Talk:Kate Middleton/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents


Ancestry

Does she have any noble background or relatives?

It would be an accomplishment for an English woman to have no royal ancestry, let alone noble. -Acjelen 03:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
It depends on what you royal ancestry. For example, we all clearly have African ancestry but in practice, we don't tend to consider ourselves Africans. If you are referring to fairly recent ancestry, e.g. 300 years it's far more likely that she doesn't then if you are referring to any ancestry at all. Nil Einne 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
There's quite a large difference between consuetudinary linage & geographic linage (and racial linage at that; there are some who'd say out-of-Africa equates to all having been originally ethnically black, when it's more likely that those linages which remained in Africa developed a deepened complexion from a prolonged climate exposure & trait selection. More likely because of the connection to recessive phenotype found out of Africa dealing with those traits). It's a valid question, as it is purely a consuetudinary one. Nagelfar 23:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be incorrect. Not all people who live in England were born with noble or royal ancestry. Just because you are born in England and have some hertiage there does not automatically mean you are a direct descendent of any nobles or the Plantagenet, Tudor, Stuart, Hanover and so on. There are many people who live in England with ancestors that could have come from other places and there are many people in England who's ancestors were at one time the poor and low class.

There are many people who live in other countries who have royal English or European blood. It has nothing to do with where you are born, it has to do with who is in your family tree.

If you study England's history, back in the middle ages there were the exteremly wealthly and the extremely poor. There no such thing as middle class. During the 1500s, the middle class started to get bigger, the poor and the rich class got smaller. When the Hanovers took over as rulers of England after the fall of the Stuart dynasty, many families who had once been the poor and low class got friendly with the new royals and eventually gained power. Their descendents becoming the nobles we know today, yet they have no royal blood.

A perfect example is Princess Diana, her claim to royal blood is being a direct decendent of King Charles II from two of his mistresses. However, the Spencers (Her family name) were not always nobles. As a matter of fact, the Spencers did not gain power until the Hanovers took over England. Proir to that they were not a noble family and with no royal blood. That goes for many of her past family history. Had these people not been friends with the royals, and she had no descent from King Charles II, Diana would never have married Charles nor been made a Princess.

Kate Middleton was born in England, however, that does not automatically means she has royal or noble blood. Just because it she it appears she is dating Prince William, that does not mean she has royal or noble blood. As I stated before, the only reason she knows William is that she and him went to the same school. Had that not happened, they would never have met, which fuels my arguement as to whether or not they will marry in the long run. RosePlantagenet 18:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarence house

There is a brief mention in the William article about media speculation in August 2005 she planned to move into Clarence house. Clearly this did not pan out yet but perhaps it should still be mentioned. Either that or discussion of it in the William article removed. Nil Einne 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bloodline?

What relation is Kate to William? He has no choice but to marry a family member. Diana & Charles was 3rd cousins...the other women that charles considered marriage with was also related including some royal woman from Spain. For them to marry outside the family...takes away their ability to be King and son to be a prince. and yes...royals & upper class still marry like this.

"For them to marry outside the family...takes away their ability to be King and son to be a prince". I doubt that, what is your citation? --Ross UK 02:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
the only requirement to be a British prince or princess is that you need to be the son/daughter or grandson/granddaughter of a monarch and that you are born into wedlock. The only requirement to be King or Queen is that one must be eligible to be King/Queen: in other words: be born into wedlock, not being Catholic or married to a Catholic and being closest in line to the throne in the order of succession. --- fdewaele 19 May 2006, 10:17 (CET)

oes anyone know what would her style be if she married Prince William?? Perhaps.. Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales???

