Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 1

message: 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. <-- HAHAHAHA She has way more importance than YOU I am sure!
: There's a very good chance this woman will be Queen one day. Oh, and wikipedia is not a soapbox. 128.232.242.178 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This woman has her own article why?... 

message: 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?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.102.130 (talk • contribs) 
:I don't know who wrote the above because it is unsigned. I want to offer my services to this page. If there is anything I can do to help, such as find citations, and verify anything, please let me know. I am one who freely admits to being captivated by the coverage of this possible future Princess of Wales, Queen, etc.  It is silly, I know, but nevertheless, I would be lying if I didn't acknowledge it. I would love to assist with this article. What can I do?--Ashley Rovira 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion about People magazine is irrelevant to this article. Material in articles must be sourced, as is the relevant section about People and the queen. If you have a verifiable source which contradicts this sourced information, feel free to include it. Otherwise, it's perfectly relevant for the article as it's verifiable sourced information. The article isn't saying that the queen believes something; the article is saying, according to People magazine, the queen believes something.207.69.138.12 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article appears to say that a Palace spokesman said the queen believes it, which I don't believe for a second. A spokesman is someone authorised to speak on behalf of the person or organisation they represent - a "friend", "source" or "insider" is not a spokesman. Can anyone confirm that the People article even claims that a Palacespokesman said the Queen "would prefer to see Prince William take the relationship slowly and not rush into anything"? There is no direct quote in the Wikipedia article or citation. If People magazine was really told this by a Palace spokesman, it is a surprising there has not been more coverage as it would be a major story in the UK. Edit - forgot to sign Hobson 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  It's honestly not about what I *want* to believe. Please assume good faith:) The word spokesman is very important in this context. If a spokesman says something it is an official statement. If an "insider" says it, then it is a rumour. A Palace spokesman speaks on behalf of Buckingham Palace, which ultimately means the Queen. I have read quite a few stories about Kate Middleton and never once seen a paper or magazine claim to have a comment from a Palace spokesman about the Queen's personal feelings on the matter. I'm sure there's a lot of stuff I haven't read but would you mind awfully if I ask you to link to the story or, if it is not on the web, to reproduce the section with comments from a Palace spokesman here? I have found one story from People Magazine dealing with similar issues - this one, http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1564163,00.html - but it cites "friends" and "insiders" as its sources.
Also, there's no need for an encyclopedia article to include every bit of detail if by bit of detail you mean every newspaper or magazine article on the topic. There have been dozens of stories every day in the UK alone for many weeks now! We don't need to mention them all. What makes most sense is sticking to what we know, eg that Miss Middleton and Prince William are in a relationship, that she has appeared alongside the Queen at at least once again, that neither of them have made any public comment on the prospect of marriage, that they are the subject of intense media speculation (there have been lots of news reports about them) - I think all those things are facts, and there's plenty to say even by just sticking to the things that are strictly factual. Hobson 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  You make a very good point about the difficulty in knowing whether articles are reliable, and whether they got their information from anyone who really knows what they are talking about. This is why the use of the word "spokesman" in the Wikipedia entry is important. A spokesman is a person authorised to speak on behalf of the person they claim to represent, and what they have to say can be considered more reliable than comments made to journalists by "friends" or "sources", who as you say could be anyone! A Palace spokesman is someone who works in the Buckingham Palace press office - these people: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4163.asp I asked if anyone could confirm that People Magazine had reported that a Palace spokesman said the Queen felt a certain way. You said you can. So please will you do that? I have tried to find the article myself, but it doesn't seem to exist on the People website. Please will you give us the exact wording of the article? Hobson 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can I help? 

