| Revision as of 03:09, 3 December 2006 edit68.72.102.130 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:57, 1 January 2025 edit undoMSincccc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,013 edits →Post Nominal Letters: Typo.Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
| action1 = AFD |
|
|
| action1date = 19 April 2005 |
|
|
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kate Middleton 1 |
|
|
| action1result = Kept |
|
|
| action1oldid = 12544896 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action2 = AFD |
|
Is there some reason why people object to including purely straightforward, factual information in this article? I really do not believe that PEOPLE magazine has any "inside information" concerning the Queen's opinions of Ms. Middleton or her relationship with Prince William. Why has this silly, poorly-written paragraph been added? |
|
|
|
| action2date = 26 October 2005 |
|
|
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kate_Middleton |
|
|
| action2result = Kept |
|
|
| action2oldid = 26507913 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action3 = GAN |
|
==VFD== |
|
|
|
| action3date = 27 April 2017 |
|
On ] ], this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See ] for a record of the discussion. – ]] 21:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action3link = Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge/GA1 |
|
|
| action3result = Failed |
|
|
| action3oldid = 776396647 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action4 = WPR |
|
{{oldafdfull|date=October 18, 2005|result=keep|votepage=Kate Middleton}} ] | ] 06:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action4date = 4 August 2018 |
|
|
| action4result = Copyedited |
|
|
| action4oldid = 853398265 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action5 = GAN |
|
Considering the length of their relationship (4 years) it would seem premature to continue to vote this article for deletion until such times as she is no longer seriously involved with the Prince. Of course people are interested in her. She may well be the next Princess of Wales. I had never heard of her until a netscape article on Wiliam's upcoming Military training mentioned her and linked me here. While I am only casually interested in such things, I suspect there will be many others clicking on the link who follow this stuff passionately. Perhaps the person who keeps voting for delete is hoping the prince will marry them? Lisa Pollison 1/17/06 |
|
|
|
| action5date = 19:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
| action5link = Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/GA2 |
|
|
| action5result = listed |
|
|
| action5oldid = 1191026527 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dykdate= 9 January 2024 |
|
:Totally agree. --] 21:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| dykentry= ... that ''']''' ''(pictured)'', is a keen amateur photographer and the patron of the ], and has taken many official photographs of her children? |
|
|
| dyknom= Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine, Princess of Wales |
|
|
| itndate = 17 November 2010 |
|
|
|action6 = FAC |
|
|
|action6date = 2024-06-08 |
|
|
|action6link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Catherine, Princess of Wales/archive1 |
|
|
|action6result = failed |
|
|
|action6oldid = 1227915416 |
|
|
| currentstatus = FFAC/GA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action7 = PR |
|
:Maybe it is Kate because she doesn't want any publicity? ANON, 8 June 2006 |
|
|
|
| action7date = 15:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
| action7link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Catherine, Princess of Wales/archive1 |
|
|
| action7result = |
|
|
| action7oldid = 1236030491 |
|
|
|
|
|
Probably. Well, to be honest, unless there is a ring on her finger and a wedding planned, I am not sure why everyone is making such a big deal about this girl. She could be the next Queen consort and maybe not. I mean, when Prince Charles was dating, the media thought every women he dated was going to be his future wife. We all see how that turned out. I think that people somewhat question William and Kate's relationship because it has been so strange. It is not exactly the romance going on between Prince Harry and Chesly Davy or a young couple in love. Every relationship is different, however, she is his grilfriend, there should be something more going on between them and oddly it does not seem to be there. Which is why some people seem confused. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| topic = Royalty, nobility and heraldry |
|
Rose, please find some other place to post your personal opinions and musings about royal romances. They do not belong in a discussion of biographical, encyclopedic facts. There are many "royal website" forums in which you can do this and where you would be welcomed. Misplaced Pages is looking for firm, factual information. |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|listas=Catherine, Princess of Wales|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|royalty-work-group=yes|royalty-priority=top|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject British Royalty| importance = high }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Berkshire|importance=mid }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Wales|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disability}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1= |
|
|
{{annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
|
{{section size}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|]}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Jul 21 2013|Apr 22 2018|May 13 2018|May 20 2018|Sep 11 2022|Mar 17 2024}} |