  • That's exactly what it would be. Unless William is given a peerage title, then she would be Her Royal Highness The Duchess/Countess of X. Prsgoddess187 12:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
To drag up an old argument we had about "the Wessexes' daughter", would it be HRH Princess William of Wales or HRH The Princess William of Wales? --Ross UK 22:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know the definitive and title The Prince(ss) is only used by the children of the monarch, not the grandchildren. So as Prince Charles is technically The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales, etc, prior to Queen Elizabeth II becoming The Queen, he was simply Prince Charles of Edinburgh. So, to make a long story a bit longer, if Kate marries William, and he does not receive a peerage, she would be HRH Princess William of Wales. Of course, as usual, if I happen to be wrong, please feel free to correct me. . Prsgoddess187 22:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you have it right and I probably knew the answer already. Thanks for that. --Ross UK 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


The external link: "Kate Middleton Fan Site, Pictures, and Forum" is full of childish factual and typolographical errors. It should probably be deleted. Looks like it was written by a school girl outside of the UK who knows nothing about the UK education system. Despite what Shamu might tell you, William is NOT the "Prince of Whales". August 1st 2006


Kate is not related to William. She and her family have no royal or noble blood. Which means William may not be allowed to marry Kate. It probably is the reason why she has not been made his "Offical girlfriend" or why there has been no engagment. Their marriage would probably be strongly disapproved in many royal circles. However, if that is the case and William does decide to marry Kate anyway, he may lose his throne to his younger brother just as Queen Elizabeth II's uncle did when he wanted to marry Simpson.

My guess is the royal family is letting William have his fun with getting out and making friends, what young people always do, but someone else will be found for him when the time comes for marriage. William is the next King of England, and his Queen will have to be choosen carefully. Kate Middleton does not seem to meet what is expected.--RosePlantagenet 8:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, there is no law which states that William must marry a royal/noble. The only requirements are that she must not be Catholic (Act of Settlement of 1701); if she is divorced, her ex-husband must be dead; and that if he were to marry before age 25, he must receive permission from the Queen (Royal Marriages Act of 1772). The Queen does approve of their relationship, and has apparently met with Kate on a couple of occasions. I cannot think of a royal circle which has disapproved of their relationship. And in terms of Kate's meeting of expectations, she seems to be everything desired: smart, elegant, well-mannered, respectful of traditions. She would also not be the Queen, at least officially. DerGlizerndeDiamant 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it isn't illegal (anymore) for a Royal to marry a divorced person. A CoE wedding isn't mandatory for a royal wedding. Marrying in Scotland was always an option and the Charles/Camilla wedding set a precedent for royal civil weddings under the Human Rights Act. Personally I all EIIR cares about is that William marry someone who; he won't cheat on, who won't cheat on him, who won't cause a scandal, can handle living under a microscope, and that the marriage will last. Even the Catholic thing isn't really a problem. The non-royal could always join the CoE and even if William's chosen bride wouldn't convert he stands a damn good chance of getting the law changed. (Alphaboi867 04:19, 21 August 2006

(UTC))

Well, unless Queen Elizabeth II has softened and things have changed, it certainly did not work that way for Prince Charles and Princess Diana.

I think you guys are confused. It has nothing to do with a law. Years ago, royals and nobles only married royals and nobles. They also could not marry divorced people. There was no law, it was just expected by the families. That is why Prince Charles was forced to marry Princess Diana. Also, Prince Charles was well over 25 when he married Princess Diana, he did not want to, and he wanted to mary Camilia. But, his family made him marry Diana so the not needing permission did not seem to work with him. And, unless it has changed now (which I doubt) Prince William and Kate may not work out.

Kate Middleton can be as smart, elegant, well-mannered, respectful of traditions that is people's perception of her, who like her, that does not mean it is true. The Queen can like her all she wants but for now Kate and William are not a serious item. If they do become very serious and want to marry, how might the Queen feel then?

I am not trying to belittle Kate. I am sure she is a nice girl but can she handle being the next Princess of Wales or possiblily someday the Queen? It is all fun to have a Prince like you but the price of it is pretty high. Does she like William for William or does she like the crown and attention? You have to be more than just smart, elegant, well-mannered, respectful of traditions. It takes something that very few people have in this world. Princess Diana got that.--RosePlantagenet 9:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Commoner

According to British law, a commoner is someone who is neither the Soverign nor a noble. True, this would make Kate a commoner, but it would also make Prince William a commoner. I suspect that the person who added that sentence was trying to illustrate the fact that Kate is not a royal or noble, in comparison to William. The sentence would have to read "She is a commoner, as is HRH Prince William" which would probably be more confusing. The fact that Kate is not a royal or noble is illustrated enough with the description of her parents' occupation, as well as other details in the article. DerGlizerndeDiamant 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Kate has no royal blood period. The British law is fairly recent on account that there are very few royal families left. However, in most cases a commoner is someone who is born without any royal or noble blood. Just because someone gets a royal title does not make them royal, unless they are born with royal or noble blood. If they are born without either even with a title it still makes them a commoner.