message: The debate above is not about a specific article, it is about the importance of accuracy and sources. It's important it stays in the talk page for a while and not just an archive. Hobson 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted talk page content 

message: Kate Middleton has been added in to the category "British Jews". This seems to follow an edit on January 22 by 84.148.1.115 which stated the Middleton family was of Jewsih origin. Another editor has changed this to read "British and Jewish origin". This may be correct for all I know, but is it something that needs verifying? I am wondering:
1) Is there any verification that the Middleton family is of Jewish origin?
2) Does it make sense to use a phrase such as "British and Jewish origin", as Britain is a country while Jewish refers to either ethnicity or religion or both. A person cannot be "half British and half Jewish" for example. Equally, a person would not be described as of "British and Anglo-Saxon origin".
3) If her family does have some sort of "Jewish origin", does this make her an English Jew? 
Hobson 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true, and totally unfactual. First of all, the term nationality is not to be confused with the term ethnicity. Jewish people are a ETHNORELIGIOUS group -  the term Jewish is used not only to refer to a religious view of an individual, it also refers to those who descent from the ancient Hebrews. That is ethnicity. Semetic race. They are a Semitic people of the Middle East, closely related to Arabs. The Jewish ethnicity and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the ethnic Jews. Nowadays, though, most of European Jews are Ashkenazi Jews, meaning they are of mixed ethnicity, but still have Semitic ancestry. This is due to intermarriage of ethnic Jews with individuals of other ethnicities who converted to Judaism, whose status within the Jewish ethnos has been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia. This means that a person who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion, but is born to a mother or father with a Jewish ancestor is still genetically a Jew, and that does not depend on their parents religious views. Religious views, or a lack of those views for that matter, cannot change the facts of a blood line. This means that the term Jewish can mean either only ethnicity or only religion, or both.Only facts1 (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

text: A person with a single Jewish great-grandparent is not usually considered to be a Jew, especially if they do not define themselves as one, whoever they are. Possibly if there is un-interupted female descent they may be (if your mother's mother's mother was a Jew then you may be, even if you are the Pope, according to some definitions. See , although of course Wikipedia is not a sufficient source on which to base Wikipedia entries). It seems unlikely in Miss Middleton's case, as the name Goldsmith presumably came from a male ancestor. By the way, having the surname Goldsmith does not mean someone is a Jew, even if it is a surname some Jews have. I don't know if anyone has found any source at all to verify that she has any Jewish ancestors, beyond her mother's maiden name. Perhaps she does, but it seems to me like quite a leap to say that therefore "she is an English Jew" as Wikipedia currently does. I think Rose has improved the article, but question 1) above still stands - is there any verification that the Middleton family is of Jewish origin (or partly of Jewish origin)? Hobson 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think someone just assumed based on the last name and added it, because I can't see a reliable source for it anywhere. It could be true - though there are certainly non-Jewish Goldsmiths in England. BTW, apparently the Princes may already be Jewish in the halachaic sense - I remember seeing some kind of weird and lengthy family tree of Princess Diana that went back to a direct female Jewish ancestor around 1700, though it may have been unverified. Mad Jack 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I remember seeing some kind of weird and lengthy family tree of Princess Diana that went back to a direct female Jewish ancestor around 1700, though it may have been unverified". No, it's verifiably untrue  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakewoomera (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

text: This family tree definitely answers the question -  - she isn't Jewish at all. The "Goldsmith" lines tracks back to about 1850 England, and even that original Goldsmith ancestor was married in a church. Plenty of non-Jewish Goldsmiths, and I'm sure this great-great-etc.-grandparent was one of them. Mad Jack 08:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish? 

message: Seems someone has changed the names around in this article, changing Kate Middleton to Catherine "Hannah" Pennell? 125.238.32.121 04:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's called vandalism. And pretty childish at that. I have restored the earlier "Kate" version. - fdewaele, 30 January 2007, 9:30.
Yes, there has been more vandalism to the article, lately.  As Kate Middleton becomes more popular there will probably be more.  If it continues, then I think we should ask that the article be protected from unregistered users, they seem to be the ones commiting most of the vandalism.  RosePlantagenet 13:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hannah Pennell? 