|
|
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|Catfurball|Important}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
|subject = article |
|
|
|author = Mariella Moon |
|
|
|title = Getty flags another British royal family photo for being digitally altered |
|
|
|date = 20 March 2024 |
|
|
|org = ] |
|
|
|url = https://www.engadget.com/getty-flags-another-british-royal-family-photo-for-being-digitally-altered-121856385.html |
|
|
|quote = The princess' absence from public events since Christmas last year has, as you might have expected, spawned all kinds of conspiracy theories. It even gave rise to a whole Misplaced Pages article entitled "Where is Kate?" because people around the world are apparently that invested in the British monarchy and can't quite believe that she'd undergone abdominal surgery. |
|
|
|accessdate = 21 March 2024 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied |
|
|
|from1 = Catherine, Princess of Wales |
|
|
|from_oldid1 = 1217211342 |
|
|
|to1 = WP:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) |
|
|
|to_diff1 = 1217422601 |
|
|
|date1 = 5 April 2024 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}}<!-- The index template breaks if wrapped inside the banner holder --> |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Pinned Thread: Consensus on usage of "Catherine" vs. "Kate", "Kate Middleton"== |
|
Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Talk_page and http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Talk_page#Basic_rules_for_all_talk_pages. Thank you. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{archive top|'''Closed''' as an explanatory thread. ] (])}} |
|
==Ancestry and Commoner== |
|
|
|
The Misplaced Pages Community has reached a consensus on "Catherine" vs "Kate" in favor of '''Catherine'''. Please do not post threads on this subject without at least reading the following threads: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*] |
|
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. |
|
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are numerous additional threads on this subject in the archives as well. ] (]) |
|
==Clarence house== |
|
|
|
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 23:21, 28 April 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2029879305}}<!-- END PIN --> |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Post Nominal Letters == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where are her GCVO and CH? ] (]) 23:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:At ]. ] (]) 07:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:They should not be listed in the opening sentence anyway as per ] (amended based on ]). <span style="font:'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 09:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
==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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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! ] 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. ] 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. :) ] 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. ] 9:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: Yes Princess Diana certainly got around! ] 19:52, 21 August 2006 (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. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 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? |
|
|
|
|
|
: I'm not your "dear", you have no idea whether I "like" her or not, or what I would "want"; you seem to be illogical as well as ill-informed; sign your talk page statements; discredit would be a more likely response to silly notions of "unofficial" girlfriends than it would be to a statement of fact. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 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. ] 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. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And I am sorry for that. I am rather new. I will pay better attention next time. :)] 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 (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) it will be converted to a link to your userpage when you save it: ] (instead of taking you to a page that shouldn't be created (]). - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== This woman has her own article why?... == |
|
|
|
|
|
This woman is unimportant. What importance does she have in any circle besides that of her immediate friends/family and such? Being the mere girlfriend of a Prince is hardly worthy of an article in an Encyclopedia. Not only are there no plans to marry, but until so, she is nothing but a woman who got lucky by landing a monarch, who (btw) has no political power anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
: There's a very good chance this woman will be Queen one day. Oh, and wikipedia is not a soapbox. ] 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but it seems that many people on this site and Britian are hopeful that William and Kate will marry someday. I do not see much harm in having the article for the time she is with William. There is a very good chance they will marry and a very good chance that they will not. If not then they can delete this article or change it. There is no way to know if she will be the next Queen because they are so young now. ] 18:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Misplaced Pages Community has reached a consensus on "Catherine" vs "Kate" in favor of Catherine. Please do not post threads on this subject without at least reading the following threads:
