Talk:Sophie, Countess of Wessex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Proposed move for this article and for other articles on Wives of Royal Peers see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Mac Domhnaill

Re proposed move: see bottom of page. FearÉIREANN 01:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Naming

Did I miss something? When, and by whom, is she called Princess Edward? Deb 20:31 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

All women who marry male members of the Royal Family automatically assume the title Princess {name of husband}. For example, Princess Michael of Kent, the wife of Prince Michael of Kent. The only exception is the wife of the heir apparent, hence we had Princess Diana, not Princess Charles. Because most royal bride grooms receive a peerage on their wedding day, though this unusual title automatically comes into existence, it generally is not used, with the peerage name used instead. Hence though she became Princess Andrew on her marriage, Fergie became known as the Duchess of York (or on her divorce Sarah, Duchess of York). But she was never ever Princess Sarah. Ditto with the Queen Mum when she married Prince Albert. She became Princess Albert, not Princess Elizabeth, but again as her husband became Duke of York, she came to be known as the Duchess of York. But Princess Albert, Princess Andrew, Princess Edward (never Princess Sophie) all exist albeit unused. I set up the redirect page in case someone found the name somewhere (it crops up very occasionally) and did a google search. This way they would come to wiki and the page on Sophie, Countess of Wessex. ÉÍREman 22:42 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

I've never heard of this "exception" for wives of heirs apparent. Do you have a reference for this? My understanding was that the Princess of Wales was only called "Princess Diana" informally, by people who either didn't know or didn't care about the formal convention. -- Oliver P. 00:34 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Every Princess of Wales was called by their own name. Queen Mary was called Princess Mary. Queen Alexandra was called Princess Alexandra. When Catherine of Aragon's marriage to Henry VIII was annulled, she was referred to as the Dowager Princess of Wales/Princess Dowager of Wales, or as Princess Catherine, not Princess Arthur etc. I can check with Buckingham Palace for confirmation if you want, but I am 99.99999999% certain. I remember at Andrew and Fergie's wedding, before it was confirmed that he would be made Duke of York, the media did talk about her becoming Princess Andrew. But I never heard anyone ever made the same point re Diana and I do remember someone explicitly make a point of the difference in her nomenclature to that of her sisters-in-law and how lucky she was to keep her own name unlike them, though I cannot remember where. (Because I have had a long term interest in heads of state and associated people, I tend to remember these facts even if I never remember who said it and when.) I think if my memory serves me correct, it also applies to the Heir Apparent's heir. So Prince William's bride will also be called by her name, whereas Harry's will be Princess Henry. (Hah! The irony. We don't even know her name, but we already know what she will be called!!!) ÉÍREman 00:51 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. I don't really remember Charles and Diana's wedding, but I'll be sure to listen out for comments when Prince William gets married. :) In the meantime, I might check in some books, because I always feel more comfortable if I have a solid reference for something. -- Oliver P. 01:20 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Dare I say this, JTD? -- I think you may have got it wrong. I clearly remember that, at the time of Charles and Diana's wedding, Princess Charles was one of the titles proposed for her, but it was discarded in favour of "Princess of Wales". Princess Michael of Kent is only called by her husband's name because he doesn't have a title, eg. a royal dukedom, therefore there is no alternative. In cases where the husband holds a title, there is no reason for using his first name and therefore this possible alternative is never used. Deb 17:14 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

According to history books, the wife of a Prince of Wales is automatically Princess of Wales, so it could not have been specifically chosen. In addition, I have never come across a Princess of Wales referred to by anything other than Princess {own name}. Not once have I ever seen the slightest reference to any wife of an heir apparent been referred to Princess {name of husband}. For example, Catherine of Aragon did not become Princess Arthur after her annulment. When Princess of Wales, Alexandra was called Princess Alexandra (or generally Prince Alix!) never Princess Albert Edward.

But wifes of royals other than the heir apparent have never been allowed use that format. They have been allowed two forms: Princess {name of husband} or if their husband received a peerage as the duchess/countess of whatever. But from what I can gather, the first is automatic even though not used if the latter exists.

