis Windsor] is

• using the wrong name
• contrary to Wikipedia's policy on naming royals
• plainly absurd.

JTD 00:14 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

In answer to the "How many times" question, I suspect that the answer will be once per new wikipedian! However don't give up... -- SGBailey

Meaningless

The statement "Prince William is expected to ascend the thrones of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms sometime in the future." is meaningless.

What, anon. user, lacks meaning? It is unfortunate that the sentence is in the passive voice, but that hardly equals meaninglessness. Nearly everyone expects the eldest son of the Prince of Wales to ascend the throne of the United Kingdom. The whole lives of some members of his immediate and extended family are based on this expectation. Historiographically, it is noteworthy when the eldest son of the heir does not eventually ascend himself. In previous era, changes to the orders of successions and unexpected ascensions to thornes would result in significant upheavals. Sure monarchies, especially in Europe, are more low key today. But what are Officer Cadet Wales or the Duke of York to think if William does not ascend the throne and he does? -Acjelen 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

But, if it happens that he marries a Roman-Catholic, then he will be exempt from being able to take the throne. -Izzie404 00:56, 20 June, 2007

No, I expect Daddy will just have the Bible and assorted documents 're-interpreted' by a tame Archbishop and the rules will be changed according to their whims yet again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.177.120 (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No. That would not be the decision of either the monarch or the church. Currently a law passed by Parliament prevents the accession to the throne of Roman Catholics, or people who marry them. As with any proposed change on the rules of accession to the throne, it would have to be passed as an Act of Parliament. So yes, theoretically William could still lose his place in line of succession by marrying a Catholic (discriminatory though that is).Indisciplined (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision

The note on circumcision status is copied directly from the article on circumcision on Wikipedia.

• 209.217.75.162 09:49, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LOL Why is the sudden topic "circumcised" here on Prince William's article? Is Prince William circumcised? You tell me. --60.229.101.177 15:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read that he is indeed circumcised. You could most likely find it if you Google it. -Izzie404 00:59, 20 June 2007

and this is relevant how?Freiherrin (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)oe

I guess this is relevant because William is a monarch and thus his interactions with the people of England are important, and for a future king to be circumcised whereas the vast majority of his public is not, I guess that's saying something.

One can guess anything, that does not necessarily make it relevant. Unless you are suggesting that he head up the Circumcised Royals' Trust. William is not yet a monarch and it is entirely possible that he never will be. For that eventuality you will have to wait and see. And what sort of interactions with the people are important in which being circumcised or not is a factor? And you are right, it does say something that most of the male population of the UK is not circumcised: the huge drop in circumcision came about as a direct result of its having been removed as a covered procedure by National Health Service - if you read the Wikipedia article on the subject you will see that. By the way, common courtesy requires that you sign your post.Freiherrin (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Willam and Harry and NOT circumcised.Google it.There is a witness that says the boys are both intact =D , mostly due to Princess Diana finding it inhumane and wrong ~Anonymous 13 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.89.152 (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Prince William is not circumcised, if you would like to see the photos, go to this website:

(WARNING! GRAPHIC IMAGES) [external link edited for Wikipedia spam filter] www gaydailyhot com/2008/11/royal-cock html

--DrewMaverick (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not this should be mentioned in the article (I think it's a major event, but that's just me). If you don't want to follow the link, to make a long story short, Prince William's penis was photographed by paparazzi.

[external link edited for Wikipedia spam filter] perezhilton com/2008-11-20-prince-williams-penis

If you click the link to Perez Hilton, there are no photos, but if you decide to click the link to the other website mentioned, the photos will be there. The photos are real.

I also noticed a topic on this talk page about his circumcision, and the photos reveal that he is not circumcised.

--DrewMaverick (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Surname

Um, I think the Mountbatten-Windsor thing is wrong. Mountbatten-Windsor will only belong to the third generation after the Queen, as long as they're not in the direct line to the throne. Meaning that, if Edward has a son, HIS son will be Mountbatten-Windsor. Since Anne's children have a different last name, and since Andrew only has (so far) daughters, only Edward has a chance of having Mountbatten-Windsor children. I do think that Prince Harry's grandchildren MAY be Mountbatten-Windsors, but I'm not positive on that. -- Zoe

Prince William is not, has never been, and never will be surnamed "Mountbatten-Windsor". That surname is reserved for use by persons NOT entitled to the style and dignity of Royal Highness, and to those female descendants of the monarch who marry non-royals. Queen Elizabeth II declared that “while I and my children will continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor my descendants, other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attributes of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, and female descendants who marry and their descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor ...” http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2015.asp This specifically EXCLUDES Prince William from carrying the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, as he DOES enjoy the "style, title or attributes of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince". ScottyFLL 06:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Never will be" is a little harsh. Whomever reigns after the Queen (most likely the Prince of Wales) may make a different declaration about the Mountbatten-Windsor name. Prince William may also see republics declared in all of the Commonwealth Realms. In that case, Mountbatten-Windsor seems sensible as a surname. -Acjelen 07:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

When I checked with the Palace they too initially were not sure, because as you know royals don't use surnames, so they don't have to think about what is the correct one to use. When Princess Anne married Captain Mark Phillips, the official notice recorded her name as Anne . . . Mountbatten-Windsor (after a lot of debate about just what 'was' her surname!) Apparently Prince Philip was most insistent that when the staff in her office type up the notice, they get it correct, ie in the above form. He was a bit peeved (or knowing Philip, he probably said 'you F*****g b******s of a XXXXXXXXX's XXXXXXXXX') that when he married Elizabeth and she became queen, the Royal Family did not change its name either to 'Mountbatten' or his suggested compromise 'Windsor and Edinburgh'. Part of the deal in 1960 was that the personal surname would be Mountbatten-Windsor, to balance his name not being used in the Royal House. I heard that 'third generation' thing too but the guy in the Palace kept coming back to Anne's name as used in 1973 (and again in 1992) as MW. And as she is first generation and directly in line, if it applied to her (and she was fourth in line in 1973) then it must apply all over. I can get back to the guys and gals in her office and in the Prince of Wales's office in St. James's Palace (if you can get them. They are in the middle of their move into Clarence House (or is it the middle of the planning/packing?) and things are supposed to be hectic/chaotic) to check.

Actually, HRH The Princess Anne has never been in 'direct' line of succession. The closest she has been is heiress presumptive to the heir apparent, and only heirs (or heiresses) apparent (and, in turn, their heirs or heiresses apparent) are considered to be in the 'direct' line. HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and HRH Prince William of Wales are therefore in the direct line of succession, but HRH The Duke of York and HRH Prince Henry of Wales are not (though they are, of course, in the line of succession). 216.52.75.7Lord Dextershire

I suppose this proves the logic in NEVER using royal 'surnames' in article names. The UK royals are probably one of the easiest to work, unlike other European royals who have quadrupal-barrelled names (quarter danish, quarter german, quarter swedish and quarter unknown!!!). If we can't get the UK Royal surnames right (if Buckingham Palace can't get the names right - and I'm not knocking them; they have been very helpful!) what chance have we got with anyone else? JTD 05:51 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

All this is getting very interesting. I think it's truer to say that British royals don't use surnames NOW rather than implying that they never have done. I seem to remember that when Princess Anne was single she used to sign herself "Anne Windsor". (I'll bet she was relieved to get married and have a proper surname like everyone else.) Not that this is particularly relevant to William. Deb 23:48 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

"because as you know royals don't use surnames"--and I would add that I really know no such Cornish pasty. Rather, it is my understanding that royals do, in fact, use a sub-category of sur-names, known as "ma'am names" or "poofter" names, depending upon whether you're on the good side of Izzy Stradlin de Fenser, 9th Earl of Barony, or, as he was known at school, in Brooklyn, "The Oil-Baron," and had ties to, among others, Saddam Hussein and The Chinese. It all gets very confusing; my good friend William the Conqueror

is most confused of all, wondering, as he often does, where he put the family agates. CorniaPatsyJones 20:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Er, what happened to the politeness rule? I have to say that the surname 'Windsor' was itself meaningless and purely a choise of expediency during WWI. So, for that matter, was Mountbatten. Prince Philip's mother had that surname, his father, being a Prince of the Royal House of Denmark (his branch having recently assumed the throne of Greece), arguably had no surname. However, it is normally cited as Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. Now, one can entirely understand the reason not to adopt that surname; apart from being about so German you couldn't make it up it is more than a little unwieldy. However, Prince Philip's Royal House is that of Oldenburg. Why not use that as the name of the Royal House (and, perhaps, surname) on Prince Charles's accession? It would go against all precedent and be unhistorical not to use the proper House name. Quite apart from anything else, Oldenburg means something whereas 'Windsor' is a meaningless courtier driven compromise whose rationale belongs to a different age. (John Worsley) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, first of all lets be civil. This strand above seems to have got very heated. The whole Mountbatten-Windsor controversy has been running for decades, and has become very complicated. There is only one British precedents for a female monarch being succeeded by her son, when Edward VII followed Queen Victoria, and on the occasion Edward took his surname from his father's Royal house (and the British Royal Family was subsequently known as the 'House of Saxe Coburg-Gotha'). Orders in council issued by the current Queen in 1960 appears to spercifically rule out her successors taking her husband's surname 'Mountbatten'. Technically speaking, future monarchs like Charles and William should be surnamed 'Windsor', and those family-member who don't have Royal titles would use the double-barrelled 'Mountbatten-Windsors'. Those members of the Royal family not descended from Prince Philip remain 'Windsors'. However, this was partially driven by rivalries between different members of the extended Royal Family (particularly the Queen Mother (Windsor) and Earl Mountbatten of Burma (Mountbatten), both of whom have since passed away). Another factor at the time was the Prince Philip was considered 'foriegn' by many courtiers at the time, and 'Mountbatten' was a name of German derivation ('Battenberg'). So soon after WWII, there was no desire for the Royal Family to have a 'German' surname again (having had to get rid of the Germanic 'Saxe Coburg-Gotha' during WWI). Anti-German feelings in Britain are far less prominant and relevant now. Individual members of the Royal Family, on the rare occasions when they have used a surname, have used a wide array of different ones (including Mountbatten-Windsor), which has further complicated the whole picture. We probably have to wait and see what will happen when/if Charles and William succeed to the throne. There is a whole article devoted to this controvrersy, (see Mountbatten-Windsor), so perhaps we should not bring it on to the Prince William page at all.Indisciplined (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the reason for Windsor is...

The surname is Windsor or was originally. The British royal family had to change their titles from German names to British as during WWI there was a great deal of dislike for the Germans. Also, the British royal family is of more German descent then that of the ancient British royal blood line.

"Also, the British royal family is of more German descent then that of the ancient British royal blood line." - Elizabeth II is related to both the House of Stuart (which traces its routes to the sixth century) and the House of Wessex (which traces its routes to the fifth century); the "original" Kings of England. This is shown on this page. Furthermore, H.R.H. Prince William of Wales if/when he becomes King, shall be the first monarch since Queen Anne to be related to Charles I, the last officially Catholic monarch of England & Scotland.

So to say "the British royal family is of German descent, etc..." is quite irrelevant, and wrong. Unless by "British" you mean the Celts whom were there before the Romans conquered them.

Hi, I can see you were confused by my statement. If you are really interested in learning about the British royal family's German descent, you should read some books about the Kings and Queens of England. It is nice to depend on Wikipedia for information, however, it is a public place where anyone can edit.

I would recommend you start with Queen Elizabeth II's grandparents, King George V and Queen Mary. Here is another good start...

King James I m Queen Anne of Denmark

Princess Elizabeth Stuart m Frederick Elector of Palatine (German)

Sophia m Ernest Elector of Hanover (German)

The House of Hanover:

King George I m Sophia Dorothea of Celle (German)

King George II m Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach (German)

Prince Frederick Louis of Wales m Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha (German)

King George III m Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (German)

Duke Edward m Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (German)

Queen Victoria m Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (German)

The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha:

King Edward VII m Queen Alexandra of Denmark (Direct descent of King George II)

The House of Windsor:

King George V m Queen Victoria Mary of Teck (German and a direct descent of King George II and King George III)

King George VI m Queen Elizabeth

Queen Elizabeth II m Prince Philip Mountbatten (Direct descent of King George II and Queen Victoria)

I hope that clears things up. The British royal family prior to WWI, except for the ancient British royal bloodline through King James I, was of more German descent then of British descent. That is not to say they were not descented from the ancient British bloodline but that they had more German blood. The tree speaks for itself, really.

Oh, and yes, you are correct about Prince William. Lady Diana was British and a direct descent of King Charles II and King James II. Thank you for re-quoting the sentence that I edited into Prince Willam's article to prove my point further. ^.^

Good luck! RosePlantagenet 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. However, I intended to show that although the British Royal family are of majoritively German descent it is not their only line of descent. (Furthermore all European Royal houses are, at some point in their histories, descended from German houses and Dutch houses). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.136.32.119 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Oh? Really? I see. That is what you really must have meant when you said, " So to say "the British royal family is of German descent, etc..." is quite irrelevant, and wrong." I must have misunderstood your true point.

Oh, and, it was good of you to take the time and look up the correct information before replying. Glad I could help you. RosePlantagenet 18:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming, Part Two

On the issue of surnames: Diana, Princess of Wales' full surname was Diana Mountbatten-Windsor as is Fergie's (Sarah Mountbatten-Windsor)

According to the British Monarchy site, the Prince of Wales is not a title for automatic succession. [See http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/bio_index.html]. Although Charles is the 21st person to hold the title and it is usually reserved for the male heir to the throne, it is only granted "at the sovereign's pleasure". In fact, Prince Charles did not receive the title until 1958 (and was not formally invested until he was 20). Although I agree that differentiating the heirs of Charles is difficult, Wales is not the correct term. --Westendgirl 07:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To quote a respondent above:

The children of a Prince of Wales are called Prince/Princess . . . of Wales

"Prince William of Wales" doesn't mean "William who is the Prince of Wales"; we aren't saying that William is the current PoW by calling him thusly.

James F. (talk) 12:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But where is the evidence that children of a Prince of Wales are called 'Prince/Princess...of Wales'? If you review protocol for addressing members of the monarchy, there is no such statement. In fact, given that the sovereign has the option of awarding the title, William may not become Prince of Wales, and Harry would never (unless William died and Charles awarded the title to him.) Where is the precedent that children of the POW are termed Prince/Prices .... of Wales? --Westendgirl 20:55, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Umm, whut?

If you look at George VI of the United Kingdom, he was "His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Wales" when his father became the Prince of Wales; when his father ascended to the throne, he lost the "of Wales" suffix, becoming "His Royal Highness The Prince Albert", as he was no longer a descendent of the current Prince of Wales, who was now his brother. Looking at Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, we see that, when his father was the Prince of Wales, he became "His Royal Highness Prince Edward of Wales", until he was automatically given the title of the Duchy of Cornwall on his father's ascension to the throne, at which he became "His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall"; he was invested as the Prince of Wales ("His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales") a month later. Similarly, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was "Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth of York" until her grandfather ascended to the throne, at which point she became "Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth". As a female, Elizabeth was only Heir Presumptive, not Heir Apparent, so she wasn't made the Princess of Wales on her uncle's abdication and her father's rise to the throne, transitioning immediately to the title of "Queen Regnant &c." from "Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth".