Another reason that I placed it there was so people could understand that Kate and William may not actually be dating or even be allowed to marry due to fact she is a commoner. Prince William is the next King of England so his marriage will have to be important. Queen Elizabeth II was born in a time when royals married other royals or nobles. The fact Kate is a commoner is probably why she is not considered William's "official girlfriend" and also why there has been no engagment. In some royal circles there would be strong disapproval of their relationship. Therefore, there is doubt she will continue to be with William as his girlfriend or the next Queen of England. RosePlantagenet 8:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, there is no law or reason why William would not be allowed to marry the common idea of a commoner. Of course, it will be important who he chooses to marry, but it seems there is both negative and positive speculation, and until an official statement has been made either way, it would be better to just report the facts and leave the speculation (at least the negative, as that could be percieved as libel) for another venue. DerGlizerndeDiamant 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There never was a law it was the expectation of all royal families. Suppose we will have to see, but I would be very surprised if he did marry Kate. Right, I just wanted people to know that she has no royal or noble blood. You can not totally tell that from the article. Some people think just because William and her at together there must be some royal or noble blood somewhere but there is not. RosePlantagenet 9:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

William is not a commoner, but there is no legal reason whatsoever why he cannot marry one. In fact, his mother was a commoner, since she held only a courtesy title by virtue of the fact that she was an earl's daughter. Only royals and peers are not commoners, and Diana was not a peer -- her father was. In other words, all four of the Queen's children have married commoners, and several of the heirs to the throne in other countries have recently done the same. I would add that this relationship has clearly progressed beyond the "maybe she's just a friend" stage. Ms. Middleton, whether or not she eventually marries William, is correctly and factually described as his girlfriend in the romantic sense as of late summer, 2006.

Titles do not make you royal. What makes you royal is being descended from someone who was considered royal. If you are not descended from someone who was considered royal, you are a commoner.

Lady Diana was not a commoner. She was a direct descendent of King Charles I, King Charles II and King James II. Her family was noble and aristocratic.

As for Queen Elizabeth's children, they all did not marry commoners. Princess Anne's first husband, who they forced her to marry, was of a noble background. Sarah Ferguson who married another son was descended from Charles I and Charles II, she came from a noble background. The younger son married a woman who is a direct descendent of King Henry II of France.

As for other countries, that is what they do. Queen Elizabeth II has always taken her position as Queen a little to seriously in a time when it hardly matters anymore. Therefore, she expected good marriages from her children. Now, given how badly the marriages went, perhaps she has changed her mind.

As for Kate Middleton, perhaps she will marry William. She would be the second commoner to marry an heir to the British throne since Queen Elizabeth's II mother. However, again, Queen Elizabeth II does take her position the way royals did not long ago.

Kate and William are also young. Prince Charles went through countless women in his day and the same thing happen as with them as with Kate. Rumors started to fly about marriage and the public loved or hated that person. And look how it turned out. There is no way to be sure what will happen. RosePlantagenet

I'm afraid that some people do not quite understand what constitutes a "commoner." Having "nobles" or titles in your ancestry doesn't do it. I repeat, only peers and royals are not commoners. An earl is a peer; his daughters bearing only the courtesy title of "Lady" are not. And if the individual who posted above thinks that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, an earl's younger daughter, was a commoner, why does he or she think that Lady Diana Spencer -- also an earl's younger daughter -- was not?


Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was a commoner. Yes, she the daughter of an Earl. However, she was descended from no royalty nor any nobilty. Her family only became Earls because at some point in history they gained power, got a lot of money and became friendly with the royal family. Again, a title, money or being friendly with someone in the royal family does not make you royal, without royal or noble blood, you are a commoner.

Lady Diana was not a commer. Yes, she was the daughter of an Earl. Yes, the Spencers only became powerful once the Hanovers took over England. However, the Spencers married people with royal or noble backgrounds. I repeat, Lady Diana is the direct descendent of Charles I, Charles II, and King James II. She was of true ancient royal English blood. And, since the current royal family is more of royal German descent then England's ancient bloodline, she was the perfect pick.