message: This is the first time I am attempting to use the Talk page, and I'm not familiar with the protocol yet.  I am utilising this method because in reading the encyclopedic entry for Kate Middleton I discovered some incorrect information.
Kate's Father Michael Middleton is not in any way related to a coal-mining family.  He is in fact related to the wealthy and well-known Lupton family, who mainly reside in Leeds, Yorkshire, where Michael Middelton was born.  Kate's mother Carole Middleton (nee' Goldsmith) is the person whose ancestors were, in fact, coal miners.  I have links to information that substantiates both Michael Middleton's lineage and Carole Middleton's lineage, but the links I have are available to anyone; I'm wondering why the incorrect information has not been corrected yet?  I actually see several blocks of incorrect information, and I was wondering why it has not as yet been corrected?  Also, what is the purpose of the "Gladys" section?  Kate Middleton has not been referred to as Gladys more than one time, how is it logical to name an entire section in an encyclopedia entry with a nickname that has actually been applied to the Duchess of Cornwall, but not to Kate Middleton herself more than one time?  Can that be corrected as well?  Lastly, the current entry does not seem to have a Neutral Point Of View, like a person would expect an encyclopedia entry to have.  This entry seemed to be be more normal in appearance last year, but in recent months it has changed to look more like personal blog entries rather than a neutral encyclopedia entry.  How can that be corrected?  I would like to make some corrections and adjustments, but I did not want to do so without finding out who the editors were, and what things I am allowed to adjust.
Thank you for assisting me with this.Mapleleaf07 09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. Click on the link for more information:) Hobson 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information 

message: In reference to my edit earlier today, please see WP:EL for info on what should go in external links. Hobson 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Now that she's no longer the future Queen of England, does she still merit inclusion on Wikipedia?--220.238.175.38 10:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some hidden limit on the number of wikipedia articles that means anything not 100% current needs to be removed? 81.178.100.244 13:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The only parts that are notable are those relating to her relationship with Prince William. The section on her early life has no place here (are her exam results really notable?) She is now just any other random person. As her only claim to any notability flows from William, this article should be merged into the Prince William article. Rafy 13:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Saying someone isn't notable enough to have their own article on the day(s) that person is the top story in national newspaper / news outlet is probably going a little bit too far don't you think? Maybe in the (near) future when/if not many people is interested in her anymore, sure, but not right now. -- KTC 14:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with KTC's point.  And, just because they've broken up does not mean they won't get back together or that she'll never be Queen.  Remember Camilla?  She came back years later.  Many people break up and then get back together.71.65.202.41 18:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that she is on again with the prince and it is in the news and in pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.59.55 (talk • contribs).
Actually, I did see the news, and the news never said they were on again and off again.  The news said it was simply speculation.  Again, this is an encyclopedic article and not a fansite. RosePlantagenet 11:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: There's been quite a few edits to this section, particularly about the reasons for the split. I have made some changes, i) to ensure it is made clearer that the many reasons given for the couple splitting have all been ascribed to anonymous sources and ii) to ensure that the possible reasons mentioned in this article are indeed referred to in the newspaper articles cited. It may well be possible to improve my edits but can I ask that any other reasons mentioned are cited. As the whole thing is speculation anyway, it needs to be speculation from a leading and established news source at least. Hobson 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the relationship 