It's quite simple:

Event	George V	Edward VIII	George VI	Elizabeth II	Charles, PoW
Victoria dies 22.i.1901	HRH The Duke of Cornwall and York	HRH Prince Edward of Cornwall and York	HRH Prince Albert of Cornwall and York	unborn	unborn
George created PoW 9.xi.1901	HRH The Prince of Wales	HRH Prince Edward of Wales	HRH Prince Albert of Wales	—	—
Edward VII dies 6.v.1910	HM The King	HRH The Duke of Cornwall	HRH The Prince Albert	—	—
Edward created PoW 2.iv.1910	—	HRH The Prince of Wales	—	—	—
Elizabeth born 21.iv.1926	—	—	already HRH The Duke of York	HRH Princess Elizabeth of York	—
George V dies 20.i.1936	dead	HM The King	—	—	—
Edward VIII abdicates 11.xii.1936	—	HRH The Duke of Windsor	HM The King	HRH The Princess Elizabeth	—
Elizabeth marries 20.xi.1947	—	—	—	HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh	—
Charles born 4.xi.1948	—	—	—	—	HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh
George VI dies 6.ii.1952	—	—	dead	HM The Queen	HRH The Duke of Cornwall
Charles created PoW 26.vii.1958	—	—	—	—	HRH The Prince of Wales

("—" means no change to person's title as a result of the event)

In very basic terms, someone with a male-line ancestor as the current Prince of Wales is "HRH Prince Firstname of Wales" (or "HRH Princess Firstname of Wales", of course), unless they have a title themselves, in which case they are "HRH The Rank of Title". Thus it is "Prince William of Wales" and "Prince Henry of Wales", until such time as they're given a title; then, say, Harry might become "HRH The Duke of Clarence".

This is quite well established protocol.

HTH.

James F. (talk) 23:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But you've only pointed us to examples that are in Wikipedia. This assumes that Wiki users were correct in setting out these titles. When I search for examples on the Internet, I can only find Wiki feeds that support the information you've provided. According to the British Monarchy's information on POW, "Prince William cannot hold this title, as it is already held by the current Prince of Wales. The title is conferred by the decision of the Sovereign and not by hereditary descent". Prince William is simply HRH Prince William. Other pages on the Monarchy site also say that the POW title is not inherited. Do you have any external links to credible sources that show the protocol should be Prince William of Wales? I'm not seeking to attack you -- I just can't see where this protocol has been established. --Westendgirl 19:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!.

Look, read what I've said:

"Prince William of Wales" doesn't mean "William who is the Prince of Wales"; we aren't saying that William is the current PoW by calling him thusly.

[emphasis added]

For reference, see the following Google search:

"Prince William of Wales" -wikipedia

... which is a list of non-Wikipedia-derived pages (or, possibly, infringing pages, but a glance at the first few shows this not to be so); if you're worried that this may just be clueless Americans or something, we can limit it to the UK:

"Prince William of Wales" -wikipedia site:uk

... which turns up, amongst other things:

• The Royal Household: HRH Prince William of Wales: The 21st Birthday range

  To mark the 21st birthday of His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales, [...]

• The Royal Household: Mailbox May 2003

  [...] Princes William and Harry are formally known as Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales as their father is Prince of Wales.

• The Royal Household: The current Royal Family

  Their grandchildren are [...] Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales [...]

• BBC News: Prince William: Reticent royal icon

  Prince William of Wales can [...]

• BBC News: Queen Mother's funeral procession: Who's Who? [sic]

  [...] Prince Henry of Wales, Prince William of Wales [...]

• Debrett's: HRH Prince William of Wales
• Debrett's: HRH Prince William of Wales

Now, I'm the first to point out that Debrett's is a tacky publication that is sometimes completely wrong, and has gone downhill rather somewhat of late, that the Royal Household's site is often riddled with errors, and that those who work at BBC News are journalists with tight deadlines who can make mistakes now and then, but I would suggest that the mountain of evidence is sufficient, in this case.

Happy?

James F. (talk) 20:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, no need to take out your frustrations on me. I was merely seeking non-Wiki sources, since, despite searching the Monarchy site myself, I couldn't find the links you produced. Since the Monarchy has indicated it's okay to use Wales and the BBC has a handbook that outlines policies for referencing royals, I think we can draw this matter to a conclusion. Thanks for producing those sources. You may want to cross-post them to the Harry thread. Tks. --Westendgirl 04:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's nice, dear.

Any and all "frustrations" that you may think I feel are wholly due to your repeated asking of an already-answered question. I find that it does help to read what people have written.

James F. (talk) 08:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

HRH

It should be noted that some people do not recognize british nobility titles as being part of the name, such as HRH (His royal highness? higher than who? The serfs?). Thus, I suggest this be noted somewhere, since not all people may be aware of that. Christopher Mahan 01:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC).

These people's opposition to titles is not relevant to William; perhaps it belongs at British royalty or some similar article. — Dan | Talk 01:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Courtesy title?

Why doesn't William use a courtesy title from his father, like Earl of Chester? Ddye 19:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

HRHs don't use courtesy titles (presumably because the courtesy title of "Prince" outranks any other courtesy title). (By the way, he couldn't use "Earl of Chester", because it's not hereditary and thus he isn't heir apparent to it. If he used anything, it would be "Lord Greenwich", as eldest son of the eldest son of the Duke of Edinburgh.) Proteus (Talk) 19:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick (4 minutes...I wonder what the record for getting a question answered is). Thanks. Ddye 19:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help. Proteus (Talk) 20:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Girlfriend

It is said that William has dated an American student at Edinburg University. Is it true ?

Siyac 12:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt William has dated any Americans. Even if that American shared the same royal heritage as him (which some Americans do) and was marriage material, people might make a fuss about the next King of England marrying an American. Hard to say.

It would be interesting and exciting what people's reaction would be if William dated or married an American girl. Who knows? It could happen. RosePlantagenet

Yes, it could. However, the last time a member of the British royal family married an American, it created something of a flap, as I recall...:) See Wallis, Duchess of Windsor. 66.108.144.49 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

It should be noted that Edward VIII abdicated to marry Wallace Simpson, NOT because she was an American, but because she was a divorcee. Apologies for the text being in bold, but it was necessary to ensure that the point is easily noticed and noted.

Thanks! Yeah, I have done some reading about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. It was not that she was an American because after all most American people have some British ancestory. The main reason was that she had been divorced three times and in the church at that time that was a "no no", and she came from a common background in a time when the heir to the throne was expected to marry someone with a good bloodline. So, she basically had two strikes against her but they seemed to have little to do with her being an American. RosePlantagenet

Prince William of the United Kingdom

"Wales" is used simply as an identifier that this is a child of the Prince of Wales. The Prince and Princess of Wales were known familiarly as "the Waleses". A similiar practice is used for the daughters of the current Duke of York. (Cf. John of Gaunt, known thus simply because he was born at Ghent. He was not a prince of Ghent, but a prince of England.)

Prince William is officially, and was born, a Prince of the United Kingdom (as such, as Wales is a part of the UK, he IS a prince of Wales). The dignity of Prince of the United Kingdom was awarded to the current Duke of Edinburgh in 1957, as he was not born to that dignity, but his grandson William was.

It is improper to refer to a British royal who is entitled to the style Royal Highness, with a surname. From the Official Website of the British Monarchy: "The Queen is the fourth Sovereign of the House of Windsor (adopted as the Royal Family's official name in 1917), but she does not have a surname as such. In 1960, The Queen declared that those of her descendants not entitled to the style of Royal Highness, and female descendants who married, would in future use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor (before their marriage, The Duke of Edinburgh was known as Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten). This decision linked the surname of her husband with their descendants, without changing the name of the royal house." NOTE that it says Windsor is the "official name": it does NOT say it is a surname. It is in fact the name of the royal house. Indeed, if surnames were used in the traditional sense, all of Queen Elizabeth's children would carry her husband's adopted last name, Mountbatten (which he himself adopted, as he was born a prince of Greece and Denmark and as such did not have a surname). --ScottyFLL 19:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how far back into the past this pattern began, but the Prince of Wales began life as Prince Charles of Edinburgh, his mother as Princess Elizabeth of York, and his grandfather as Prince Albert of York. It seems a sensible enough system and lends itself to handy de facto "last names" that the Wales men and York girls are putting to good use. -Acjelen 21:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

But also consider that the Queen was not the Queen (nor even the Princess of Wales) when Charles was born, because her father could still have had a son who upon birth would have usurped her place in the succession. And George VI was a second son and ascended to the throne less than a year after his brother, leaving no time for him to have become the Prince of Wales. But I agree that when such a name must be used it should be the placename of the title, as with William and Harry's surnames for the armed forces--and I say this because clearly it is how they have decided they should be known when a surname is required. It may well have been improper to refer to a royal with a surname in years past, but the modern world has the pesky habit of bureaucratic forms that must have the field 'surname' filled in. Crymerci

Yes, he is a Prince of the United Kingdom, but that is not how he is formally styled. Only sons of a regining monarch (which he currently is not) are styled 'Prince of the United Kingdom'. Legitimate male-line grandsons of a British Monarch (like William) are styled after their father's Dukedom or Principality, so, he is styled 'Prince William of Wales', in the same way that his cousine is 'Princess Beatrice of York'. If and when Charles succeeds to the throne, his sons can be styled 'Prince of the United Kingdom'. Indisciplined (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Patron and President

There seems to be a lack of specificity to the news reports dealing with William, and this is leading to inconsistencies and inaccuracies. For example: in this article William is stated to be the president of the Football Association, but in the article The Football Association his term does not begin until May of 2006. Also, I haven't been able to find any information on when William's patronage of Centrepoint begins, if it is not automatic on his acceptance. Hopefully we can get these points squared away. -Acjelen 23:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Title of Spouse

If Prince William were to marry now, would his wife be styled HRH Princess William of Wales?--Jayboy2005 12:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• She would be, although usually the Queen would grant a peerage to a Royal Prince before marriage. William would likely be created a Duke, and his wife would be styled HRH The Duchess of X. If no peerage was granted she would be HRH Princess William of Wales. Astrotrain 13:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think that if they were to marry now she would probably be created, Princess William of Wales, and upon Charles' ascension, become the Princess of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall. Mac Domhnaill 03:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it would be Duchess of Cornwall upon Charles' ascension and eventually Princess of Wales when William becomes Prince of Wales. -Acjelen 04:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Balding (?)

Word has it that they are getting quite concerned at the palace. Prince William is threatened to become bald soon, his hairline receding fast... Hektor 22:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup. William is losing his hair rapidly. At the rate it is going he will probably be bald on top in 5 years. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you are going to have to source that before we put it in wikipedia as I can't find anything in Google except a Prince William Balding ad but that may be referring to someone else. William can always have a hair transplant. Probably by the time it really happens only the poor and the eccentric will be bald or look a day over 30 anyway. So no worries, SqueakBox 20:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it too. I seem to recall that floppy fringe of his at Braemar in the summer of this year when he'd let his hair grow. Craigy (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Both The Sun and the Daily Mail have shown photographs of William's bald patch. Like many balding people, he has simply decided to grow his hair long while he still has it. But when the wind blows his thinning hair at the back is clearly visible. He himself jokes about it. Not to long ago, he joked about his father's growing hairlessness at the back "Better wear a cap, pops; one sudden gust and it will all go." Charles replied: "Yours is going so quick that you'll soon pass me out." (source: a mutual friend.) FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)}

I just watched news footage of the prince in connection with a boy scout anniversary, and it is quite obvious that his going bald is advancing significantly. I think it may be time that the present article now reflect this. __meco 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that whether someone is balding or not is really necessary information in their article. 137.222.243.6 09:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to mention. It is evident from the pictures. Articles don't need to describe the way someone looks if they have photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.68.37 (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of his wife

If Prince William married 2MORROW his wife would be automatically HRH Princess William of Wales (NOT HRH PRINCESS KATE (FOR EXAMPLE) OF WALES SINCE A PRINCESS' FIRST NAME DENOTES BLOOD RELATIONSHIP TO THE QUEEN)

Um, yeah, cus Diana was always called Princess Charles!

William's mother was never correctly referred to as Princess Diana, but Diana, Princess of Wales. -Acjelen 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In the UK the version HRH Princess <husband's name> does not apply and is never used if the husband has a royal peerage. As the Queen (or his father if he is King at the time) will automatically give William a peerage before the wedding, as happened with Prince Albert (George VI), and Princes Andrew and Edward and is standard practice. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)}

If Prince William was to marry more than likely he and his wife would be styled as the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall. If Prince Charles takes the throne, then William and his wife would be the Prince and Princess of Wales. Should William become King, then it is up to him how he wishes to be titled. Although, his wife would either be know as his consort or if he allowed she would be crowned Queen.

• If William marries prior to Charles taking the throne, there is no way for William and his wife to be styled as The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall. The title of Duke of Cornwall is reserved exclusively for eldest son of the sovereign, and until Queen Elizabeth dies/abdicates that is Charles. There will more than likely be some other peerage used for William. Once QEII dies/abdicates and Charles is King, William will be The Duke of Cornwall (Duke of Rothesay in Scotland), not a moment before. The title of "Prince of Wales" is not automatically given to the eldest son, as Charles became DoC in 1952 upon his mother's ascension, and PoW in 1958. Hope that helps.Prsgoddess187 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, any wife would indeed end up as 'Princess William of Wales', in the same way that the wife of Prince Michael of Kent (who also has no peerage of his own) has been lumbered with the title "Princess Michael of Kent" for decades. William would probably be given a peerage to avoid this, though, in the same way that the Queen's younger sons were given peerages just before their respective weddings. Indisciplined (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

prince william

    Prince william is sooooooo sexy. I wanna bite him and eat him right up.

You are not the only one, believe me. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 02:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't want to bite or eat Prince William up. The Royal Guards wouldn't be pleased if you had done so. GoodDay 17:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

children of Prince William

If Prince William were to marry and have children, what would (a) his eldest son and (b) any other children be called, assuming he hasn't been given a dukedom or other title? "HRH Prince X of Wales" would be ambiguous wouldnt it, implying the son of the Prince of Wales when actually he'd be the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - would it just be "Prince X"? And other children? Would they be styled as Lords and Ladies?

Some group of civil servant will doubtless get paid lots of money and with a good pension to bopot for deciding such weighty matters of state. Doubtless they will reach some conclusion, SqueakBox 02:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Under current letters patent, only his eldest son would be entitled to the style HRH while the Queen is still alive (unless new patents were passed). It is likely that he would be given a dukedom on marriage, and his children would derive their title from that. Astrotrain 09:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood the terms of the 1917 LP. Specifically

"grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes."