Actually I think this article is wrongly titled. As far as I can know (having talked to someone who works in the area of titles many years ago, the form {name}, {title} is used for the divorced wife of a peer. Hence Princess Diana assumed the usage of Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce (and her mother was Frances, Countess Spencer until she remarried while her stepmother became Countess Spencer not Raine, Countess Spencer) Similarly, Fergie became Sarah, Duchess of York when she divorced. Their married title is simply the Princess of Wales, the Duchess of York. etc. Sophie, Countess of Wessex thus means Sophie, formerly The Countess of Wessex (ie, former wife of the Earl of Wessex). The Court Circular never uses Sophie, Countess of Wessex but The Countess of Wessex. Princess Margaret when married was either The Countess of Snowdon or Princess Margaret, the Countess of Snowdon in the Court Circular. But after her divorce, she was called Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, with Tony's second wife being simply the Countess of Snowdon. I did once see the Queen Mum before becoming Queen mentioned in an old text as Princess Albert, the Duchess of York but the standard form was simply The Duchess of York. I suspect this page should be written as either simply The Countess of Wessex, 'Sophie, the Countess of Wessex or 'Princess Edward, the Countess of Wessex'. But the current name would be her post-marital name. I know the royals have a dreadful history in the marriage stakes but we can hardly presume that Sophie will be the next royal ex-wife! *grin*

I am certain that the husband's name is not used by the wife if he is heir apparent. I am going to check about the Princess husband name with Buckingham Palace. Who knows, maybe I am wrong. I have been before, but what I have said follows what I have always understood to be the rules. ÉÍREman 00:16 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I think I must have been asleep when I replied last night. Of course Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary were formerly known as Princess Alexandra and Princess Mary - they were princesses of Denmark and Teck respectively! :) They held these titles because of the families they were born into, not because of who they married. here's a nice long alt.talk.royalty thread on the subject of royal styles. It looks a bit daunting, but I might read through some of it. There are a few people on that newsgroup who are very well-informed about such matters. You should pay particular attention to this message by Frank Johansen, which pretty much clears everything up, I think. Here is an extract: "Sophie is *styled* HRH The Countess of Wessex. Her *full titles* are HRH The Princess Edward of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Countess of Wessex and Vicountess Severn." Wouldn't it be simpler just to title articles about members of the royal family with their official styles, rather than mess about with all this making up of names? The Countess of Wessex would then be at HRH The Countess of Wessex. How's that? -- Oliver P. 00:36 May 9, 2003 (UTC)


Oliver is, I think, right that Diana was never officially "Princess Diana". But have there been any other commoner Princesses of Wales against whom this can be checked? I think that Caroline of Brunswick would have only been a "Duchess", and Caroline of Ansbach a "Margravine" on their own merit, so seeing if they were ever called "Princess Caroline" as opposed to "Princess of Wales" might work.

As far as using official styles, this could become confusing with titles that have been held by more than one person. For instance, HRH The Prince of Wales, HRH The Duke of York, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, HRH The Duke of Gloucester, HRH The Duke of Kent - all of these styles have been used by more than one person. It should, however, be made more clear in the articles what the person's official style actually is. I tried to change some of them, but haven't done so consistently. john 01:14 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

We have a policy of not using styles in titles simply because (how can I put it in a way Zoe would take as anti-American?) some users on part of the American continent south of Canada aren't familiar with styles and in the past on wiki either get them wrong or start removing them, regarding them as ponsy British rubbish. Also you get into knots in some cases; eg, we correctly call exiled King Constantine II of Greece by his title. Calling him His Majesty however affronts Greek republicans who say they can barely stomach him being called by his former title but calling him HM is just too much. And then what do we do with someone like Otto von Habsburg, the former Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary? The Vatican still calls him Your Imperial Highness. Do we, given that his father's throne was abolished in 1918? Or Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples? I had a battle to stop Italian monarchists on wiki calling him 'Victor Emmanuel IV. And what about Leka I, heir to the Albanian throne? Or 'Henry V', who claimed to be King of France from the 1830s to his death in 1883 (I think it was!) Or 'Louis XX', the minority legitimist claimant to the French throne? We can justify using most senior title for deposed monarchs, but there are still many people out there (in a certain part of the world!) who are unhappy with Charles, Prince of Wales and fought tooth and nail for [[Charles Windsor]]. Push them too much and they could decide unilaterally decide to change names all over the place to stop using titles at all. (Titles, as one told me, being just a lot of "British class crap that should not be on an encyclopædia".