What you are saying is that you have to be royal at that moment inorder to be royal. If you follow your theories, then Princess Anne's two children are commoners, since she and her husband decided at birth that they should have no titles. That is of course ridculous as both children are decended from Queen Elizabeth II, titles or not they are royal. Then, Queen Alexandra of Denmark, Queen Elizabeth II great grandmother, in your view was a commoner. As she was born with royal blood. However, her family had no titles and her father became King of Denmark out of luck. That is the same as saying people who came from royal blood but no longer rule are commoners and their royal blood no longer matters.

Titles mean nothing. Yes, peer might make you not a commoner, although, being a peer is the same as having a title. If you do not have royal or noble ancestory of some kind in your past, and you come from ordinary people on both sides of your family, you are a commoner.

I will only end with this last comment as I can see that my the point is not getting across. I am not sure how to explain it any better. Sorry for that. Kate Middleton is a commoner. She will always be a commoner, whether she marries Prince William or not. While being royal or a commoner matters not anymore. It is what it is.

Not to mention, I do not see what is the big deal. There is a relationship, no doubt about that now. If he marries her great and if not who cares. This is real life and they are real people and not some fairy tale romance in a book. Until, there is a ring on her finger and a wedding planned, she is nothing to get excited over. Kate is only his first girlfriend, odds say she will not marry him anyway, as it is rare to marry the first person you fall in love with.

And, they will probably not let him marry her, he is heir to throne of England. At least Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon came from a weathly family and at the time no one thought George V was going to rule anyway because he had an older brother who would have ruled had he not went against his family and married Simpson. Someone more suitable will be found for Wiliam, have no doubt of that, unless the Queen has changed in her ways.

But, I hope Kate does marry William because some of you are going to take this very hard if they do not get married. >.>; RosePlantagenet

Princess Anne's two children are, indeed, commoners. The Princess has pointed that out herself. I repeat, having royalty in your background (and a vast number of people do) does not affect your status if you are not royalty or a peer yourself. Check with Debrett's or Burke's. Their staffers will be delighted to explain, since these issues are their raison d'etre. In the meantime, see this Wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoner

If you study genealogy and history, most people do not have royal blood in their background. Only 1% or 2% of the population of people on Earth are directly descended from European Royalty. That is not vast.

I have read that article, thanks. That is British law now but solely because there is not a lot of royalty left. In edition, that law was passed because Britian was one of the few empires where the royalty shared its power with its people, which is why it still survives today. Originally that is not how it use to be. British law can make it whatever they want, however, if you are descended from ordinary people on both sides of your family, you are a commoner. Example: Kate Middleton.

Titles and wealth mean nothing.

Princess Anne’s children are not commoners as their grandmother and grandfather are directly descended from the royalty of Europe. Just because she chooses not to give them a title does not erase who they are descended from nor make them less royal. Again, that is like saying anyone descended from a royal house who no longer has titles are commoners. You can never erase who you are descended from royal or ordinary, though any sort of title or wealth.

I also have trouble with that article as the reference does not seem to be totally accurate as is the article stating that all people who come from Britian, either in Britian or came from Britian and live somewhere else, are descended from King Edward III.

And, again, as I stated, we may like Kate Middleton, however, you can not make her into something she is not. She is a commoner. RosePlantagenet