So under those terms Williams younger children (as the grandchildren of the PoW a son of the sovereign) would automatically be Lord/Lady without the need for the creation of in favour of their father (William). However, I think we should not take this too seriously. The LP was issued at a time of lower life expectancy where it was unlikely to be an issue. Were the circumstance to come to pass - that William had children in the Queen's lifetime - it's seriously unlikely that the Queen would not issue a new LP to correct this. It is also certain that he would be given a Dukedom - but purely for custom - not to grant his children a title Alci12 16:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

On a speculative note, I wonder which dukedom he would be awarded? Kent, Gloucester, Edinburgh and York obviously taken; probably not Clarence or Connaught given the Republic exists; which leaves the traditional ones of Albany, Cambridge, Cumberland or Sussex. Unless The Queen creates a new dukedom, I dare say it'll be Cambridge, purely on the basis that the Mountbatten's held it for a while (if only as a marquessate). Craigy (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't held by the Mountbattens, it was held by Prince Adolphus, Duke of Teck after 1917 then his son Prince George before becoming extinct on his death. Astrotrain 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not Clarence? It's English, not Irish, and would seem the most appropriate since the last holder was the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Ddye 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarence was named after Clare, Suffolk so is a perfectly 'safe' dukedom last used in 1892. Clarence has never survived to a second generation - despite five creations - so could be considered unlucky and therefore not used. It is however the traditional junior dukedom where York is already in use and was last used for the heir of the PoW so it has 'form' shall we say.

I agree wrt Connaught though and for not dissimilar reasons Cumberland is out. Albany is suspended since 1919 and can't really be used. There is no real modern tradition of using Scottish titles - other than combined titles (Clarence and Avondale etc) though were it done it might be quite clever and consistent in terms of attempts to give some royals a Scottish role. So you would have Strathearn, Kintyre, Avondale and Teviotdale etc. In the same way a son of the PoW being given a Welsh Dukedom could be symbolic. However, personally I don't expect any of the above para for William though it might be apposite for Harry.

Sussex is certainly available but has only been used once which may count against it.

Cambridge has to be a front runner with a long history (last a royal dukedom in 1904) and a semi-royal marquisate until 1981. In a similar manner perhaps Carisbrooke is an outside chance as it was previously a 'Mountbatten' title (extinct 1960) and might therefore be might be seen as honouring the D of Edinburgh. I see it as Clarence or Cambridge with Harry getting whichever is rejected for WIlliam unless someone gets 'creative'.Alci12 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarence is out because it's a suspended Earldom attached to the suspended Dukedom of Albany. Cumberland's similarly out because (as Cumberland and Teviotdale) it's a suspended Dukedom. Ditto for Teviotdale. Strathearn should technically be out because (as Abernethy and Strathearn) it's a Lordship attached to the Earldom of Moray, though that's never stopped them using it before (though perhaps it should be noted that's it's never been used on its own, and the existence of Lord Moray's version may have something to do with this). Kintyre is (as Kintyre and Lorne) a Marquessate and (as plain Kintyre) a Lordship, both attached to the Dukedom(s) of Argyll. Sussex and Cambridge are, I feel, likely options, with Carisbrooke a more distant possibility (since it's never been used as a fully Royal title, and perhaps might be too recent a title to reuse). Other options if you go back far enough are Northallerton, Eltham, Tewkesbury, Berkhampstead and Launceston, and if you go back even further Ockingham, Kendal, Dauntsey and Wigmore. This is all assuming they pick a previously used Royal title, and don't do a Wessex again. (If I were the Queen I'd ask the Government to pass an Act of Parliament extinguishing the suspended titles for good, thus freeing up most of the traditional Royal titles, but oh well.) Proteus (Talk) 22:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The HofL ruled that the same title can be created twice with both extant - over the Mar earldom - using precedent from the Mansfield & Mansfield earldoms among others. There is a sporadic English history of having the same named title at different degrees held by different people. So there is no legal or historic bar on creating a very historic dukedom while having a suspended earldom of the same name. It may of course as you say be a reason for not choosing to do so though.

Wrt to Strathearn there is an even longer Scottish history of multiple creations of the same or similar titles in various families. The duke/marquess of Hamilton comes to mind and to a lesser degree the earldom of Dumfries and Marquisate of Dumfrieshire. Afaik the only reason for double named dukedoms was a desire by Victoria to include multiple places - she never liked dukedoms for her sons thinking them beneath princes - as they sounded better and had a unifying purpose.

Much as I like the older titles you mentioned; the reason I didn't list them was simply because they haven't been re-used which after such a long time (Wessex notwithstanding) seems to indicate they are not likely to return. Shame, D of Launceston would be a nice choice for a future D of Cornwall.

The reason for not generally creating the same title is to avoid confusion but I doubt we can really claim that would be the problem were an HRH to get a title slightly similar to another peers title, and with full knowledge that the title will be merged back to the sovereign in short order. So while I certainly agree that they will not create a dukedom of any existing highest title I certainly don't think past history suggests that they couldn't re-use a lower, suspended or part of a previous title. It would however by much simpler if they did clarify things with an act of parliament abolishing those suspended titles.Alci12 13:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Under the 1917 Act that suspends the mentioned peerages, I believe that the descendents can apply to reclaim the title? Thus the title does still exist, albiet it cannot be used. Personally I think he should stay as a Prince. Duke is such an old sounding title, better suited to an aging man in a tweed suit with a bit of tartan over his shoulder. Astrotrain 14:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

They can - but in ~90 yrs have chosen not to do so. It would be interesting to know what 'conditions' might be attached to restoration. Were they restored the sitauation would not be any different to the peerages that are duplicated I mentioned above though.

I guess that the average age to inherit a Dukedom is probably in the 60s but there have been plenty of younger dukes - by creation or succession. In recent times the 10th Duke of Roxburghe succeeded at 21 and the present Duke of Argyll at 33. (Ed. thinking of proteus's comment I've remembered that Tewkesbury was last created as a barony for the illegitimate son of King William IV in 1831)Alci12 15:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Duke of Tewkesbury" has an unfortunate rhyming quality, though. Perhaps Duke of Launceston and Earl of Tewkesbury (and some random Barony) would be nice. Proteus (Talk) 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But then this is all academic - I personally would predict that, were William to marry in her lifetime and in Charles', the Queen would 'do a Wessex' and invest him with an Earldom to 'tide him over' until he becomes Duke of Cornwall and/or Prince of Wales // DBD 08:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My updates about the possibility of him being created Duke of Montreal and Sydney were deleted, but are a real possibility and an imaginative way of cementing Commonwealth ties. It would do great honour to Canada and Australia and would create a precedent that links the Commonwealth Realms more closely to their monarchy. As my edit says, the possible problem of making those Realms appear subordinate by creating a Commonwealth title in the peerage of the UK could be avoided by not creating such a peerage but announcing that the title was held by courtesy in all Commonwealth Realms, including the UK. The problem, of course, is that the Canadian government - and, almost certainly, the newly elected Rudd administration - may object to the creation of such a title. (John Worsley, 12:20, 29.11.2007)

That's all well and good, but this is NOT a forum – there is no room for original speculation. Now, if a publication has speculated this with some genuine basis, then you can add the passage back in with citations, else it will keep being removed and you'll eventually get banned DBD 15:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Final note, I beleive the Governments in Canada and Australia would have a veto over that. Canada does not currently allow it's citizens to take British titles, so I doubt they's be happy with a Brit becoming 'Duke of Ontario'. It would (needlessly) inflame republican sentiments in both countries. I don't believe the idea has ever been floated, so can't really be included in this article. Indisciplined (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Rothesay's subsidiary titles

Does Prince William uses his father's subsidiary title of Earl of Carrick when in Scotland? Could he? Could he do so in England?

No. Firstly, HRH Princes never use courtesy titles, even when they're available. Secondly, Carrick is only held by the eldest son of the Sovereign, and so if the Prince of Wales died before the Queen then Prince William wouldn't inherit it. Thus, as courtesy peerages are only held by heirs apparent, and William's not the heir apparent to Carrick (or Rothesay for that matter), he couldn't use it even if custom allowed him to use a courtesy peerage. Proteus (Talk) 22:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thrones

First, I would like to remind editors that the "HRH" does not appear at the beginning of the article body before the title and name of royal subjects. See, for instance the article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Second, I don't see a reason for discussing the various thrones to which William is likely to ascend in the very first paragraph, especially when there is a second introductory paragraph on that topic above the table of contents box and a "Future" section further down for more complete information. If editor Gbambino would give his reasons in disagreement, we can avoid a repeated reversions. -Acjelen 17:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick note. Elizabeth II in not an 'HRH'. As monarch, she is 'HM' (Her Majesty). HRH is a lower title. I take your point, though. Indisciplined (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing new has been added; in fact, what I've done is reduce the amound of text to communicate the exact same information that was there before. I wonder why it is one would want to use clumsy and repetitive wording, when something more streamlined is far more desirable. --gbambino 19:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at it again, I suspect the sentence as such he is expected to ascend to the position of King of each of these nations sometime in the future could potentially be completely removed. --gbambino 19:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, with the further edits, it works better. Sometimes in writing encyclopedia articles, it is better to break up paragraphs into tight groups of sentences on a specific topic. Obviously any opening paragraphs needs to provide some kind of summary. -Acjelen 22:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Di pic

If you have a problem with this pic bring it here, SqueakBox 22:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If there was a picture of William with his mother in the birth and childhood section, that would be nice. Editors should be aware, however, that this article contains a number of images and infoboxes already. There isn't a lot of room for more "graphics", especially those not having to do with Prince William. Specifically about the removed image: Image:Diana, Princess of Wales.jpg is the sort of head shot appropriate for the sitter's page. In fact, information on the image's page indicates that it is both copyrighted and unlicensed. It is probably not a good idea to place it on other pages. -23:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (Missed a tilda) -Acjelen 23:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay and thanks for that, SqueakBox 01:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Future

User:Jtdirl - If William has indeed said he doesn't expect to be King of Australia, then firstly, present a source that backs up this claim. Secondly, whatever he thinks, that doesn't predict the future constitutional arrangements of Australia, or any other Realm for that matter, including the UK. So, as it stands (i.e. currently) he is expected to be King of each of the Commonwealth Realms. Whatever happens in the future remains to be seen. As well, please provide a source that proves William may not choose the title William V due to the previous "problems" (which are POV in themselves) with the previous Kings William. Or, is that just speculation as well? --gbambino 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition, that's way too much speculation and discussion about the Connaught title for the scope of this article. If any, Duke of Connaught is the appropriate place for such content. I also want to point out that if Australia, Canada, or any other becomes a republic, that state would no longer be one of the Commonwealth Realms. As long as we emphasis that it is to the thrones of the Commonwealth Realms that William is expect to ascend, we should be okay. -Acjelen 05:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Beg to differ... the Republic of South Africa is a constitutional DEMOCRACY which has been a member of the Commonwealth under Presidents Mandela and Mbeki. The Republic of Mozambique is also a member of the Commonwealth despite being a former PORTUGUESE dominion. HM THe Queen, her heirs etc... are not Monarchs of South Africa & Mozambique despite being a Commonwealth countries. Thus, Australia, NZ, Canada et al, could also be members of the Commonwealth without having HM as Monarch. Proberton (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but note the use of the special term Commonwealth realm. Nobody has disputed that they very well could (and probably would!) remain members of the Commonwealth, but a republican Commonwealth realm is impossible by definition. -- Jao (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

William has said repeatedly that he does not expect to be King of Australia. He told the media that he believes there will be few thrones for him to inherit and that he is "comfortable with that". (Charles repeatedly says the same thing, most recently two weeks ago.) The choice of the name "William" was highly controversial in 1982 and was seen as a major faux pas by Charles and Diana. It became highly controversial in Northern Ireland, where extreme loyalists burnt bonfires to celebrate "another King Billy" and Ian Paisley "thanked God that we are to be blessed with another King William, who will stand by the people of Ulster as did his namesakes at the Battle of the Boyne against popish plots". Kensington Palace had to put out a statement stating that he would never be known as "Billy" and might never even call himself "King William". William was only picked because Diana's first choice, "John" was vetoed by Charles who said after one King John, and the illness of Prince John early in the 20th century, it was too controversial a name to pick. (It is seen by the Royal Family as a "cursed name".) He said later that William too was too controversial and probably shouldn't have been picked either. It has been openly speculated in the Royal Household that William will choose a different regnal name. Names such as Henry and William are seen as too controversial by far (they open up too many historical skeletons — apart from the political problems with William from King Billy there is the problem of the sex-lives of the last two Williams, William III's bisexuality and William IV's numerous bastard — so William is seen as one of those names (Henry, Harold, Mary, Edward — since Edward VIII — John and possibly even Charles, best not used by a reigning monarch. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 05:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)}

As per the whether he will be king of each of the present day Commonwealth Realms - if he's said it repeatedly, please provide a credible source. That can be inserted into the article. (I've read some about Charles' supposed comments on Australia becoming a republic, but nothing more, and that was all heresay in reality anyway.) And, as I said, even if William has stated what you say he has, that has no bearing on actual future arrangements. If you really want to talk about all his possible future roles, then you may as well put into the paragraph that he is expected to be King of the UK only if the UK hasn't become a republic by that time, he may be King of Western Australia should that State decide to succeed from the Australian Commonwealth by the date of his acession, and on and on ad infinitum. --gbambino 05:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Romances section

The "romances" section is out of date and overly circumspect. It needs an appropriate amount of encyclopedic information about the semi-public relationship between Wales and Miss Middleton. -Acjelen 19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a question of whether Kate Middleton is Prince William's girlfriend? I've never seen such doubt in print. -Acjelen 20:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I personally haven't seen any doubt of it either (though I don't tend to follow the gossip about the Royals much), but I haven't seen any official confirmation of it either. It isn't denied by Clarence House, but neither is it acknowledged. Is there an appropriate way to state it as such in the article? --gbambino 20:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, when it was suggested that Miss Middleton move into Clarence House with William, the churchmen did freak out. I doubt there will be any official confirmation about any girlfriend until an engagement is announced, but the relationship passes the duck test (walk, talk, must be). As I noted above, the encyclopedia is not served by overly circumspect content. -Acjelen 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Officially, Prince William doesn't have a girlfriend. Any suggestion otherwise is gossip. An encyclopaedia doesn't print gossip. Cardiff 23:50 (GMT), 26th April 2006.

The difference between a girlfriend and an officially acknowledged girlfriend is not a matter of gossip, but of language and protocol. This encyclopedia does not follow the "official" line slavishly. -Acjelen 00:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Any respectable encyclopaedia, which is now competing with Britannica, would follow the "official" line because it would never print the language and protocol of gossip. Cardiff 00:25 (GMT), 26th April 2006.

There is a competing view that Wikipedia is not a respectable encyclopedia and that this is a strength versus Britannica. -Acjelen 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Apart from how we describe the evident relationship with Miss Middleton, a bigger problem is that we currently say that the relationship is "recent". I will change that, and in doing so attempt a new description of the relationship based on the comments above. As I see it, the facts are: There is a relationship, its being going on since 2004, media have reported it, she has been seen in the company of the royal family, there has been no official confirmation by the Palace.

Their is a relationship, however, whether it will last is questionable. Kate Middleton and her family are commoners. Which means they have no royal blood, no aristocratic background and no royal background. In the old days, if you had royal blood you were not a commoner. Today, people being commoners due to lack of any titles even if they have royal blood is very new because there is not a lot of royality left these days.

The fact Kate is a commoner might be why an engagment is taking so long and any official announcement is being held back because Queen Elizabeth comes from the time when royals married other royals or other aristocrates. I am sure there is some heavy disapproval somewhere.

Now, they might be allowed to marry for love because of what happen to Prince Charles and Princess Diana (Princess Diana was not a commoner and had a royal linage going back to King Charles II). And, that did go badly.