Re Diana - As far as I know, when one becomes princess of Wales, one becomes . . . well . . a princess. It is automatic. You could hardly have Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales or Mrs. Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor, Princess of Wales. It goes with the territory. Internationally brides of Crown Princes are invariably called 'princess'. In addition, the Palace are rather strict on major titles. When after the divorce, some media outlets called Diana 'Princess of Wales' the BP Press office was on immediately to correct them, and so after a week or so Diana was rarely referred to that way. In contrast they couldn't care less about Fergie so the media still call her Duchess of York even though she isn't anymore. No-one corrected 'Princess Diana' which they would have done informally if it was wrong. Indeed BP during her marriage used that form in press releases. Another example: Prince Philip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark but he gave up all his titles prior to his marriage and married the current queen as Mr. Philip Mountbatten. He was immediately made a Prince of the United Kingdom as the spouse of the future monarch. It is hard to see Diana not also getting the same honour, given that in 1981 she was of course expected to be the next queen consort. As to May of Teck (later Mary) or Alexandra, as far as I know the use of 'princess' did not refer to their previous title but explicitly referred to their British rank. As a foreign princess, she would have one status in the order of precedence. But they and Diana had a different one as Princess of Wales. It is highly unlikely that such a rank could be used, involving precedence over other members of the Royal Family, if one didn't have the rank of Princess also. ÉÍREman 03:36 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, nobody's denying that Alexandra, Mary (wasn't she only known as "May" within the family?), and Diana were British princesses, after they married their respective British princes. We're just debating what their style was, I think. And I think the alt.talk.royalty discussion made it fairly clear that if someone was a princess only by virtue of who they had married, then they had to be called "Princess [husband's name]", and not "Princess [own name]". I'll continue to believe this until you cite a proper reference for what you're saying. :)
But you have a good point about the problems of putting royal and noble titles into article titles: some people don't accept the legitimacy of the titles. But I think we can decide those on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps we could just use the ones that are recognised by the government of the country in question, or just call everyone whatever they themselves want to be called. :) I don't think many people in the UK dispute that the Countess of Wessex is the Countess of Wessex, even if they think that such titles should be abolished. So I don't really see why we couldn't put her at HRH The Countess of Wessex, or The Countess of Wessex to avoid the "HRH" style thing, or just Countess of Wessex to avoid the definite article... If other people mess it up, we can always correct it. It may be a slow process, but we'll get there in the end. And if someone else becomes the Countess of Wessex in years to come, we can move the relevant articles... That's the joy of wiki. :) -- Oliver P. 04:04 May 9, 2003 (UTC) P.S. - Shouldn't we be asleep at this time? ;)

For Dr. Otto von Habsburg, isn't that what he calls himself? But in general, I think that members of former reigning houses should be called by their proper styles, if possible. Certainly they should be called by their proper names. Calling the head of the Prussian royal house "Georg Friedrich Hohenzollern", for instance, is just wrong, since his actual name is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen. As far as "some people not accepting the legitimacy of titles", in certain cases I'd say this is nonsense. Are we supposed to call Lord Salisbury "Mr. Gascoyne-Cecil" just because we don't think much of noble titles?

