Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales

Unemployed?!

It's really weird that the Duchess is listed as unemployed. Is that a subtle joke or something? It's technically true, but.... -- Sleyece (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's clearly opinionated and poorly cited, if at all. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding her notable media name of "Kate Middleton" in the lead paragraph

Hi,

I added in the intro statement that Catherine "is also referred to by the media as Kate Middleton," which is factually true. Yet someone undid by edit and told me to first discuss it here. I see in an above section that someone advised against referring her by that name as she is not really called that by family or friends. However, I think we can include the name "Kate Middleton" in the intro because the media does indeed call her that and the general public a large knows her by that name as well. As Wikipedia is not a page for representing people just by how they should 'officially' be called, but rather how they are known by the public at large for notability's sake, I think including the name "Kate Middleton" is important.

After all, just look at the headlines of most of the references in the article at the bottom of the page and many- actually most- of them use "Kate Middleton." (Simply do a Ctrl + F search for it, click 'Highlight All' and you can see how many times its used). And yet in the article itself, the name is never or rarely acknowledged! In fact, the term "Kate Middleton Effect"- which is a separate article link in itself- is used in the intro paragraph; if so, then why not just specify that the public call her that in the first place?

So for those reasons I think, as per notability, it is valid and common-sensical to acknowledge the media's nickname for her. --Rush922(talk) 18:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

[Edit]- Sorry I forgot to login into my normal account for the above comment. Also, my mistake, that "Kate Middleton effect" wasn't an article link like I thought, but the point is that they still used the name in the article so they acknowledge its importance.Rush922(talk) 18:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have worked on this talk page before: @Surtsicna:, @Doxedevenexia:, @Willthacheerleader18:, @GoodDay:, @DrKay:, @Keivan.f:. Just to clarify, I propose that the first sentence can be as follows: "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, GCVO (born Catherine Elizabeth Middleton; 9 January 1982), often informally referred to by the media as Kate Middleton, is a member of the British royal family." Rush922(talk) 20:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

References

It's so annoying when the news media keeps calling her Kate & Kate Middleton. I mean, didn't they cover the 2011 wedding? GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of covered by 'Kate Middleton effect'? It seems to be overkill to have to spell out why the effect is called that. The abbreviation of her first name can be inferred. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Seem agree with Celia, do not think it is needed in the lead, it is clearer that the media outside of the tabloids are using Duchess of Cambridge and "Kate Middleton" is becoming rarer. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with the other users. It's totally unnecessary to include the nickname in the lead sentence, especially since it's not used by her husband and family. Keivan.f^Talk 01:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It is hardly just the 'news media' that use this name. Probably most of the people on the planet that have heard of her use 'Kate'. I suspect that most of her extended family do as well, now. It is simply the name by which she is best known and is not very different, in essence, from the Queen having an 'official' birthday and an 'actual' birthday, or as the Trump might say, a birthday and a fake birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.45 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree, and many people will not make the link between Kate and Catherine, so will not know that this article is about Kate Middleton, especially given that the "Kate Middleton redirects here" is way too subtle and easily missed. Rebroad (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind something like "known in the media as Kate", but she's not known by anyone as "Catherine, Kate, Duchess of Cambridge", so that's not an appropriate option. DrKay (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ummm. you readily concede that she's known in the media by Kate, and yet argue "she's not known by anyone as Kate"... She's known by most of the population therefore as Kate. How is that "not known by anyone"? Rebroad (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

better picture suggest

..why so tired and with flash contrast main picture (commons:File:The_Duchess_of_Cambridge_Belfast.jpg)?

please check and change to this better:

Duchess of Cambridge in Mumbai, 2016 commons:File:Duchess_of_Cambridge_met_cricket_legends_Sachin_Tendulkar_and_Dilip_Vengsarkar.jpg

--151.38.46.193 (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

'Upper middle class'

Really?

Is everyone whose parents were a 'flight dispatcher and flight attendant' classed as *upper* middle class? Even middle class would be stretching it for many people, and probably for most people generally regarded as actual upper class.

Of course, whether 'class' has any significance outside being a historical quirk is another question altogether, but for those who donate their lives to the class game they have to play by the rules, and others, and history have made those rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.45 (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This is referring to the British social class system, not the American. Her father's family were members of the gentry. Their social class has nothing to do with their professions. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Main Picture

I donno guys she is next in line to be Queen of England. Why is her cover picture so casual? She is quite regularly seen in beautiful lavish gowns and royal jewelry, why is her cover photo on wikipedia in a starter jacket? Is there any way this picture can be replaced with a better picture? Possibly something in a dress, wearing a tiara or something customary for Princesses and Queens? The future Queen in a starter jacket could that be construed as an insult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armelpeel (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If you know of a better image that is actually free to use then you are welcome to suggest it. Most images you will find are actually copyrighted and cant be used or of poor quality. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Well a picture something like this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/luxury/2018/10/24/TELEMMGLPICT000178753457_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqgT8zZtBsXoP7WFAPAlxQQOHBtqdvYK5aNB_FkHIfPfI.jpeg?imwidth=1400

Seems much more appropriate. I dont understand why some weird picture from a soccer game in North Ireland is the only acceptable photograph of the future Queen of England. There seems to be so many pictures of the royal family released into the public domain is this the only one you guys could agree on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armelpeel (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That picture isn't public domain. We can only use free, uncopyrighted images. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We used to have this one as the main photo, but someone objected to her facial expression. I find it better than the current one. Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction

I think there's some sort of contradiction (and maybe also repetition) in two different parts of the article right now. In #Early relationship it is stated that "In 2010, Middleton pursued an invasion of privacy claim against two agencies and photographer Niraj Tanna, who took photographs of her over Christmas 2009. She obtained a public apology, £5,000 in damages, and legal costs." Then in #Privacy and the media it is said "In 2009, before her engagement to William, Middleton was awarded £10,000 damages and an apology from the photographic press agency Rex Features Ltd. after she was photographed playing tennis on Christmas Eve while on holiday in Cornwall."

Are these referring to the same incident? If so, then why in one part it is said that she received £5,000 in damages while in the other one it is stated that she was awarded £10,000 damages? Can someone help with clarifying this? Keivan.f^Talk 03:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing comma; can't edit since page is protected

> The following day the courts granted an injunction against Closer prohibiting further publication of the photographs and announced a criminal investigation would be initiated.

There should be a comma between "Closer" and "prohibiting." The lack of one makes it sound like the injunction prevents Closer from prohibiting publication, which makes no sense. cluth (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You made this change, then undid it, and then posted here to say it should be done. So, I've redone it. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think I intentionally undid the change; perhaps the fact the page was protected meant the system automatically undid it. Anyway, thanks for fixing. cluth (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

37.200.24.191 (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear what changes you want made. DrKay (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)