But only reason Kate and William are together, if they are, is because William went to her college. Otherwise, I doubt they would be dating.

I did a bit of a clean up on the Girlfriends Section. Many editors were sneaking in unsourced and unverified information. Also, Middleton still has her own article, if editors want more information, they can find it there. RosePlantagenet 16:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Birth weight

What other biographical article on Wikipedia gives the subject's birth weight? Why is it important? Shall we put in whether it was a vaginal birth or a c-section? Does he have an innie or an outie? The recent edits to this article feature an emphasis on the prince's birth and childhood, which should be instead lessened as content on the prince's adult life is augmented. -Acjelen 20:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you may have a point about such information being (or not being) included in other articles, but precedent need not always be followed. I say that if it's factual, concise, and relevant then leave it in. --gbambino 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

so why is that relevant? has he had any problems? was his weight too big or too small? i don't see any reasons to call it "relevant"! -- tasc ^talk_deeds 22:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Relevant as in it has a connection directly to him (apropos, relating to). It was his weight at birth, ergo it's a fact relating to him, and closely too. Is it important? Probably not. So, I'm okay with it staying, but if there's a consensus to remove it I won't fight the pack over it. --gbambino 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand it was a c-section and that he has an innie. My understanding of Wikipedia is to give as much verifiable information as is possible whether from his childhood or adulthood. What exactly is the problem with this? Surely, those who are interested in Prince William want to know everything about him here. The birth weight of a Royal baby Prince is often given in biological accounts because it is one of the very first pieces of information that is known about him. As for c-section or innie we could include that here I suppose. Joking aside - people really do need to loosen up on these Prince William pages and let other people contribute their verifiable facts to the article. Cardiff 00.15 (GMT), 26th April 2006.

A great number of editors on Wikipedia constantly look out for irrelevant information and subjects which are not notable. -Acjelen 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the birth weight should be provided in (kilo)grams, as well as ounces. GilliamJF 19:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think Prince William's height is relevant at the top of the article. It seems a bit awkward to be at the top, next to his royal title and such. Anbellofe 03:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Graduating

The entire English-speaking world speaks of graduates "graduating". No-one says "was graduated". If I wrote that I "was graduated" from my university, or if I said my students "were graduated" I would be laughed at and told not to say such nonsense. Why on earth does someone insist on changing the standard "graduated" to the archaic and no longer used "was graduated"? Should we replace "you" with "thou" next? lol. Wikipedia uses contemporary language, or historical language when speaking of historical language (as in using gaol rather than jail when speaking of the word used at the time). If William completed his degree in the 19th century, maybe one could write that he "was graduated'. But in the 21st century, and in most of the 20th century, people are not described as "being graduated". They simply "graduate". FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 03:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)}

Diana, Princess of Wales

I've edited the article to show, Diana was the former Lady Diana Spencer (HRH Princess of Wales) at William birth & Diana, Princess of Wales at her death. GoodDay 17:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong edit. In historiography deceased consorts are referred to by maiden name. That is why this, and other articles, use Diana's maiden name (just as articles mentioning the queen mother use her name, articles about the last queen of Italy use her maiden name, while articles refer to Mary of Teck, Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth of York. That is how biographical articles are written. They certainly don't claim use the post-marriage name to refer to who they were when they married!!! Reverted to the standard usage. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 18:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)}

This isn't historiography. It's an encyclopaedia. You'd do well to remember that a bit more often. Proteus (Talk) 22:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There's always somethin' for me to learn. Hmm, I'm gettin' Wikier ever day. GoodDay 22:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As usual Proteus gets it wrong. lol (Some things never change.) Historiographic standards is used in drafting encylopaedias. His big *issue* is that the Manual of Style and NCs don't allow him to write things his "gee isn't monarchy great" way all the time. He seems to want WP to produce articles in the form of Debretts or Burke's Peerage, rather than in encyclopaedic and historiographic format. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)}

You do realise that constantly writing "lol" makes you look like a twelve-year-old and destroys what small amount of credibility you had left? Just checking... Proteus (Talk) 08:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

if you care about credibility why on earth do you start such discussion. talk to your opponent, and don't try to insult him. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 08:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no point talking to him. His modus operandi is generally to turn up at an article and spout out total garbage evidenced mainly by "this is standard usage (I'm not going to prove that it is by doing anything as banal as citing sources or providing evidence, I'm just going to state it as fact and insult anyone who disagrees with me)" and "anyone who disagrees with me is completely clueless, doesn't have any idea about anything, and should clearly pay more attention to me, the world's expert on everything". He then causes a large number of editors to expend a great deal of time disproving his baseless assertions (interspersed with him repeating the aforementioned "you're all idiots" business), and after enough contrary sources have been provided that the issue would be suitably proved in court let alone here, he disappears (without even acknowledging he was wrong or apologising for wasting everyone's time by being a complete tosspot), only to do exactly the same on another article in exactly the same way. (I realise this sounds far-fetched, but have a look at Talk:David Trimble and you'll see what I mean.) Well I'm not playing his stupid game any more. Diana, Princess of Wales has her article there, and so prima facie should be referred to by that name. If he wants to claim that she shouldn't be, then the onus is on him to provide a reliable source saying that she shouldn't (note to Jtdirl: your own experience in the media is not a reliable source, just in case you try that line again) rather than just stating it as fact and expecting us to rebut him. (It shouldn't be too hard here, since he claims "Diana, Princess of Wales" isn't used in other articles, which is a rather odd claim since it's the title of her own article, but I'm not prepared to enter into any more discussions with him as if he's a normal "good faith" editor who is actually capable of taking part in intelligent debate.) Proteus (Talk) 10:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone could take a step back as this won't get us anywhere. The dispute as I see it is whether Diana is a consort therefore needing a revertion to her birth style after death. Now all I can see in the MoS is:

Deceased Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine.

That's interesting. Because the article on the current Duke of Edinburgh (consort to the Queen) is not headed "Lt. Philip Mountbatten" but rather "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". And indeed he hadn't become Philip Mountbatten until he had renounced his titles as prince of Greece and Denmark. (On the other hand, the article on Queen Victoria's consort is headed "Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" [yet it doesn't include "Prince", which indeed he was both before and after marriage]). ScottyFLL 06:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Er....DECEASED. The Duke of Edinburgh is still alive, so these conventions do not apply yet. Technically, he was Phillip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh when he married Elizabeth, having renounced his foreign nationality, surname, and title (Prince) in preparation for the marriage (for contemporary political reasons). He did not become a Prince again until after his wife became Queen, when she made him a British Prince. He is more complex case, given that he changed his surname, so I'm not sure what historians will call him. We'll have to wait until after he dies...... Indisciplined (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Now if someone can point to a further explanation in the MoS please do so. However if all we have is the above then I think she can stay as Diana, Princess of Wales. The above seems to invoke disambiguation problems between two Queen 'X's as the reasoning for reversion to birth styles; as there hasn't been any other Diana, any other Princess of Wales called Diana or a divorced princess of Wales with which to disambiguate against, I'm not sure this consequently applies. However lets keep replies civil either way Alci12 16:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Diana offers a classic example of the reason why maiden names are used. Her title changed constantly. Using the wrong title to describe her in the wrong title can add confusion. Charles was never married to someone called Diana, Princess of Wales. That was her name post-marriage. Dodi, if they had married, could have been said to have married someone of that name, not Charles. Charles was married to someone called simply The Princess of Wales. But that gives no information as to who she was, and is complicated that legally his second wife is also The Princess of Wales, even if she does not use that title. That is why historians and biographers say that Charles married Lady Diana Spencer. It is a specific name referring to a specific person.

It is the same reason why newspaper obituaries if they use a full name don't say "Michael Smith married Mary Smith" but "Michael Smith married Mary Lynch". Saying "Mary Lynch" carries a context of who she was when they married. "Mary Smith" gives no information, except that they were married, which we know already from the sentence. Similarly, saying "King George V married Queen Mary" carries scope for confusion and offers little information. Does it mean that she was a queen when they married? Who was she? Where was she from? In addition it gives the impression that he was king when he married. So professional biographers and historians would write "Prince George married Princess Mary of Teck" or "the Duke of York married Princess Mary of Teck". Writing it that way indicates that she was a princess, not a queen, and that she was from Teck.

Writing that the Prince of Wales married Lady Diana Spencer makes it clear that she was a commoner and that she was from a family called Spencer. Writing that Charles was married to Diana, Princess of Wales is open to the misinterpretation that Charles had remarried his ex-wife, while telling us nothing about her. Royal consorts in general cause all sorts of confusion with their numerous title changes. Writing that the "Queen Mother married King George VI" is wrong, firstly because it implies he was a king when they married, and secondly because she wasn't a queen mother then (according to Buckingham Palace, that title in 1922 belonged to Queen Alexandra, and she hardly married her son!). Saying that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married the Duke of York gives a clear indication of what their relative status was when they married. It is to avoid confusion that professional biographers use the maiden name rule (or previous marital name, if the person had been married before) with royalty and indeed quite widely with non-royalty. Saying the Prince of Wales married Camilla Parker Bowles acknowledges her status before their marriage. Saying he married the Duchess of Cornwall is confusing, and saying he married Camilla Shand would be deliberately misleading, as if trying to hide the fact that she had already been married. It is really quite simple and quite basic in biographical writing, even if some people can't grasp it.

So writing that Charles was married to Lady Diana Spencer is standard biographical writing. Writing that he was married to Diana, Princess of Wales is inaccurate tabloidese. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 20:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)}

But the article didn't say "Charles married Diana, Princess of Wales" (which you've just spent ages proving is stupid, but you've wasted your time since no one's saying it isn't (not entirely sure if that was a mistake or simply you trying to muddy the waters as usual)), it said that "He is the elder son of The Prince of Wales and his first wife, the late Diana, Princess of Wales", which is true. The late Diana, Princess of Wales, was his mother and was the first wife of the Prince of Wales. And you also removed "His mother was the former Lady Diana Spencer", replacing it with "His mother was Lady Diana Spencer", which is just wrong, since she had ceased to be Lady Diana Spencer before she gave birth to Prince William. Proteus (Talk) 13:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the 'standard biographical writing' is not defined in the MoS so invoking it doesn't really move us forward. Disambiguation is obviously the problem though your example of Mary of Teck breaks normal wiki rules on using surnames so these things are not written in stone or observed as such.

Graduation from Sandhurst?

When does he finish his training at Sandhurst? (Alphaboi867 04:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Infobox content

Here are the field descriptions form the infobox page:

• title (first instance) - principal titles in use, e.g. King of England or Duke of Edinburgh

William has no such title

• titles - A list of all shorthand titles, listed most recent first, with line breaks

William doesn't have one title, let alone a list

The way I see it, we have two options: in the Name field put just William and in the Title field put Prince William of Wales (or HRH Prince William of Wales); or, in the Name field put Prince William and in the Title field put HRH Prince William of Wales. I have my own preference, which I'll now change it to. -Acjelen 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree- it makes no sense to put excess title information in the infobox when most royal articles have a dedicated and detailed section on the issue. Remove. Astrotrain 14:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the intent in the Infobox's application is that Name be Prince William, Title be his title/style of Prince William of Wales (HRH is not used because (a) it's in the Titles field and (b) it's signified by the colour of the Name text), and that Titles be a list of common styles/titles over time, in this case only on - HRH Prince William of Wales. I'll revert this instance to reflect these assertions pending discussion on the Template's talk page -- DBD 14:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand. What are the other colors and their values, and where can see them listed? -Acjelen 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The variable 'majesty' makes the Name purple, 'royal' black, and 'highness' turquoise // DBD 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Monarch

It says in the article "William, should he become King, would be the first monarch of England since Queen Mary II to be a direct descendent of King Charles I."

Slight problem with this. If he ascends the throne then he will certainly not be Monarch/King of England. Unless the U.K. is disbanded by then. At the present moment he is 2nd in line to the throne of the u.k. and the other commonwealth realms etc. So he will be the 1st monarch of the U.K. "to be a direct descendent of King Charles I". I think the article NEEDS TO BE CHANGED! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.213.213.9 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

This part of the article is not wrong - it is merely poorly worded. England still exists - it is a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - so William will be its king. He will be, as King of the UK, England's monarch - DBD^R 20:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

People are constantly calling the British monarch "King (or Queen) of England." Let's face it, that's an incorrect title and it's certainly insulting to the people of Scotland and of Wales. The proper phrase is obviously "King (or Queen)of the United Kingdom." Tom129.93.17.229 03:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I work at the palace, and I have never heard a visitor say "Queen of the UK/GB, or even Britain", it's almost always "of England". Of course, all of these people are wrong, but yet, do you see what I'm getting at? DBD 21:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo

The main photo is huge; his brother, parents and even grandmother have considerably smaller ones. Would anyone else be in favour of a slight size reduction? Biruitorul 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Its the infobox code I'm afraid- no way to resize under current conditions Astrotrain 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hate to be contrary, but... there's an un-advertised property, "imgw" (in pixels) which you can use - it's designed for use when pictures are so small that the normal size would stretch it... :D - DBD^R 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? It can be re-sized? Astrotrain 23:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct, thusly:

| image                =Prince William of Wales.jpg
| imgw                 =???

- DBD^R 00:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. If there's consensus to try a smaller size, let's do it. Biruitorul 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

_{Subscript text}

Recent revert

I have just made a minor revert on this article, but I think further reverts may be appropriate. Previous edits appear to be good faith but I'm not sure if they are correct or appropriate. Any comments? Viewfinder 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the edits are in good faith, but they seem more opinion based, which does not fit the article. I added the People magazine information because it seemed worth mentioning since the magazine has a good reputation and it gives some glipse as to what perhaps is really going on as opposed to rumors and people's own personal opinions. RosePlantagenet 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

---

"It was reported by Daily Mail, a British tabloid newspaper, that she was invited by the Queen to Christmas lunch in 2006, which, would make her the first unmarried partner of a royal to be asked to the festive celebrations at the royal estate of Sandringham House near Sandringham, Norfolk. Middleton declined the offer, preferring to spend Christmas with her own family."

There is NO confirmation that this is true. It is a rumor at best. The idea of ANYONE declining a personal invitation from the Queen is absurd. This piece of information is irrelevant, or if you must add it, please rephrase so as to clarify the fact that is an entirely unconfirmed rumor. Thank you.

Andrea

To whom it may concern

ref#5 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12534291/GT1/7938/ retrieved April 2005 is a dead link. // FrankB 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It concerns you... Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages and remove it! – DBD 13:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycle riding Prince

As reported by the BBC, The Prince passed his motorcycle test. He is known to ride a large displacement Honda motorcycle.Orsoni 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No fair use photographs

Do not upload images used without permission under fair use to use in this article; they will be deleted. Prince Williams is still alive, a freely-licensed image conveying the same information should reasonably be able to be created. Go snap a photograph, or find a freely-licensed one. But do not upload press photos, crown copyright photos, or photographs by others not freely licensed. --Iamunknown 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Doubling up

This paragraph: "However, the British journalist Johann Hari has argued in Le Monde that William does not want to be King. He writes: "Nicholas Davies, the royal expert, has revealed that during one holiday in his mid-teens, William was tobogganing down a steep hill in the dark. When he neared the bottom of the slope, where cars were passing, a detective leapt out, seemingly from nowhere. He threw himself on to the sledge and sent William hurtling into a pile of snow. William screamed, "Why do I have to be surrounded by policemen all the time? Why won't you just let me be a normal person?"" [3]" appears twice int he article. I'm opening a discussion as to which one should be removed and which section gets to stay. Naysie 10:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince William's Faith

what are prince william's religios views??