Which countries don't allow the use of noble titles/names at all? I believe Austria doesn't, but they don't really care if the Habsburgs call themselves Archdukes of Austria (except for Otto himself). Of European countries, though, only Greece seems to be particularly upset about the use of titles. And since the Greek royal family doesn't have any other name, what else can they be called? And I continue to agree with Oliver about the Princess (own name) vs. Princess (husband's name) dispute. john 04:15 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Here we go again. I've done loads of research into the Princesses of Wales, and I can tell you this:
a. Diana's official title was "Princess of Wales", never "Princess Diana" -- and, yes, those who slipped up and called her "Princess Diana" were often corrected. She became "Diana, Princess of Wales" on her divorce, and we used that as the title of the article (eventually) because it was the best compromise. Like I said before, the title of "Princess Charles" was considered and rejected.
b. Other Princesses of Wales have officially been called "Princess of Wales" while they held the title, not "Princess Mary" or "Princess Alexandra" (except, as was explained somewhere above, before their marriage). I'm fairly sure that the Carolines and others were simply called "Princess of Wales" -- or put it this way, I've never come across them being called anything else while they held the title. (George IV referred to his wife as "she who calls herself the Princess of Wales").
I believe that the best title for this article would be "Sophie Wessex", which is the name Sophie has chosen for herself. It was Isis who moved it to "Sophie Rhys-Jones", and she did that purely because I had originally named it. Okay, so Sophie's recently been forced out of productive employment, but it's better than her official title, which is "The Countess of Wessex".
Deb 10:41 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I did some checking with Buckingham Palace and the Earl of Wessex's office. According to them

  • Diana was a princess. On marrying the heir apparent, one automatically becomes one. But 'Princess Diana' was a generalised populist title that was not used officially. She was the 'HRH The Princess of Wales'. (Similarly 'Prince Charles' is wrong. He is correctly referred to in three forms - generally as HRH The Prince of Wales, in Scotland HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, in Cornwall HRH The Duke of Cornwall. They are the correct forms.) After her divorce, she became simply Diana, Princess of Wales. They were not sure if Diana ceased to be a princess; ie was the 'princess' like HRH linked to her marriage to the PoW and not personal, or did she remain one? But BP have no problem with Princess Diana or Prince Charles but not calling her HRH The Princess of Wales after her divorce. So Princess Diana is seen as semi-right, not technically correct but effectively accurate, as it was with past Princesses of Wales.
  • Sophie's office are completely confused on her title. But the above title mentioned HRH The Princess Edward of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Countess of Wessex and Vicountess Severn seemed to the person I spoke to to be more than likely correct. Sophie Wessex is a working name, not a royal name and should not be used, according to the person. Sophie, Countess of Wessex' is offensive because it is a divorceé name. Sophie, the Countess of Wessex is marginally more accurate and preferable. Princess Edward, the Countess of Wessex may be more accurate still (the person I spoke to was not sure). On balance I would go with Sophie, the Countess of Wessex. ÉÍREman 20:11 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
To say that "Sophie Wessex" should not be used, but in the same breath that it is a working name, is contradictory. It all depends what you are using it for. If you are inviting her to a function in her capacity as a princess, you would obviously call her "HRH The Countess of Wessex", but if you were writing the minutes of a meeting at her office, you would write, "Sophie Wessex said that James Duffy should be sacked", or whatever. Deb 20:20 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

No. The point is that Sophie has left her non-royal career so Sophie Wessex is no longer accurate. She is now a full-time member of the Royal Family so she uses her royal name. ÉÍREman 20:36 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

We don't seem to be getting to the point here, which is:- We need a title for the article which is not only correct but which uniquely identifies the subject. At this rate we'll be moving her to Sophie (wife of Prince Edward), and even that won't be right! Deb 20:42 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
PS. Can you answer in fewer than three paragraphs? (joke)

how about Sophie Wessex, the Countess of Wessex. That includes both her working name and her official title in the correct form. (Now let me see, how can I fill up another fifteen paragraphs!!! :-) ) ÉÍREman 21:31 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Oh look, Sophie seems to be free. That would simplify things! No, no, I'm joking... Incidentally, Mr. ÉÍREman, why are you now proposing a name with "Sophie Wessex" in it, when in your previous message, you said, "No. The point is that Sophie has left her non-royal career so Sophie Wessex is no longer accurate"...? If it's true that she no longer uses the name "Sophie Wessex" herself, then I suppose we shouldn't use it. So what does she call herself? Oh, "HRH The Countess of Wessex", probably. Damn, we're going round in circles, now. Okay, so what do we actually all agree on?

  • Sophie, Countess of Wessex is bad, because Isis chose it... *cough* I mean, because it's a divorcée name
  • Sophie Wessex is bad because it was her working name when she worked, but she doesn't work any more... *cough* I mean, she's a full-time member of the royal family now, and of course they do lots of important work, no, really they do, but she doesn't use the name "Sophie Wessex" any more. Apparently.

Do we agree on those? Do we agree on anything else? Anything at all...? What definite properties must the name have?

  1. Accuracy? Well, HRH The Countess of Wessex is probably the most accurate, but for some reason people don't seem to like it. (Remind me why that was again...)
I believe it's because no other member of the royal family is identified in such a manner. On the other hand, we have no other articles on current spouses of other royal princes. HRH The Duchess of Gloucester, HRH The Duchess of Kent, and HRH Princess Michael of Kent do not currently have articles, nor does HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, the late HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, or any of the wives of Victoria's younger sons... That means there's no real precedent, no? john 23:41 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
  1. Unique identification of the subject? Well, ditto. :) But if you mean that the article title has to remain applicable to her if someone else takes the title after her, then HRH The Countess of Wessex doesn't work any more. HRH The Princess Edward would probably work, assuming that we don't get another one of those later on, which I suppose we could... But do we in any case require:
  2. Contains the name "Sophie"? I'm not sure this is essential, but everyone else's proposals all seem to satisfy this property. Are we saying that this is essential?

Hmm, are we making too big a deal of this? :) -- Oliver P. 23:17 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

At least we are all trying simply to get things factually right, unlike other pages where people are just trying to POV text to push an agenda. So no, I don't think we are making too big a deal. And yes I do think we should keep the word Sophie as that is what she is generally known as. And HRH clashes with our naming conventions. The Countess of Wessex is OK, I suppose as I don't think we know of any other C of W. But if we use her name and C of W we have to put in the because otherwise the name we would be using is that she would (will?) have if she and Edward divorce. BP were rather blunt about that, but then divorce is rather touchy topic there when it comes to royal titles. ÉÍREman 23:47 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't really serious about us making too big a deal of this. I think we should make an effort to get things right in the Wikipedia, and actually these debates can be quite fun. ;) As for precedents, john, we do have an article at Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, but I think her designation is a special case. I'm not sure if "HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester" is her official style; sources seem to contradict each other on this. (Best continue this on her talk page, I suppose...) And I don't know if we have articles on the other people in your list. -- Oliver P. 04:09 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

"HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester" is her official style since the death of her husband in 1974. john 06:42 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
Did anyone see "The 100 Worst Britons" on Channel 4 last night? Of the three people who talked about Sophie, one referred to her as "The Countess of Wessex" and the other two called her "Sophie Wessex" (but admittedly they were referring to the gaffe she made with the fake sheik). Deb 10:25 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