Career Path

PLEASE NOTE: Personal remarks and opinions regarding Ms. Middleton, her use of her degree, or whether or not you happen to think that Prince William should marry her are utterly inappropriate for a biographical encyclopedia article. If this is what you want to debate, then log on to "The Royalist" or some similar website.68.72.80.186 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I know there are a billions news/tabloid articles about how she never doesn't anything except shop and go to polo matches, etc., but there are two things I think we should try to acknowledge in this article: 1) this isn't a tabloid--we should try to have the information be reliable and not written as all these rumours in a negative pov sort of way. Like, yeah, she hasn't started her own company or started working for a museum, but I just don't think it should be written like, "she STILL has to make USE of her degree" and "but nothing came of THAT either", you know? It can be included, but in a neutral, factual sort of way. And this is in light of my second point, 2)she's only been out of school for just over a year. Some people decide not to rush into getting a job, take a year to travel, or relax, or just enjoy being young or whatever for a year or so, before seriously beginning the job quest. It's important to remember that she DID graduate from a good school, with good marks. Did you get into St. Andrews? Until she goes her whole life without doing anything, it is a bit mean to have her defined as a person who does nothing. :) So that's my little rant, and I hope you understand what I mean. Thanks! DerGlizerndeDiamant 20:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what people are trying to say is that she may not be Queen material for Prince William due to some of her behavior in the past. If she is actually his girlfriend. RosePlantagent 8:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Understood. Hmm, well, if the previous arguement was that William should choose a noble and not a commoner--it seems that choosing not to work, but to go to polo matches and events, is the more noble-ish thing to do. :) DerGlizerndeDiamant 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that might work for her for now since she is not Queen. However, whoever is Queen will have to do a lot more than go to polo matches and sit around doing nothing. Princess Diana certainly did more than that in her day. RosePlantagent 9:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Princess Diana certainly got around! Astrotrain 19:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Diana did much at all before her marriage. She was a part-time nursery-school aide without a university degree. She didn't pass her O-Levels in two tries and earned no qualifications whatsoever. It wasn't until after her marriage, and as a result of her new position, that she became heavily involved in charitable activities. As best I can tell, she, too, was just waiting to get married. 68.72.80.186 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Official/Unofficial

There's really no such thing as an "unofficial" girlfriend, unless it is not true that they are actually boyfriend & girlfriend. A press release does not make it official/legal, etc. Unless of course you're willing to go at odds with everyone else who has a boyfriend/girlfriend, who did not have a press release about it, and tell them their relationship is not "official". :)

Can you be 100% sure without a shadow of a doubt that they are a couple? Usually when people are a couple they tend to mention it other people. As of now, Kate Middleton is William's "Unofficial" girlfriend, mainly for the fact no one really knows if it is true. The media and people are only speculating on rumors and photos taken with the couple together. The pair could simply be just friends because Kate is an extremely smart girl, and she may not want to be tied down.

Please stop with this nonsense. There is no such thing as an "unofficial" or an "official" girlfriend. And you seem woefully ill-informed on the facts - to such a degree that you shouldn't be writing on the subject. - Nunh-huh 20:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not so good to write an article based on your opinions or that you like her and make it as you want it be, either, dear. I am very well-informed enough to know that without an statement from Prince William or his family, and the fact his brother has told everyone that he and Chesley Davy are a couple, enough to know that there has been no official statement. Therefore there is no way to know whether she is his girlfriend or not. Therefore, you are simply writing the article the way you like it to be. I believe that would discrediting?

[1] I'm not your "dear", [2] you have no idea whether I "like" her or not, or what I would "want"; [3] you seem to be illogical as well as ill-informed; [4] sign your talk page statements; [5] discredit would be a more likely response to silly notions of "unofficial" girlfriends than it would be to a statement of fact. - Nunh-huh 20:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, first you are an extremely rude person. I do not see how any of edits were that horrible. Only for the fact that you disagreed with them. Nor was I being rude to you. I was simply trying to put my thoughts from what information I had in and how that is vandilism, I am not sure. Maybe to you because you disagree. But it is hardly writing something horrible. If you feel that threatening me is a way to get your way, then fine. I will leave the article as it is as you seem to know it all and everything the royals are doing.

As for the signing of articles, I have seen many people write their comments and not sign. No one has ever mentioned that as being a violation of any rules. But since you seem to run this site, as well, there you are. Gazzy 20:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is here to inform people, not to express your "thoughts". Deliberately inserting misinformation is vandalism. And as far as I can see, you are the only person who "thinks" that Kate Middleton is not Prince William's girlfriend. Elevating your opinion over that of the rest of the world is not appropriate. Stick to facts rather than your opinions, and you'll be fine. - Nunh-huh 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And I am sorry for that. I am rather new. I will pay better attention next time. :)Gazzy 21:06, 26 September 2006

Well, if you're new, I'm sorry I was so annoyed. So let me give you a helpful tip: if you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) it will be converted to a link to your userpage when you save it: User:Gazzy (instead of taking you to a page that shouldn't be created (Gazzy). - Nunh-huh 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that no "official" statement has been issued by the Queen is irrelevant and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Ms. Middleton is "really" the Prince's girlfriend. The Queen does not comment publicly on the private relationships of her relatives. If an engagement occurs, only then will some "official" statement be issued.68.72.80.186 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry and Commoner

Kate Middleton is a commoner as she is not directly descended from any royalty or noblity of Europe on either side of her family. And, according to British law, she is a commoner because her family holds no titles.