He was, as the article says, confirmed into the Church of England in (er..) 1997 (?) --Breadandcheese 02:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor

Shouldn't his full name include include Mountbatten-Windsor at the very end? -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 00:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is dubious whether William even has a surname. Quoting the Mountbatten-Windsor article: "The Order specifically applies the surname to those descendants of the Queen not holding Royal styles and titles but it has been applied to or informally used by members of the British Royal Family descended from Queen Elizabeth II as their surname, as shown at the marriages of the Duke of York and the Princess Royal, both having been registered with Mountbatten-Windsor in their entries in the marriage registers." -- Jao 07:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've even added a reference (in the infobox) briefly explaining the surname issue... DBD 10:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Regnal Title

I can't really substantiate this but a few years ago I read an article saying that Prince Charles may rule under the name Louis I in honour of his Godfather Louis Mountbatten. If this is indeed the case and accurate, surely then William can choose any name as his regnal one not just his baptismal names? The following comes from List_of_regnal_numerals_of_future_British_monarchs#Background

It should be noted that the regnal name of a new monarch is a matter of personal choice when he or she ascends the throne. The first forename of the current queen's father, for example, was "Albert" and he was known as "Bertie"; yet he reigned as George VI. So far, however, no UK monarch has chosen to reign under a name which was not one of his or her various baptismal names.

Would be very interested in someone's opinion. Cheers, Paul. Proberton 14:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be highly unlikely for Charles to choose anything that isn't a given name, almost as unlikely as him choosing anything but Charles or George (my bets are on Charles). Thought it is the prerogative of the sovereign to choose a style, it would not hold with tradition if he chose a random name.--Ibagli (Talk) 21:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if His Royal Highness, when he becomes King of Canada, would he be named in French Guillaume V. Guillaume is the translation of William in French. Therefore, would he be: Guillaume Cinq, de la grâce de dieu, roi du Canada, du Royaume-Uni et ses autre Royaumes et territoires, chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi? User:ctjj.stevenson Guillaume —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctjj.stevenson (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Descent from Charles I

I've checked the family trees from the official Royal family website [1], the family trees from the official Spencer website [2] as well as crossed referencing Wikipedia entries with Sir Ian Moncreiffe's "Ancestry of the Royal Child" , Hamish Hamilton 1982.

William isn't 'directly descended' from the Jacobite Stuarts. His descent on both sides comes from younger children. His pedigree on the Spencer side is through his mother, the 3rd child, his grandfather, the youngest child, his great grandfather, the second child of the second youngest child etc...

On his paternal side, Charles is the eldest son of the eldest daughter (ElizabethII) of the second son ( George VI) of the eldest ( George V) son of the eldest (Edward VII) son of Queen Victoria who was in turn the only child Edward, Duke of Kent the 5th child, and fourth son of George II etc, etc, etc.

"Direct descent" implies the subject is the eldest child of the eldest child of the eldest child, which he clearly is not.

Cheers, Paul Roberton Proberton 02:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Direct descent" doesn't imply that at all. It's simply another way of saying "descent". I've no idea where you got the idea it means what you suggest. Proteus (Talk) 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Direct descendant" is normally but erroneously used to imply that person B is descended from person A. The term is usually employed to highlight the closer biological link that B is descended from A rather than them being related by having a common ancestor, subject C.

The correct term for the relationship between B and A is "Lineal Descendant"

A direct descendant is used to highlight a lineal descent that is the eldest son of the eldest son, entitled to inherit arms and property.

Collateral descendants are the "cousins" of the direct line. To apply these definitions to the current royal family;

Prince William is the direct descendant of George VI, he is the eldest child, of the eldest child ( Prince Charles) of the eldest child ( Queen Elizabeth) of George IV.

Princes William and Harry, Princess Beatrice and Eugenie, Anne's children Peter and Zara Phillips, and Prince Edward's daughter Lady Louise are ALL LINEAL DESCENDANTS of George VI.

Prince Harry, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie and Lady Louise are collateral descendents of George VI.

I hope you find this something worth considering. At the very least its an interesting discussion. At the end of the day, I'm taking up the Wikipedia challenge of "be bold!"

Cheers,

Paul Proberton 00:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's bilge.

'Collateral descent' from X refers to those who are descended from siblings or cousins of X. Thus (in your example) Beatrice and Eugenie are callateral decendents of Prince Charles. In the same way, Lord Linley is a collateral decendent of the Queen and the Duke of Kent is a collateral descendant of George VI (being the son of his brother).

There is no distinction between 'direct descendant' and 'lineal descendant'. They mean the same thing, though the latter is a rather more formalised version. To use the above example, Beatrice, Eugenie and Harry are ALL direct descendents of the Queen, Linley of George VI and Kent of George V.

John Worsley (19:16, 29.11.2007)

Yeah okay I get that but did you really feel it necessary to refer to my work as bilge? Proberton (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Single worst article on Wikipedia

Who wrote this pile of garbage and passes it as "authority" on Prince William? --Ashley Rovira 01:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Be Nice LizzieHarrison 09:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but there are so many mistakes in this article, I don't know where to begin. Even his style is stated wrongly. He is HRH The Prince William, not just HRH Prince William, for one thing. --Ashley Rovira 02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

One is not given the "The" before one's name unless you are the son or daughter of the sovereign.For example Charles is "HRH The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales," William, as his son, is "HRH Prince William of Wales." You can visit the royal family's website to see this.66.220.74.163 05:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Alexandrine

Jessica Craig

Why does Jessica Craig redirect here and yet there is not mention of her in the article? 70.48.167.184 16:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie Harrison (talk • contribs) 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bolding

The first paragraph of the example given in WP:BRSG uses the text "born Lord Forename Surname". This suggests not only that the birth name should be bolded, but that "born William Arthur Philip Louis" is acceptable wording. Neitherday 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, "Lord Forename Surname" is a style, whereas William Arthur Philip Louis is a full name. If you look just a little later in the guide, there's "Forename Middle Names Surname" unbolded. And the "born" before "Lord" etc tells us his style wasn't always Lord. DBD 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarence? Huh?!

[4] Do we have any sources for this, or is my assumption of vandalism correct? DBD 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea that William might be created Duke of Clarence is not new; it's in a 16-month-old Sunday Express article discussed here. The idea that it has already happened is new, though. Google gives nothing, which means A) that it hasn't happened (very plausible), or B) that it has happened secretly (verging on impossible), in which case it is not verifiable and can't be allowed in the article anyway. -- Jao 17:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I tried Googling for references "Prince William" AND "Duke of Clarence" and found articles on William IV ! I also thought that if it happened the media release could be pending. Either way I also agree, that if its not verifiable, it shouldn't be here. Proberton 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a strange combination of titles: (1) "Clarence" has generally been considered unlucky since the death of the Duke of Clarence and Avondale; (2) even if it weren't unlucky, it's generally considered unable to be granted without an additional part (like "Avondale") due to the existence of a suspended Earldom of Clarence attached to the suspended Dukedom of Albany; (3) "Avondale" is the second part of the aforementioned Duke of Clarence and Avondale's Dukedom — a strange coincidence for it to be used as the second title of the next person with a "Clarence" title; (4) "Ambrose" has never been used before for a peerage, let alone a Royal one, and I'm not even sure it's a place in Britain (the normal practice of including one English, one Scottish and one Irish peerage would suggest it would be in Northern Ireland); and (5) it's an unusual combination of ranks — Royal creations are normally Duke, Earl, Baron, and I'm unaware of any creation, Royal or otherwise, being in the form Duke, Marquess, Baron. For those reasons I'd be extremely surprised if it weren't vandalism. Proteus (Talk) 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a Google news archive search, and came up with two articles from April 2006, (as mentioned above by Jao) that are both pay-to-view, but the blurb Google shows says: "STRONG signals that Prince William could soon marry Kate Middleton emerged ... The Queen is considering bestowing The title of Duke of Clarence on William, ... " and "Wedding signals William set to become the Duke of Clarence". [5]

The title appears to be something that will be bestowed upon William at the time of his marriage, not unlike other royal titles. However, since he is not married, I'd agree it should not be included in the article. I'm more than sure if it had already happened, the BBC would have reported it widely. ^Ariel♥Gold 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha yep that was my fingers getting away from me, thanks Jao! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Regnal title

"Were William to decide to use his first name as his regnal name, he would be known as William V." I understand the need to point out that he will be free to choose another name, but doesn't this subjunctive mood suggest that he has already decided not to be William V? I'm not a native speaker, so it might be my understanding of the English subjunctive usage that is halting. -- Jao 23:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The subjunctive is in order here: the construction may appear familiar to you if the more common structure is used: "If William were to...he would...", or "If William was to...he would...." (this is the so-called "second type" of conditional clause) --Igorwindsor 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Surname usage revisited

There is obvious confusion in this section in the treatment of (a) the "surname" of Windsor, i.e. the name of the family -- or the dynasty, if you like -- which is rarely used anyway, and of (b) the usage of a title instead of a surname (such as "the Yorks" for the Duke and Duchess of York, "the Kents" for the Duke and Duchess of Kent, "the Wessexes" for the Earl and Countess of Wessex, and, lastly, "Wales" for Princes William and Harry). This section would thus need some rewriting. --Igorwindsor 16:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

References in popular culture

Yes.... In an encyclopedia.... Not apropos, not relevant, not well put together and not deserving of being kept even if in rewritten form. So far there is no reference to P.W. that has any raison d'etre so all have been deleted.Freiherrin (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos!

Gosh this article needs more! -b (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely There should be a decent overview of William in popular Culture. His character has appeared in veriuse Moview, Made for T.V. movies, Books - both fiction and Biographical, even songs and comic Books. The past article wasn't perfect but it was better than nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.64.22 (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Full Name: Wilberto?

The article currently says that his full name is Wilberto Arthur Philip Louis and not William Arthur Philip Louis. Is this really correct? - NHJ 72.88.110.116 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A clear act of vandalism, introduced at 07:16 UTC yesterday and reverted at 19:16 UTC, but it must have stuck in your cache or something. -- Jao (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing

This article is very disjointed and seems to be just a series of snippets from different magazine articles. I realize that all of the snippets are sourced but that doesn't mean that they add anything to the article in an encyclopedic manner. I don't know enough about the Prince (why I came to read it) to edit but would love to see someone make this better. This is an article that could and should be at feature status. Missjessica254 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Knighthood

Shouldn't his name at the top of the article have a "KG" after it now? Cranston Lamont (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No; Royals don't generally use postnominal letters. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

maiden name is standard for info box

If you check out Elizabeth II, in the info box, her father is George V of the United Kingdom and her mother is Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, so there changing this mother's maiden name. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the Duchess of York at the time of her daughter's birth and later on Queen Elizabeth and then The Queen Mother. George V was born Prince George of York and was Duke of York at the time of his daughter's birth so the standard practice is to use the monarch's title and his/her consort's birth one. 64.230.110.176 (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Maiden name is standard for the consort. Diana was not a consort; a consort is the spouse of a monarch. For example, Philip is now a consort, but was not prior to his wife's accession. Thus, maiden name is incorrect. The standard for deceased royals is to use the highest title which they carried in life. Diana's situation is somewhat complicated due to the divorce; her highest style & title was HRH The Princess of Wales. That would, however, be ambiguous as there have been several of those. So we revert to her last title: Diana, Princess of Wales. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

:: That's a move request, not a info box. See nearly any other royal info box Ludwig III of Bavaria or George III of the United Kingdom and maiden name is given and mother was not the consort of a reiging monarch. Also Mary II of England where her mother was Duchess of York at the time of her death but is shown in the info box by her birth name 64.230.110.176 (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see [here]. The relevant portion: "Use the most senior title received by a royal or noble personage. For example, George V of the United Kingdom is referred to as such, not George, Duke of York or George, Prince of Wales, his earlier titles.". Also see [this]; the relevant portion: "Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. (Emphasis mine; very, very few people will consider 'Lady Diana Spencer' to be universally regognized, even though her name is (weakly) arguably recognizable as such). Also see, slightly lower down: "In general, use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name." In this case, that is very clearly Diana, Princess of Wales. That is how it will stand at the article. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure anybody knows who Lady Diana Spencer is and if they don't, then good thing they are reading a reference website. Still doesn't address all the other articles on royals since Elizabeth II's info box is not an unique case. 64.230.110.176 (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So.. you're just going to ignore the naming convention on WP? "In general, use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name.". In the case of E2, her mother was the consort of the Sovereign, and thus reverts to maiden style. Diana was never the consort. In summary, you really don't understand what you're talking about, please stop vandalizing the page with inaccurate information. Thank you. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In summary, Lady Diana Spencer is accurate information since it's her name. In summary, you've ignored the other example where their mother was not the consort of a sovereign and still the maiden name gets used. Mary II of England, Ludwig III of Bavaria, George III of the United Kingdom, Caroline Matilda of Wales 64.230.110.176 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In all of those cases, the maiden name is used for disambiguation. Diana, Princess of Wales meets the dual purposes of being unambiguous and being the most commonly recognized English language form of the name. Consider this your warning to stop making that edit. Do it again and I shall have you blocked from editing due to repeated ignoring of the accepted WP convention on names. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's civil. Lady Diana Spencer is perfectly acceptable since she was well know by that name and since it's a biographical article is which her mother's maiden is not used once seems pretty off. Mean geez, relax a sec, maybe there might be another side to your argument. Appreciate being "educated", but I'll consider your point, it's the most common use to describe the lady in question, and hopefully you'll consider mine, that nearly any other biographical entry uses the maiden name, it's a revelent piece of information (not trivia) that is not mentioned once in the whole article and it's only the info box 64.230.110.176 (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments are noted, but they are wrong per WP:Naming conventions (names and titles). This has been hashed out before. I am reverting your edit. Please stop. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The BECAUSE I SAY SO responses aren't really cutting it that much, read the convention and doesn't seem on par since it's a "most of the time" and not derictly applied to the case of mother's name in a biographical entry, and this was the convention, before Wikipedia or the Internet, that is just standard to use the maiden name. I am making points and arguing yours, at least be civil and return the favor 64.230.110.176 (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhh.. yes, the protection is needed, and it's not "I'm righter than you" (which, uh, is what any argument ever boils down to), it's "there is an accepted convention for how these things are done, it is established, it has been established for some time, and you appear to either not understand this or do not care." Nor, indeed, is it 'because I said so'; it's 'because this has already been established'. But to address point by point:

• "since it's a "most of the time"

Immaterial; the overriding convention is to use the most common version: Diana, Princess of Wales

• "not directly applied to the case of mother's name in a biographical entry"

Immaterial; the convention covers all cases, it doesn't need to specifically delineate every single case where a name could possibly be used. If you feel that it does, by all means start a discussion at the relevant talk page.