As it is the form strongly suggested by her husband's office, and it met with general agreement in the discussion on the naming page, I have the page to Sophie, the Countess of Wessex. Sophie, Countess of Wessex would be her post-marital name in the event of a divorce (as with Diana, Princess of Wales, Sarah, Duchess of York, etc.). The Countess of Wessex is the form that indicates she is married to the Earl of Wessex. Should she divorce, the word the is all that needs to be removed to change her title to the divorced form. FearÉÍREANN 21:36 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Actually, according to your own report above, the office considered "Sophie, the Countess of Wessex" only "marginally more accurate" than "Sophie, Countess of Wessex", and suggested that "Princess Edward, the Countess of Wessex" may be more accurate still. Your own report doesn't suggest that they were recommending the former wording at all, let alone "strongly". I'm sure you mean well, but sometimes it does seem that you are misrepresenting other people's opinions to make it look as if if your own view has more support than it really does. Nevertheless, I'll put up with the "marginally more accurate" name for now. -- Oliver P. 00:51 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I explained to the person I spoke to how for general recognition it would be necessary to use Sophie" and they agreed in this instance it was understandable, as that it the name most associated with her. But it that case, I was told, using "the" was a must, because otherwise the title being used was actually a post-marital name specifically used by royal divorceés. It is quite straight-forward, Oliver. Using Princess Edward is the equivalent of what Taku is doing to Japanese emperors; using a 100% accurate form that is also almost 100% unrecognisable. The name of this page uses the accurate form of title with colloquial form of name and so is nearly accurate and is clearly comprehendable. Beyond his point, what you would gain in accuracy you would lose in recognisability. FearÉÍREANN 02:28 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I said I'd put up with it. The new name is actually growing on me. Her name is Sophie, and she is the Countess of Wessex, so I suppose it's vaguely accurate. Note that I never said that I actually wanted the title to contain "Princess Edward"; I was merely pointing out that according to your report above, the person you spoke to thought that that might be more accurate, which seemed to contradict your statement that they strongly supported your version. If I've misunderstood that, I apologise. But you should drop this "You don't have to be Einstein to cop on" business; I understand your arguments perfectly well. Please refrain from insulting my intelligence. -- Oliver P. 11:40 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I have moved Lady Wessex's page to Sophie, Countess of Wessex. The reason for the same is that it appears to be the usage of this encyclopedia not to include "the". For instance we do not have Charles, the Prince of Wales as a main article- it is a redirect. The same for the Princes Andrew and Edward. -- Emsworth 23:51, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've protected this page, due to the (low level, but annoying) edit war taking place.

Come to an agreement on the style - cite sources, please - and apply it uniformly, and maybe we can stop having these silly-buggers games played out on the article space.

James F. (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Given the confusion/disagreement over the use of "Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex", I suggest just having "HRH The Countess of Wessex" which is not in dispute. This puts the article in line with the other wifes of the Royal Princes such as Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Some further discussion of this is at Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall Astrotrain 22:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] other edits prevented from occuring because people can't agree on minor terms

When y'all get over your pissing contest, please disambiguate the sheik link as so, [[shaikh|sheik|]]

[edit] Proposed move

I've removed the proposed move link. This should be discussed centrally at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) so that a Wikipedia-wide policy could be agreed. It would be a mess, and chaotic, to try to discuss the issue individually on a host of single pages, each of which could decide theoretically on a different contradictory policy. FearÉIREANN 01:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patronages

Wouldn't it be better to list out her patronages, rather than have them in a extremely difficult to understand paragraph. I think that the list would be rather long, maybe we could include a few of them. Any ideas?Prsgoddess187 14:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tits

Remeber they published that picture of her with her tits out the day she got married? How could you omit that?--Crestville 19:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • That incident didn't happen on their wedding day- it was afterwards. Astrotrain 19:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eleventh cousin once removed ?

Sophie and Edward are 8th cousins 3times removed via Richard Coote 1st Baron Coote of Coloony and his wife Mary St.George

[edit] Unreferenced

As a result of a recent dispute, where an editor was posting material which was sourced to News of the World and was arguably defamatory, I did a little looking around to see what other articles used questionable tabloids as references. That brought me here, where I noticed that not only is News of the World cited as the authority for one section, but virtually nothing in the article is referenced. Due to significant changes in BLP policies in the year since anyone posted to this talk page, I will assume that my addition of an "unreferenced" label will not stir up any major controversy. Poindexter Propellerhead 23:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Descent from Henri II of France?

This descent, alleged here as belonging to the Countess of Wessex, is widespread on the Continent and just about universal in Catholic royal families, but rare in Protestant lands. The Countess does have some measure of noble blood, chiefly Irish and Scottish, but I cannot offhand think of one UK noble with such descent. The numerous descendants of the illegitimate children of Charles II and James II and VII do not have it, to forestall any query, and anyway the Countess is not among those. Baffling, if anyone could clarify I'd be fascinated.

86.163.173.212 (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)