Thank you to whoever added Kate's family history as an external link. It works much better, rather than putting it in the article, that way no one can complain. Unless she is descended from some sort of royalty or noblity like William it does not seem worth mentioning her family history in the article itself. RosePlantagenet 20:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

People with titles are commoners unless they are peers. Diana was a commoner because as the daughter of an earl, she held only a courtesy title, not a peerage. The distinction is not merely social; it also determines who can serve in the House of Commons. Had she not married into the royal family, Diana could have served.68.72.80.186 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But because of the parliamentary reform of the House of Lords that last statement needs to be nuanced. Hereditary peers can now be elected to the House of Commons and take the seat as long as they are not part of the few hereditary peers elected to remain in the House of Lords. One no longer has to disclaim a noble title n order to be in the Commons. -- fdewaele, 8 January 2007, 18:35.

As for whether William can or should marry a commoner, there is no law against it, and members of the British and other royal families have been marrying commoners for years. Many commoners, incidentally, have royal ancestry. Sarah Ferguson was a commoner, and she is a descendant of Charles II. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Ms. Middleton also has some royal blood. We are all considerably more closely related to one another than many people realize.68.72.80.186 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, fdewaele, and thank you. However, it does not change the fact that the reform took place after Diana's death and would not, in any case, have affected her, because she was not a hereditary peer. She was born a commoner and therefore could have served in Commons even without the reform, had she not married the Prince of Wales.68.72.80.186 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but I was especially replying to the social distinction argument you made and less to the Diana case. fdewaele, 9 January 2007, 9:20.

Interesting points. Actually, only 1% of the population on Earth is descended from European Royalty. That is due to a lot of imbreeding among the families. Kate Middleton is not descended from any European royalty. If she was that information would have most certainly come out at some point. Although, I am sure someone is scrabbling around somewhere, who is a huge fan of Ms. Middleton, and that person is deperately looking for any indication that she might be descended from some sort of royalty. She was born in Britian, however, that does not automatically mean she is descended from royalty. The purphase was not to suggest there is something wrong with her being a commoner but to say that since most artciles on this site look into people's ancestry it seemed only fair to check out her's.

As for the debate on British Law. Titles are lovely, but they mean nothing. If you are descended from royalty or noblity now or sometime in the past, then you are royal or noble at least by blood from family tree. RosePlantagenet 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Specialists in genealogy and historical anthropology have determined that everyone on this planet is, at the very least, a 50th cousin to everyone else. Most people, particularly those whose ancestors have lived in one geographical area for centuries or millennia, are far more closely related than that. The population of Britain was considerably smaller centuries ago, and family fortunes have risen and fallen. It would be entirely possible for a 21st-century plumber to have, somewhere in his ancestry, some titled forebears. It would be equally possible for someone who now has a title to be descended from some 14th-century agricultural and domestic workers. By the way, the Spencers didn't get their first title, originally a baronetcy, until the early 17th century, and the earldom wasn't granted until 1734 -- comparatively late in the grand scheme of history. They, and a number of other aristocratic families of Britain, are descended from an entirely untitled man named Henry Spencer, who lived in the 15th century, and from his untitled ancestors. A title, of course, does not work some transformative magic upon one's blood. It remains the same ordinary substance that runs in everyone's veins, including Kate Middleton's.68.72.83.212 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you speak of populations in general then we are all related. We are actually all descended from this group of people who lived eighty thousand years ago and survived a super volcano explosion off the coast of Java. In terms of DNa, we are all related but that does not make you related to the royal families of Europe. There could be relation from a distance ancestor who lived thousand of years ago, however, that would only make you a 50th cousin and not directly (meaning parent to child) descended from royalty. There is a difference between direct and being a cousin.