• "was the convention, before Wikipedia or the Internet"

Immaterial; we are discussing Wikipedia convention, which occasionally differs from Debrett's or Burke's or Gotha

In any case... see the convention, learn the convention, stop the edits. Diana, Princess of Wales is the most commonly understood version of her name, period. Yes, there are people who will recognize Lady Diana Spencer, but the 'Lady' there is merely a courtesy title, which per the convention shouldn't really be used when there are better options. There is a better option, it's Diana, Princess of Wales, and that is where it shall stay. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that WP:Naming conventions (names and titles) is intended to apply to article names, and not necessarily referring to the names of other people within the article. I think we can still look to the naming conventions for help, e.g. the reasoning behind those guidelines, but unfortunately the guidelines do not directly apply.

Both of you need to stop edit-warring right away, as you could find yourself in violation of WP:3RR. We need to reach a consensus on the talk page, rather than reverting on the article.

I would like to get some other editors to comment in addition to PoC and 64.*. I noticed that Listswhich (talk · contribs) and OverlordQ (talk · contribs) have also been involved in the edit war... maybe they would like to comment? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Since nearly any other Royal article used the mother's name at birth unless she later becomes a sovereign, I vote for Lady Diana Spencer. The other points are more related to the name of the article then a biographical quick info box. Also this reads a bit more like a People Magazine article then an encyclopedia-style article ie "his mother was the late Diana, Princess of Wales" etc... Listswhich (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that Listswhich and 64.230.110.176 are the same person. Can we have Checkuser investigate? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think Listswhich is doing so disruptively, I think he just decided to create a username. I want to make sure we have full disclosure on that, though :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The basic convention is to use the most common name. Far more people will recognize DPoW than will recognize LDS, and her full list of titles and styles is covered comprehensively on her page, which is of course at Diana, Princess of Wales. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, making the arguement that would be valid for the naming of article and not for this case, a biographical info box. Example, I've never used read a wikipedia article before and I print off this article in order to learn more about Prince William and not once does it mention his mother's maiden name, even though it does show his maternal grandmother's? Links to other pages to one overide poorly written articles. I've made more then my fair share of points directly related to this case and one user has made one arguement that has been show to not to be as valid as he/she would like while none of mine as been shown to be off-topic. Back to Lady Diana Spencer. No need for an investigation. I didn't have a user name before and then just made one up right now. Listswhich (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, then, Listswhich, you are 64.230.110.176? I just want to make sure we've got it straight who everybody is :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Listswhich, I have made multiple arguments, backed up by convention, which you keep ignoring. Sorry you don't like it, but there it is. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just created one and just used the Captcha help word as a User Name. All the arguement made by you, User:PrinceofCanada, relate to naming of an article and even though I, and thankful somebody else, have been trying to show that while it totally makes sense for that, it's not directly related to the info box, no matter how much many times you tell me it is immaterial. I've shown that my edit change related more infomation, since it's better to use her maiden name as well as the later more well known title which is used in the article, hence just putting it in the info box (material). I've shown that other articles use this practice and a bunch of directly related cases ie Caroline Matilda of Wales or Mary II of England (material). You're argument about most common use is A) not universal and B) not good practice for a biographical encyclopedia article. You're argument that her other title can be read on her article is immaterial since an article is suppose to be able to stand of it's own merits in terms of information and not relay on other ones. If a reader wishes to know, of course they can click on the wiki link since that's the awesome thing about this website, but they ought be able to read this as a stand-alone informative article and therefore have his mother's maiden name (which is not the same as just a title) ought to used in the info box. Listswhich (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep ignoring every single point I have made? I am done with you. Edit again and it will be reverted, period. I have made my arguments, I have cited conventions--that, sorry, do apply, if not as narrowly and specifically as you prefer, I am done with this. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

FWIW, it's not just PrinceOfWales asserting this opinion... Cameron (talk · contribs) and OverlordQ (talk · contribs) also reverted it back to DPoW from LDS. It would be interesting to hear their reasons.. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:PrinceofCanada is confusing IGNORING with DISAGREEING so would somebody show him/her that Wiki means collaborate and therefore others can edit, even ones that a person might disagree with, if it's an overall helpful edit? Listswhich (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. You are ignoring.. and it's not an 'overall helpful edit', which is somewhat the point. You're also ignoring the multiple other people that also reverted your edits. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh you wouldn't have brought that up unless User:Jaysweet had brought it up since never once did before. Bettng that wasn't you're real reason for all this editing and talk page stuff. To sum, I say it does help and that naming convention doesn't apply while User:PrinceofCanada says it doesn't help and the naming convention does apply. I've made point for my position and against his/hers and he/she has done the same, with neither one argeeing with the other on what is and isn't immaterial. User:PrinceofCanada therefore wins the arguement because... you got me, because he says so? I'll admit I can see the rational against it, but overall think it's better for the article to have his mother's birth name mentioned at least one and info box seems like the best place. Listswhich (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any point in bringing up the other people before, as you ignored any substantive points I made anyway.

"I'll admit I can see the rational against it," good, so leave it as it is. Thank you.

"Bettng that wasn't you're real reason for all this editing and talk page stuff." Really. By all means, please tell me what my 'real reason' was. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe, I just realized I called PrinceOfCanada PrinceOfWales in a recent edit. Derp, me dumb. heh... Sorry about that!

PrinceOfCanada hasn't automatically "won" yet, I don't know why you are saying that, Listswhich. It doesn't look good for your case, I'll grant, because there are other users who share the same position and because, while WP:Naming conventions doesn't directly apply, it is informative of our decision-making process.

I would try to get other editors to comment if you two can't work out your differences. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See latest edit. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Was just joking about the "he wins" but understand if that didn't come across. I wrote that because he acts like he's won, "edit if you like, doesn't matter I'll revert it" and I was typing "He wins... because I don't know" implying he wasn't won because there is nothing behind his acting like he has won. I just wrote "can see your rational" to be diplomatic about all this. Besides the only way to really argue with somebody is of course to see their POV even I don't agree with it. Besides, he stated he is done with this yet keeps replying. Now that's I've gone off topic by defending myself, back to the Lady Diana Spencer in the info box. I've discuss this on the Talk Page and now the User:PrinceofCanada, ignoring User:Jaysweet, has edited the page without approval of the higher ups of Wikipedia admin. Jaysweet posted an edit conflict and asked that we both wait until a few more POVs bring their two-cents, but User:PrinceofCanada ignored that (like he ignores my point) and made another edit (which of course looks bad and too long and all these things to make my positing look bad even though that not what I wanted). Think a 24-hour User block is called for since he can't wait until others have their say Listswhich (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Before I look deeper, I just want to clarify that when I added (edit conflict), I wasn't referring to this dispute, but to the fact that when I had tried to make my comment, someone else had already edited the page, causing me to have to re-enter my edit, and somewhat muddying the conversation. I put that tag there because then it's clear I was responding simultaneously to the post BEFORE the one my post was under... if that makes any sense.. :) Anyway, sorry to confuse you with terminology there.

Also, I never said PrinceOfCanada shouldn't edit without admin approval. heh... An admin did come along at one point and protect the page, which would have prevented non-admins from editing, but he changed his mind. (And just to be clear, I'm not an admin either, I'm just trying to help out here. :) ) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so PrinceOfCanada's edit was a compromise attempt. What do you think, Listswhich? Would you be okay with it if the infobox continued to list her as PDoW, but the article text made her maiden name clear? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply point by point.

• "edit if you like, doesn't matter I'll revert it"

Yes, because you were wrong.

• I just wrote "can see your rational" to be diplomatic about all this.

You shouldn't say things you don't mean.

• Besides the only way to really argue with somebody is of course to see their POV even I don't agree with it

I see your POV. It's wrong.

• User:PrinceofCanada, ignoring User:Jaysweet, has edited the page without approval of the higher ups of Wikipedia admin.

I don't need their permission to make edits. It was suggested that I refrain from reverting so as to stay on the right side of 3RR.

• Jaysweet posted an edit conflict

Jaysweet has addressed this.

• and asked that we both wait until a few more POVs bring their two-cents

With regards to the infobox, not to the rest of the article.

• but User:PrinceofCanada ignored that (like he ignores my point)

Weren't you the one who just said that disagreeing isn't the same as ignoring?

• and made another edit (which of course looks bad and too long and all these things to make my positing look bad even though that not what I wanted).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you want her maiden name (even though LDS is only partially accurate as her maiden name) noted in the article? It is now.

• Think a 24-hour User block is called for since he can't wait until others have their say

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Listswhich, I am pretty sure if you don't like the edit PrinceOfCanada made to the article text, he'd probably be willing to undo it. I don't think he particularly likes the edit either, it was just a compromise attempt... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaysweet, you're a better person then I. I think "he" or she did it make it look like my point for the birth name seem needless. I mean of course his edit is not long and confusing, but if there is a need for the Spencer name is there somewhere, why not the info box. Mean before this all began, I thought to put it Spencer there but it would make it too long so I comprised and just put into the info box since any other info box where the mother was not the sovereign, it uses her birth name. Please he revert the edit and hash it out here on the talk page first and get input from other helpful editors before going back to the article. Listswhich (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wtf.. why is he in quotation marks?

• but if there is a need for the Spencer name is there somewhere, why not the info box

We have been over this. Other users agree, as they also reverted your edits. I am leaving the infobox alone while still addressing your point that you feel her maiden name (though really.. she was born Hon. DS, only became LDS when her father died, which is why the convention is to go with the highest title to avoid confusion) should be in the article. It is now in the article, in the section which details PW's birth, which is pretty logical.

• since any other info box where the mother was not the sovereign, it uses her birth name

But you didn't use her birth name. You used the courtesy title to which she was entitled only after the death of her father. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't have a problem with PrinceOfCanada (or Listswhich, for that matter) making a proposed change in the article and then discussing it. Please see WP:BRD for a description of why this process is considered optimal.

I would have a problem with it if either of you started messing with the infobox without coming to a consensus here first, since reversions have already taken place too much there today. After all, it's not BRRRRRRRRRRRD ;) But as far as proposed changes elsewhere, feel free to boldly edit the article! If we don't like it, we will revert and discuss :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For crap's sake, do I really need to go through this. Fine.

• • "Because you're wrong" That comes off a lot like somebody who thinks they've won, even though at one nice person agreed that even if it may or may not be the best edit, I wasn't wrong for making it.
  • "Don't say things you don't mean" I thought it and meant it, but instead of keeping it to myself since, I was diplomatic and mentioned it.
  • "It's wrong" is not the stellar arguement you seem to think that it is. I'm not wrong. That's about about as good as yours.
  • "Jaysweet posted an edit conflict" novice thought, but when I saw "EDIT CONFLICT" typed here and wait until this and that user replies and a few other admins to reply to this, I thought that was an edit conflict.
  • Info box vs. rest of the article. You're editing on the same issue.
  • "Like he ignores my points", well pauvre bébé. Says you. I've replied all the time to your posts and you're the one who wrote you were done with this and didn't care was I did since you don't care to answer my points anymore because of the above mentioned stellar point "You're wrong".
  • I wanted it in the info box not the article, short and sweet.
  • If a block isn't called for, then it's not. Still back to the Info Box Spencer stuff.
  • Not one of these points addresses the issue of having Spencer or Princess of Wales in the info box
  • And as to Jaysweet's Courtsey title, then edit it to Diana Spencer.

Listswhich (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• "I've replied all the time to your posts "

'Replying' to a post isn't the same as 'understanding'.

• "pauvre bebe"

Okay, seriously? Lay off. You're being juvenile.

• "I wanted it in the info box"

What you said was that you wanted her name in the article. It is now in the article. This is what is known as a compromise. However, it looks like you are uninterested in compromise--you want it your way, and there is absolutely no way around it. Pity, because that's not going to happen. You are getting her name in the article, in an important position.

• Info box and rest of the article. You editing on the same issue.

And again.. I don't need permission to edit. Please read 3RR to understand what Jaysweet meant when s/he commented on my talk page.

• ""It's wrong" is not the stellar arguement you seem to think that it is. I'm not wrong. That's about about as good as yours."

I have already shown multiple times why you were wrong. It seemed rather pointless to reiterate yet again.

• "Not one of these points addresses the issue of having Spencer or Princess of Wales in the info box"

I have addressed that, multiple times, with solid convention backing it up. This is what I mean about you ignoring what you don't want to hear.

• "Courtsey title, then edit it to Diana Spencer"

Which would be the least recognizable form of her name. A quick Google shows: "Diana, Princess of Wales" with 879000 hits, "Lady Diana Spencer" with 165000, and "Diana Spencer" -Lady with 87 200. Which brings us right back to "most recognizable version of the name". (That is, most recognizable and correct, of course, as "Princess Diana" returns 4.2 million hits, though the title is completely incorrect). Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, if somebody said "Diana Spencer" to me out of context, I'd have no idea what the hell they were talking about :D I actually did not know that was her last name until today!

Both of you have made your points, now is maybe a good time to step back and see if other editors chime in. If not, you can always try filing a Request for Comment... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"FWIW, if somebody said "Diana Spencer" to me out of context, I'd have no idea what the hell they were talking about :D " Precisely. Likewise fewer people will recognize LDS than DPoW in the infobox, which is why the logical place is in the article where his parents' names are listed & explained. It seems to me that Listswich is less in favour of LDS as opposed to DPoW. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is OK with our various policies and guidelines I would keep Diana Spencer. Add in POW elevates her position. She should be displayed as the commoner she was before and after her marriage to His Royal Highness. --Cameron* 14:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's POV; her position was PoW. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

POV? She ceased to be Princess of Wales when she divorced HRH. At that time she also ceased to be a royal. --Cameron* 10:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Commoner, yes. But she was clearly entitled to be styled PoW, per the LP issued by the Queen, so it's not an elevation of her position to refer to her by the style to which she was entitled. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 13:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree now. I thought you were saying she was Princess of Wales even after her divorce. --Cameron* 14:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad; I should have been more clear. Sorry. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading the arguments and the relevant naming conventions I'd personally have to agree with PoC and go with DPoW because personally DPoW is more recognizable then LDS is. Q ^{T C} 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's gotta be DPoW, as that was her name & title upon Prince Willliam's birth. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Summary Okay, so after all this brouhaha, it's looking like myself, Cameron*, and Q ^{T C} think that it should be Diana, Princess of Wales in the infobox, because:

• The notes at Naming Conventions, while originally intended only for article naming, still provide a useful guideline for how to name royalty and peerage within articles;
• Diana, Princess of Wales is more recognizable than any of Diana Spencer, Hon. Diana Spencer, or Lady Diana Spencer;
• Diana, Princess of Wales was the highest title to which she was entitled in her lifetime (clarification: HRH The Princess of Wales was the higher, but that would be ambiguous due to other holders of the title);
• Princess of Wales was her title at William's birth.

Her maiden name is noted here, addressing Listswich's concerns about that not being prominent in the article; I'm going to add a little more clarity to that bit. I think it is now reasonable to agree that we have formed a consensus. I am going to let Listswich know. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I tepidly agree with Diana, Princess of Wales, as it is what she is most commonly known as. I don't think Diana Spencer would create much confusion, though, as people would realize who that must be. In any event, There is no convention that spans Wikipedia. Edw. VI, Eliz. I, and Eliz. II (all having commoner mothers) use maiden name. All of Eliz. II's grandchildren and Prince Richard use married names. I don't think a maiden name convention is a good basis of decision since it is not evenly applied. I would suggest that if editors really want to establish firm, predictable rules, then they should set up a centralised discussion at WP:BRoy or some such. -Rrius (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

University degree

He became the youngest British Royal to receive an undergraduate degree in Geography.

