Talk:Prince William of Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prince William of Wales article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
British Royalty This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Naming, Part the First

Is Wills really Prince W. of Wales? - montréalais

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.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Naming, Part the Second

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:
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 talkdeeds 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 talkdeeds 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)

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.

[edit] Graduation from Sandhurst?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 - DBDR 20:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 - DBDR 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                 =???

- DBDR 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrince_William_of_Wales_2966.html"