Getting back on subject. You have proven my point in volumes, thank you. The royalty of Europe are part of that 1% because they imbreed several times among the families. But, if you do the math correctly, that 1% of the population does not just apply to them. It also applies to people who are descended from royalty (sometime in the past) but now live regular lives. These people are royal by blood because that is how our society classified their ancestors. These people live around the world, they are not just living Britian. Furthermore, being born British or living there does not mean you come from royalty, unless it is in your family tree. Kate Middleton, regardless of her British ancestry, is not royal by blood. You perhaps should read the article at the bottom of the page about her Coalminer background. Does that mean she is a nobody? No. Does it mean there is something wrong with her? No. Can Prince William marry her? Sure. After all, the Spencers were common people who got friendly with the royals, became wealthly and then married into noble families.

If it makes people feel better to believe Kate Middleton is somehow descended from the royalty or nobilty of Europe without any actual proof, then go for it. It would be wrong, but people's preception is their reality. The real question is, if there is nothing wrong with her coalminer ancestors, according to some, then why even care who she is descended from? It is just another Cinderella story. I would also add to that. If anyone decides to post her ancestry, please reference reliable material. Geneology takes a very long time to do. Websites on such information can be questionable. If the site states the information is uncomfirmed or not an exhausted search, then it was probably done on the fly. Also, if the information is accurate it should be stated in several other more reliable sources. Ancestry.com is a good source, however, you can only get the information if you pay for it. Finding that information takes time and there are many conflicting views even with the 14 day trail version. If the information came from there, unless you have paid for it and done an extensive search; no way to prove it.

But, again, why even care where she comes from? If royalty and nobilty no longer matter, and we no longer see these people as better than us (which they are not), then the British people should not care who Prince William marries in the end. Kate Middleton's ancestors should not matter. Although, given this discussion and the attempt in the article to create a link back to some kind of royalty (without much proof) means that it still does matter to people. Probably too much. RosePlantagenet 13:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

jossi (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (Hobson)
....

The Wikipedia article currently says that a magazine has reported that a Palace spokesman made comments about the Queen's feelings about Miss Middleton and Prince William marrying. However, the article cited in support this does not in fact say this. It refers instead to "insiders" and "friends". I feel that the article as it currently stands is innacurate.

The difference between a spokesman and an "insider" or "friend" is important. The word spokesman is used in the media to refer to someone authorised to speak on behalf of a person or organisation - often someone with a title such as press officer. In this case, Palace refers to Buckingham Palace - ie the Queen's office. If a palace spokesman (which means these people here http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4163.asp) says something about the Queen's feelings, it carries far more authority than anything said by an "insider" or "friend". So the innacuracy is important.

Nb, Miss Middleton is notable in the first place not just because she is in a relationship with a famous person, but because there is speculation she may marry Prince William and therefore one day become Queen of the UK. The current Queen's opinions about the possibility of the pair marrying are therefore not trivial matters but very important in the context of this article.

It may or may not be worth mentioning in Wikipedia that a magazine claimed to have an insight into the Queen's feelings from an "insider" or "friend", but these are different things to a spokesman and the difference is important. The suggestion that People magazine claimed a spokesman made the comments concerned is simply wrong, based on the citation given to support it. Hobson 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (RosePlantagenet)

The real question that I have is this, if the article in PEOPLE magazine had said something to the effect of, a palace spokeman said, "Prince William and Kate Middleton are engaged." or "The royal family is currently grooming Kate Middleton to be a Princess.", or the "William and Kate do not want to take this slowly." Would we be having this debate right now? My sense is probably not. I think the real issue is simply a matter of the information did not state what a few wanted to hear. When people start walking the thin line of picking and choosing sources based on what they want to hear, then the article is no longer creditable.

That is about all I have left to say on the matter because this was not that important to start such a debate. This is silly. And, I pride myself on being a rational person. I feel for such a dispute to be created there is another problem far greater than this one. You can not rationalize with irrational people, and therefore, I am stepping out of the situation. That is the mature and rational thing to do. RosePlantagenet 14:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion by jossi
....