What is the point of this sentence? How many other members of the British royal family have a degree in geography? The Prince of Wales read arch & anth (and history, according to his article on here), The Earl of Wessex read history, Lord Freddie read Greats, Lord Nicholas read theology, or possible phil/the, Princess Beatrice is going to read history. Those are the ones I can remember. What is the significance of his beign the youngest, even if there is another one who has a geography degree? I suppose with a gap year and a four-year degree he graduated at 23, which is hardly remarkable. If he had been a child prodigy and got his degree exceptionally young that would be worth mentioning, or if the Duke of York were to decide to go to Cambridge next year and get a degree at 50-something that would also be remarkable. The sentence may well be true, but it seems pointless.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree and so, especially as it was unsourced, I have removed it. Davewild (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image

G2bambino, why would you remove the image of William playing polo? It's a decent shot, as well as relevant to the section it's in. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If it cannot be left-aligned, then it causes bunching between the jamboree image and the title & style template. --G2bambino (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, at your screen resolution, which is not a common one. It looks fine at 1024x768. I can provide screenshots if you like. Please put it back. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your claims about the commonality of my screen resolution are all that well founded. WP:LAYOUT says that the guideline itself is only that, and should be used in conjunction with common sense and the occasional exception. Thus, 1024x768 is not an absolute to be used to the exclusion of all others. --G2bambino (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove it when it looks fine on the majority of computers. Please put it back. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, as you so often say, the status quo should remain until dispute is settled. Please put the image back where it originally was, on the right-hand side of the section. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 16:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can guarantee you that I don't do things for no reason. Is it really imortant to have the image in there? Could it replace another one that's there now? The status-quo would be the polo image in the infobox; is that what you'd like put back? --G2bambino (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, as the new image in the infobox is far superior as a lead image. Please restore the polo image where it was, correctly according to MOS with the subject of the picture facing into the text, until a consensus can be reached on whether to keep it or remove it. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 16:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the present infobox image is superior, but where you placed the polo image was not the status-quo. As I think that playing technical games about consensus will get us nowhere (you would be equally required to obtain one to place the image to the right), we should instead look at alternatives. I am hoping to expand some of the sections here, including the Personal life and relationships one; once that is done, there may be adequate room for the polo image. --G2bambino (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Then allow me to be more clear: you removed an image which had been in the article for a long time, without gaining consensus. Therefore it should be put back into the article. And since MOS very specifically asks that images 'face' the text, it can only be right-aligned. Please put it back and seek consensus for removal. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 16:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you mean put it back where you moved it to after it was moved from the infobox where it had sat for a long time? I'm sorry, but no. Hopefully another alternative can be found. --G2bambino (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving it from the infobox was not contested by anyone, including you. Please replace the image that you removed without consensus, and put it back where it should be per MOS. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 17:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your moving it was contested. --G2bambino (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) Er, no. Your placeing it on the left side, against MOS, is what's contested, then you removed it, which is also contested. Please correct both of these issues, and then we can discuss whether or not the image should be removed. Per WP:BRD that's what you should have done, anyway; you made a move, I reverted it--you should be discussing it, not making further changes. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your placing it in a spot that causes bunching is also contested. The image need not be removed if it can be positioned in such a spot as to not cause conflict on either side of the page. I already suggested a way that this could possibly be done. All this has been met with is an insistance that your preference be reinstated. If you've no other suggestions, please give me the time to try what I proposed. --G2bambino (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My preference is for you to replace it until discussion is concluded, as WP:BRD, and you, require of everybody else. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD does not say that things should remain as you set them until discussion is complete. You made the first contest against where I put the image, therefore, by your own argument, it is back there that the image should be put until discussion is complete. In order to avoid further conflict, though, it's best to leave it out until such a time when a good place can be found to put it back in. --G2bambino (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You always require things to be set back the way they were while discussion is ongoing. It's utterly pointless to put the image back where it violates MOS; in any case, you moved the image there (B), I moved it back (R), so please put it back where I had it, and then we can discuss whether or not the image should be removed (D). It's hard for me to be much clearer than that; I'm merely asking you to abide by a) BRD guidelines, b) what you always say to people when you contest their changes. By either measure, you should be placing the image back on the right-hand side of the section, at the top. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to conform to guidelines; however, these seem to be tainted by a self-beneficial interpretation of both the guidelines and my past words. Where you think is right is not necessarily right, or even best, even if it was right, according to guidelines. I have already said I will try to get the image back in, and in an agreeable place; in the absence of other suggestions, I will leave this discussion at that, and get back to you once I've made an attempt. --G2bambino (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm merely asking you to do what you require of others. So no, your response isn't really acceptable. Please put the image back, it has no effect on text editing. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm merely asking you to do what you require of others. To be clear: You may believe that to be true, but it is not. --G2bambino (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be true. Nevertheless, you're refusing to do it at two other pages, where there is no ambiguity about the status quo. Please move those back. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice you still haven't restored the picture. Please do so and then discuss whether it should be removed. — [ roux ] [x] 21:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am working on getting the image back in. Please have patience. --G2bambino (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. WP:BRD pretty clearly requires that you put it back yesterday, actually; you should not have reverted my revert. See point #2 on the BRD cycle. Please restore the image now, thank you. — [ roux ] [x] 21:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not revert your revert. --G2bambino (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(out)You removed the image instead, which is a technicality. Please restore the image and then discuss whether it should be removed. Thank you. — [ roux ] [x] 22:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Technicality? Hardly. I did not revert your revert, period. I am working on getting the image back in. Please be patient. --G2bambino (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not hardly. You require that edits, if challenged, be reverted until discussion is over. Your edit has been challenged, therefore restore the picture. BRD requires the same, as 'revert' means 'removal of material', per the explanation that Tiptoety posted on my talk page. Please restore the image, and then we can discuss whether it should be removed. Thank you. — [ roux ] [x] 22:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss the removal of the image because a) nobody reverted that removal, and b) for the third time, I am working on getting it back in. I will ask you once more to be patient, and leave it at that until I have made my changes. --G2bambino (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am contesting the removal because you should not have removed it in the first place. You made an edit, I reverted, the next step is discussion. Additionally, I have not reverted your removal because I am attempting to discuss, not revert. More to the point, there's not much use in me reverting your removal, because you'll just revert me, and then we'll be precisely where we are now. Please replace the image and then discuss its removal. This is, after all, what you require of others. Thank you. — [ roux ] [x] 22:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss the removal of the image because a) nobody reverted that removal, and b) for the fourth time, I am working on getting it back in. --G2bambino (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, please restore the image now, as there is no need for it not to be in the article, and you were very clearly wrong in removing it in the first place. An image on the page does not prevent you from making edits to the text. Thank you. — [ roux ] [x] 22:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you think I was wrong, but that does not make it so. I made a move to avoid conflict in the article. I have since been working to address your concerns, and have made that abundently clear. I'm sorry if things aren't moving as fast as you'd like them to, but engaging in these rather repetitive debates only takes my time away from working on the article. Now the rest of my work here will have to wait until tomorrow. --G2bambino (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be repetitive if you would simply do what you require others to do. No matter, I have restored the image to the article--I'd caution you against reverting me, you probably don't want to violate your restriction. Please discuss here before removing against consensus again. — [ roux ] [x] 22:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And with that you signal that you have no patience to wait for others, even when they explicitly state that they are working to satisfy your concerns. Another example of ownership issues. --G2bambino (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) Nope, nothing to do with WP:OWN, everything to do with you removing something against consensus and refusing to put it back when asked politely. The image being there causes zero issues with editing, so there's no need for it to be removed in the first place, which was against consensus, against BRD, and against what you require of others. Feel free to discuss, now, why you think it should be removed. — [ roux ] [x] 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not refuse to put it back; to the contrary, I told you more than six times that I would put it back. --G2bambino (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet, it's only back now because I put it there. I am tired of this discussion. Please re-read WP:BRD, as well as your requirements to other editors that the status quo be observed while a discussion about a contested edit continues. Thank you. — [ roux ] [x] 23:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; which is the exact proof of your not being able to wait. --G2bambino (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, no... it was proof that you refused, again, to abide by what you require of others. The Jamboree picture, now, is causing formatting issues. I'm going to find something better. — [ roux ] [x] 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Only by your interpretation, Roux. --G2bambino (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Honours

Why is it that some appointments (such as those to a military rank or with a noble title) have Since [day] [month] [year], while other appointments (such as that to the Order of the Garter) have only [day] [month] [year]? There should be consistency, whether one way or the other. --G2bambino (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Because they are different. When someone is given an honour, it is customary to say the date of appointment, as they will most likely hold the honour for life. A military rank is likely to be held for only a period of time. Constitency is not needed here, they are two different lists.--UpDown (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Different how? One is inducted into an order by appointment. They may be advanced in, or be removed from the order, meaning the position they hold is not permanent. Hence, like the other appointments which are fluid (military, nobility), it would seem that honours should be listed thusly:

• 1971 – 1998: Dame of Justice of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem
  • 1998 – 2007: Dame Grand Cross of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem
  • Since 2007: Grand Master of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem

(Though these honours are obviously not William's) --G2bambino (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The above could not apply to the Garter (it is assumption that he will become Monarch of the Order, he may never be King for whatever reason). Honours should be listed by the date of appointment, as I believe is common generally for honours, they are not "positions" or "offices", but an honour, which is given on one single date. If it changes we can deal with that then, but for the time being, its not going to.--UpDown (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Until something changed (accession, death, removal), it would always read "since", I thought. But, if we don't want "since", it can be removed from all instances. --G2bambino (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I believe for military positions, "Since" is correct and proper, but if you feel you have to change it I shan't revert. But I really think its fine as it is now.--UpDown (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have to change it. I just don't see, yet, the difference between the appointment to an order and the appointment to an honorary military position. Am I missing something? --G2bambino (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as normal you are ignoring what I've already written. I'll copy and paste for you "Honours should be listed by the date of appointment, as I believe is common generally for honours, they are not "positions" or "offices", but an honour, which is given on one single date. If it changes we can deal with that then, but for the time being, its not going to.". You are appointed to an honour, so you give the date of appointment, which is a single date. A military rank is a position, and positions often end, or are short-term; so "Since" is more logical.--UpDown (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you to kindly tone down the attitude. I did not ignore anything you had written; because you write something means neither that it is true nor properly explanatory. You have stated there is a difference between an appointment to an order and an appointment to a military rank, yet haven't explained why the positions are different beyond "one is an honour" and the other is "a position". That explanation forgets that one holds a position within an order, and may advance to higher positions, just as one holds a position within the military, and may advance to higher positions. There doesn't seem to be a difference in that sense, so all the dates should be presented in the same format, whether with "since" or without. --G2bambino (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I worry you are going to do what you did at Autumn Phillips and do on other articles, which is never seem to accept when someone answers a point. I repeat the above again, which answers you above question "Honours should be listed by the date of appointment, as I believe is common generally for honours, they are not "positions" or "offices", but an honour, which is given on one single date. If it changes we can deal with that then, but for the time being, its not going to.". You are appointed to an honour, so you give the date of appointment, which is a single date. A military rank is a position, and positions often end, or are short-term; so "Since" is more logical". To add more - a position is a role, an honour is a letters after your name and badge on your jacket (for a better way of putting it). I do not see you obsession with having them both the same; they are different sub-sections, they don't have to be the same.--UpDown (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet, UpDown, one is appointed to a position within an order, and positions often end; orders can even end. Regard Anne: she has held three positions within the Order of St. John, and she was a member of an order that went defunct in 1992. I believe you are confusing orders with decorations and medals; the latter are singular gifts, while the former are organisations with membership. --G2bambino (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) No.. in an Order it's generally expected that you will hold a single position. William may or may not become Sovereign of any orders. In the military, however, there's a general expectation that one will rise within the ranks. There is no such expectation when it comes to membership in an Order. [ roux ] [x] 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of this general expectation? There are plenty of examples of advancement within an order that would prove the expectation wrong. --G2bambino (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course one may be advanced in an order. But such things are the exception rather than the general rule. Expectation of advancement within the armed forces is simple common sense. Using 'since' with an Order appointment implies an expectation that the position will change in the future. [ roux ] [x] 17:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that it will, but that it may change in the future, no matter what that change might be (advancement, removal, an end of the order, etc.). Granted, movements within normal military ranks probably happen more often, but is that a reason to treat honorary military appointments, appointments to an order, and the granting of titles any differently in terms of possible changes? Examples of advancement in an order are hardly the exception, especially for royals. --G2bambino (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Er... yes. For the reasons noted above by both me and UpDown. [ roux ] [x] 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you both seem to agree that an arbitrarily chosen difference is acceptable to use as an editing guide. --G2bambino (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Content, not contributors, please. [ roux ] [x] 04:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, perhaps that seems a tad bit of a random interjection because you're perceiving something I don't; but yes, content, not contributors. --G2bambino (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As normal G2bambino you refuse to listen to anyone else. As before, I don't see this strange obsession you have with having them all look the same? They can look different because they are different lists, one is an list of honours, the other military ranks. Why would the reader feel they need them to be the same? They wouldn't. Does it harm the article? No. Does it make the article look bad? No. And don't forget, in many honours, advancement can't happen (especially as royals often get the top honour anyway) - you cannot be advanced in the Garter, Thistle for example. William is the exception in that he may become Monarch of the Orders; if he does, we edit it then, but currently it's fine as it is.--UpDown (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked you earlier to please drop the attitude, and I now have to ask you again. I also have to restate once more that because I disagree with you does not mean I'm ignoring you. I said already that all appointments to an organisation in which mobility is possible – whether to a substantive or honorary military position, an order, or a society – should be presented in the same format because they're all appointments to an organisation in which mobility is possible. I do not care whether or not that common format is Since [date], [date] – , or simply [date]. What you've reverted it to (doing what you earlier promised not to do, and undoing other edits, I might add) implies that William's title, military ranks, and honorary military positions will change, but his position in the Order of the Garter will not. You argue that William may not become Sovereign of the Order of the Garter, the only position to which he could advance, yet, you've no proof either that William will advance further in the military, have a change in title, or see any changes to his honorary military positions. If it is, for you, an issue of not making future predictions, then there should be no dashes or sinces that imply possible future changes we don't know will happen. --G2bambino (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we are going to get nowhere, because as usual, you are just ignoring what I say and trying to drag the discussion out as long as possible. I find this very annoying and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. It is fairly obvious that military ranks and titles are likely to change, but the point is that a position, a role, will always have a start and end date - whether that end date is their death or an advancement or whatever. So there is no prediction - the role/military position WILL end. Being given the Garter is different, its an honour given on a single date (like a medal), and for most Royals (like Princess Anne say, or Duke of Gloucester), there is no realistic chance of advancement in the Order. It is perfectly acceptable to have an "–" for one list and not for another. As before, I fail really to see your problem.--UpDown (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As with our previous discussion, I perhaps advise we cease our debating if we are unable to reach an agreement - and let other parties get involved. I would prefer not to continue arguing as it does neither of us good.--UpDown (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] It is indeed annoying when the one who claims they're not being listened to appears to not be themselves listening to anyone else. By all means, if you feel this is unresolvable between the two of us only, then call in other parties. However, I first want to try once more to make myself clear: 1) orders are not the same as medals; 2) future changes in military rank, titles, and the like, are no more predictable than future changes in position in an order; 3) presenting dates of appointment differently implies that point 2 is not true. --G2bambino (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just going to reply quickly to those 3 points; 1) no, but similiar for dates 2) yes, we can't predict them, but as I said above THEY WILL END, whether that's through death or promotion, so in that sense they are predictable. 3) it implies nothing, you are looking into this all far too much. First you said it should all be consistent, now you say it will imply something. No, it doesn't. I happy to resolve this, but you seem unable to. Anyway, I note a 3rd party is already involved, so lets hope they help.--UpDown (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Okay, we agree that orders and medals are not the same – they are not the same because the former is an organisation in which one holds membership, while the latter is a presented gift; 2) you seem to agree that one's position in an order will end, whether that's through death or promotion; 3) I have said that all should be consistent, and I am now saying that all should be consistent, because treating two appointments differently obviously does imply something. --G2bambino (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but an order only ends in the same way a medal ends. To put on the Duke of Gloucester's page, for example, "Knight of the Order of the Garter, 23 April 1986 - 15 May 2020" (with 2020 being his date of death for the sake of argument & Garter date is a guess), is totally unnecessary, all you need to say his he got the KG on 23 April 1986. It's obvious he held it till death. With a military position this is not obvious. And it implies nothing, you really are reading more into than there really is. With an honour we give the date it is given to the person, with a rank we say the dates they served. I don't see what's wrong with that. Not to be rude now, but we are still getting nowhere - I'd hoped we might - and I don't wish to waste your time or mine, so I will not reply further unless any points are raised or another editor gets involved.--UpDown (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this simply a matter of semantics? If KG is something you get, it's natural to state when you get it (23 April 1986). If KG is something you are, it's natural to state when you are it (Since 23 April 1986). Agreement has to be reached on the underlying issue here. You get the Victoria Cross. You become a rear admiral. KG and Commodore-in-Chief are both somewhere in between, in some kind of grey area. UpDown's position seems to be that you get a KG and become a Commodore-in-Chief, while G2bambino does not seem to agree with that distinction. Correct? -- Jao (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good way of putting it. And for me, you have my position correct exactly.--UpDown (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid interpretation of our positions. Orders are not the same as medals. Orders are "a group of people united in a formal way"[2]; or, as I put it, an organisation that has membership. As such, a position in an order is no different to a position in the military; it is a position one holds for a period of time, as opposed to a medal, which is an object given once. --G2bambino (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That, crucially, is where we disagree. I do view orders are similar to medals, and have a date of appointment not a "membership".--UpDown (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the crux of the issue. Yet, I see contradiction in your claim: you obviously realise that one is appointed to an order, but, if an order is the same as a medal, you're saying one can be appointed to an object. --G2bambino (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no contradiction there at all, you are merely (as before) looking in things far too deeply. You would not say someone was appointed to the Victoria Cross, you would say they were awarded it, but that doesn't mean the principle isn't the same. Just because you say "awarded" not "appointed" does not mean they both don't have a date of appointment.--UpDown (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

They both don't have a date of appointment, only one does; as you said, someone is not appointed to the Victoria Cross. --G2bambino (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is why UpDown said "You would not say someone was appointed to the Victoria Cross, you would say they were awarded it." They do both have a date of [appointment|award], and there is not generally a reasonable expectation that either will be upgraded in the future. There is a reasonable expectation, as already explained above, that substantive military rank will be upgraded in the future. [ roux ] [x] 17:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is why one would not say someone was appointed to the Victoria Cross, yet UpDown said both have a date of appointment. A Victoria Cross cannot be upgraded; it can only be awarded again. A position in an order can be upgraded. Appointment into an order is not the same as being awarded a medal. --G2bambino (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) Okay, I'll try again... Which is why UpDown said "You would not say someone was appointed to the Victoria Cross, you would say they were awarded it." They do both have a date of [appointment|award], and there is not generally a reasonable expectation that either will be upgraded in the future. There is a reasonable expectation, as already explained above, that substantive military rank will be upgraded in the future.

Whether or not a position in an order can be upgraded isn't pertinent. The likelihood of an order being upgraded is far, far lower than that of a substantive military rank, and to list order appointments and awards the same way is to set up the implication that there is an expectation of change or upgrade in the future. Yes there is mobility in orders, nobody is disputing that. There is, however, much less chance or expectation than with substantive military ranks. Getting bogged down in semantic arguments between 'appointment' and 'award' is not productive and doesn't further the discussion. [ roux ] [x] 19:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Deeming the difference between an appointment and a gift as "semantics" is counterproductive; it is important to keep the distinction so as to stop the conversation from sliding into confusion, as it seemed to be doing before. On second thought, though, it might do us well to throw away the terms "medal", "award", and "decoration" all-togehter; they just aren't pertinent to what we're discussing here. It is only appointments that we're focused on, and medals are not appointments.

Now, chances of advancement in an order as compared to chances of advancement in the military is a tangential issue; one may advance in both; royals especially may advance in both. We all seem to agree that there are dates of appointment. We all seem to agree that there is chance for advancement in a) the military, b) titles, and c) orders. UpDown seem to want to avoid speculation in regards to future advancement in orders. I would say that such a desire could, and perhaps should, be applied to future advancement in military rank and titles as well. Thus, dates for all appointments and awards should be listed simply as [day] [month] [year], without any other adverb or punctuation. --G2bambino (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Again: Whether or not a position in an order can be upgraded isn't pertinent. The likelihood of an order being upgraded is far, far lower than that of a substantive military rank, and to list order appointments and awards the same way is to set up the implication that there is an expectation of change or upgrade in the future. [ roux ] [x] 03:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not your claims about expectations are true - if even quantifiable - they aren't pertinent when we consider that attempts to imply future changes is rather against policy; avoiding adjectives like "since", and the use of dashes (which were all wrong to use from the start), will ensure there is no "implication that there is an expectation of change or upgrade in the future" for all gifts, titles, ranks, honours, awards, what have you. If there is change, it will simply be noted when it happens. --G2bambino (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My expectations are known as 'common sense'. [ roux ] [x] 04:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing further to add from what I have said previously and from what Roux has said, especially the finally "common sense" comment. I hope perhaps we can agree to keep the page how it is?--UpDown (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish everything was as simple as "common sense"; however, "common sense" is a subjective matter; what one person deems as common sense, another will not. If we look at this subjectively, all appointments are the same in the context of being granted membership in an organisation. --G2bambino (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite; v. WP:NOCOMMON. Opera hat (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, can I just get this straight - is this entire discussion over whether or not "since" should be included with dates? I'd say probably not, the sole rationale being that it looks neater; if HRH is promoted in rank or within orders (e.g. from Knight Companion to Sovereign) then a terminal date can be given as it becomes necessary. But I really wouldn't have thought the issue merited such laboured debate. Opera hat (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the discussion did pass through that; however, the real crux of the matter is listing dates of appointment to an order in the same fashion as dates of appointment to other organisations, whether with "since" or not. I believe they should be in the same format, and tend to agree with you on the use of "since": it - indeed, any predictive symbols - should be avoided. Why there's such opposition to so simple a notion, I don't know. --G2bambino (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing "predictive" about it. As I said before he will stop holding the military position one day - whether by death or promotion - so NOTHING predictive about it. It is like saying its "predictive" to say he will die! It's just something that will happen. The Garter is an honour given on a single day and thus totally different.--UpDown (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As per usual with these subjects it was a very simple issue which has gotten completely blown out of proportion. [ roux ] [x] 20:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it has got totally out of control.--UpDown (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with G2bambino that this matter could be sidestepped by simply removing "since" everywhere. Of course, the question that has to be resolved is, if we write "6 February 1952: Her Majesty The Queen", will someone actually be inclined to interpret that as her being the Queen on that day only? I don't think that is a problem, so "since" should not be needed. -- Jao (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And what of dashes? UpDown now seems to favour [day] [month] [year] – , which, as he/she said, is just another way of saying Since [day] [month] [year]. I agree that it's essentially the same, and thus should be equally avoided. --G2bambino (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I now think the dashes look neater and simpler than "Since"; and belive the dashes should be kept for all my reasons above. Putting "15 September 1984:His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales" is my eyes does look odd, as it appears to be suggesting he was only that on that day. He will one day cease to be HRH Prince Henry of Wales, whether by death or whatever, so putting – is correct; as it is for military positions. I really fail to see why G2bambino has so much objection to this.--UpDown (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a nagging suspicion that this discussion has gone on so long because the issue from which it sprang keeps getting lost: it was not about using "since" over dashes, it was about listing all dates of appointment in the same manner. --G2bambino (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am aware what this discussion is about, and I have given reasons why honours should be listed differently from military appointments - hence my words in the my above comment and the 0758 comment I made yesterday which is a few paragraphs up. I also now say that dashes are better than "Since".--UpDown (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noted your opinion on orders vs. military, and I still disagree. However, I concur that dashes are better than "since". --G2bambino (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hairline

It was reported in the Daily Mail William is looking into treatments for his balding head. Please see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-511931/William-pulls-hair-thinning-crown.html

If there are no objections I'm going to add a link to this in his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.181.87 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I "object". This is unneeded trivia and media tittle-tattle.--UpDown (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, "speak now or forever hold you peace..." "I object" :) --Cameron* 15:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"An heir to the throne if not the hair to the throne", hahaha...--Cameron* 15:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

More hair to the heir to the throne? --G2bambino (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If one had nothing to do for the rest of one's life; one would probably get a bald spot. Bewildred people, tend to scratch their head alot. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He obviously has more to do than we do or we wouldn't be here at Wikipedia! ;) --Cameron* 21:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wills, might be editing on Wikipedia aswell. He's probably got hundreds of computers at his asking. Anyways, IMHO the hair-loss story isn't really notable. It's not like loosing your arm or leg. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree normally its not an issue, but surely if he's enquiring into 'treatments' and 'medication' then it becomes one? - although some may view it as trivial is it not the job of Wikipedia to present all the facts to the reader and let them devise their own opinions? Shall we put it to a vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.51.2 (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Treatments" according to whom? Answer - press tittle tattle. And it is the job of Wikipedia to be honest - we do not include all facts (the page would be too long for a start). The press are always full of trivia and rumour about the royals - this does not need mention on this page.--UpDown (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry

In the ancestry section is says that William is descended to all monarchs of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom from King Harlad directly bar four, King Henry V, King Henry VIII, King George IV, and King William IV. However I am sure that a he is not descended from a number of other monarchs as well. Namely; William II, Stephen, Richard I, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Richard III, Edward V, Edward VII, Elizabeth I, Mary I, Lady Jane Grey, Charles I, Charles II, James I, James II, William III, Mary II, Anne, George IV, William IV, and Edward VIII. Obviously he is related to all of the above but that isn't what descended means. If I am wrong please correct me. The Quill (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of those do not have surviving offspring, so are specifically excluded in the sentence you are referring to. I won't say that goes for all of them though, as I haven't checked them. -- Jao (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Through his mother he is descended from Charles I through the illegitimate chidren of both Charles II and James II. And of course he is descended from James I's daughter Elizabeth of Bohemia and the Rhine otherwise he wouldnt have a claim to the throne through the Act of Settlement 1701 which states that only the descendants of Elizabeth's daughter Sophia of Hanover may succeed to the British (at the time English) throne Penrithguy (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

William is descended from Henry IV through Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (see Lady Diana) and his illegitimate daughter; George IV and William IV had no legitimate children, all others (save J I, J II, C I, and C II) mentioned by The Quill (talk) had no surviving offspring; if Henry VIII had, which is questionable, then through Mary Boleyn, from whom Diana is descended. Source is genealogics.org, great site, have a good time there.--O DM (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: Stephen; Phillipa of Hainault was descended from him.--O DM (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Non UK notary Ancestry

Can there not be a link or section that shows ancestry to other great families of history, such as the Italian Medici and Sforza? There are many others and I do think these links will have great meaning in the future as many nations may wish to claim some (not ownership) but akinship, specially upon the coronation. You can certainly see Medici features in William, though I any Sforza traits must be well subdued ;-) I find these ancesters very interesting an would love to be able to just click back and forwards through the lines. Out of ignorance would there be any chance of assuming King of France via King Charles I mother in Law?? ;-) --Nexus5 (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a book by Ian Moncreiffe called "Ancestry of the Royal Child". Will dig it up and throw something together. In the mean time, there's an interesting article on QEII's descent from antiquity via Charlemagne Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_the_Romans that you might find interesting. It ties together a lot of Carolingian and Merovingian dynasties of Europe.

More later. Paul Roberton (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have found my book! ( Moncreiffe, I 1982 Royal Highness: Ancestry of the royal child, Hamish Hamilton, London )

It documents ancestry of HRH through the following topics: "The Ancient World" ( Parthia, Persia, Babylonia, Scyths, Caucasia, Cilicia), "The Balkans" (Bulgaria, Serbia & Bosnia, Albania, Croatia), "Byzantines & Greece" (Ducas, Comnenus, Angelus, Lascaris Palaecogus) "Cyprus & Jerusalem" ( Crusaders, Lusignan) "The Czechs" ( Premysladis, Luxembourg, Hbsburg, Jagiellon, Podebrad) "France" (Capet, Valois, Bourbon) "Holy Roman Empire" ( Carolingian, Hohensaufen, Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Wittelsbach, Saxony, Wettin) "Germany & Austria" "Hungary" (Arpads, Khazers, Cumans) "Italy" ( Medici, Visconti, Sforza), "The Low Countries' ( Hainault, Brabant, Flanders, Holland, Gelderland, Burgundy) "The Netherlands" (Orange-Nassau), "Poland & Lithuania" ( Jagiellon), "Portugal" ( Capetians, Avix, Braganza) Romania ( Dragosh, Basarab) "Russia" ( Rurikids, Romanov) "Scandinavia" ( Ynglingar, Skioldungs, Folkungs, Vasa, Wittelsbach) "Spain" ( Castile, Leon, Aragon, Navarre, Habsburgs)

Where would you like me to start?

Paul Roberton (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, that is so excellent, I just want everyone linked to a page that leads to him. Is he banned from any of those countries / cities becuase of his ancestry? I wonder how he feels when in these cities or countries?? Do you think he is like CAT from Red Dwarf, "That was mine, this is mine, that should be mine!"? --Nexus5 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Moncreiffe cites no sources in the entire work. I'm holding off until I get an opinion on how credible the work is. 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proberton (talk • contribs)

It would be nice in the format of the Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_the_Romans only with small image next to each person. So I envisage a page called [Descent_of_William_IV_from_Sforza] where it list to 1st Sforza in his Genes/descent and [Descent_of_William_IV_from_Medici] etc etc I like the images where possible as it brings pages alive for kids (and me who is not so kiddie). My Descendants attempts are not so good as a list version --Nexus5 (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have started to make templates:

{{Sforza to Prince William}} --Nexus5 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

---

--Nexus5 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mustache & Beard

Has anybody got an image of William, in his rare look? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)