message: As of the moment, the reunion is speculation.  There is no proof they are back together.  It has been stressed in earlier discussion that speculation is no longer allowed.  This article is not a shrine for Kate Middleton.  If you are a fan of her that is fine but please do not use this article to press your point of view or it will be removed.  Wikipedia is not a fansite. RosePlantagenet 12:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone reduce all based only on Daily Mail like sources, please. --Spacey 09:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: and even that is pure speculation based on Daily Mail like sources. The "girlfriend", the "former" and the "reunion", are there any  official sources? --Spacey 00:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That are the levels from pretty clear speculation or BBC reported speculation and pure speculation. The "official" denials should be out, cause there's nothing official at all. --Spacey 09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest to indicate the fact and the speculating parts --Spacey 08:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: Recent media reports have said that she and Prince William are on a romantic holiday on Desroches Island in Seychelles. See google news. I am assuming the article has to be modifed accordingly. --RajivShah 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until there's a picture of them together again, it would probably best be phrased as speculation.  The problem is how to write that in an encyclopedic way. Ariadne55 16:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fact that they are in Desroches island in Seychelles (it has been confirmed by the Seychelles authorities and http://justjared.buzznet.com/2007/08/20/kate-middleton-prince-william-vacation/#comment-1804651 here there are picture of Kate at the Seychelles airport). Generally when a two persons of the opposite gender take a room at a hotel for 1 week they do not do so because they are "just friends". --RajivShah 19:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The pictures have been taken at the Seychelles airport. See the comment I added in the link above. Anyone who went to Seychelles airport can confirm that these pictures have been taken at the Seychelles airport. 2 or 3 days ago the Seychelles TV (the SBC) said that they were in Seychelles. The TV called Desroches island to ask for an interview and they were told that Prince William did not want to talk to the press. That's a confirmation that he is in Seychelles. Furthermore on the 21stof August the SBC made a report in which they said that Paparazzi had been intercepted near Desroches Island. They interviewed the manager of the Island Development Company (which manges all the outer islands of Seychelles) who said that they had placed some security on the Island to prevent any Paparazzi from approaching to take pictures of William and Kate (once again confirming that they are on holiday in Seychelles). The news bulletin for that day can be found here (it is in Creole though). So the fact that they are on this Island on holiday is just plain verifiable facts. If you have any problems accessing the video just go to the parent directory and select the one for 21st of August 2007. --RajivShah 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The report starts at 16 min and 24 sec. At 19:54 the journalist says : "He [Mr Savy, the CEO of the Island Development company] had asked the coast guards to help them during the stay of Prince William here...". Later on he confirms the presence of both Prince William and Kate on the island. --RajivShah 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You have a point for the relationship and I did not deny that in my previous post. I am simply saying that it is a verifiable fact (not coming from the likes of The Sun but from the authorities of Seychelles) that they are on holiday in Seychelles at the moment (something which you seemed not to believe). What about including at the end of the article "they spent a one week holiday in Seychelles together." and that's all. When either of them confirm that they are together then we will say it in the article. --RajivShah 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It was more the fact that they are together on vacation. That would be similar to saying that Kate attended the concert for diana. But anyway I see your point. --RajivShah 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The vacation did happen. It has been confirmed by the Seychelles govt (read above).--RajivShah 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Where are the photos? All the photos they give are old! 2) Of course the Seychelles govt confirmed the trip. They want the media attention and the business of future clients. If people think Prince William was there with his girlfriend, they'll have heard of the place and think of possibly going there themselves. They could in theory be back together, but all these stories with no real backup are not proof. I also read somewhere that he was on the island and had friends there too. They can't even get their story straight. 24.10.61.104 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems they are back together 

message: Rather than keep seeing the first line changed back and forth in a slow moving edit war I have tried from something that does not say if she is or isn't. If she is or isn't is speculation and with out a source it can't be there. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think that it will either but saying that she is or she is the former without a source can be removed at any time. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Deep wisdom has spoken and we thank you for that. There is no real source of this relationsship, but that Kate is famous for it. --Spacey 21:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  current/former 

message: If Kate was eventually to marry William, under his current title of Prince William of Wales, what would her title be? Would she be Princess William of Wales, Princess Kate, nothing, or what? Anyone know? --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If William and Kate were to marry, then yes, she would be styled and titled  HRH Princess William of Wales as wives of British princes take their husbands names, as do all married women (for example: Princess Michael of Kent).  If, they were to marry, and the Queen gave William a title (The Duke of X), then Kate's title would be HRH The Duchess of X. Kate would never officially be "Princess Kate" as that form is used only for the daughters/granddaughters of the monarch. For more info, you can check the articles on British prince and British princess. Hope that helps. Prsgoddess187 11:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All married women? I think you'd find some people outside the Western world beg to differ... Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And not a few inside the Western world as well.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles? 

message: An anonymous contributor has repeatedly added  the category :Category:English Jews to this page (apparently on the theory that her mother's maiden name "sounds Jewish", and that Judaism being matrilineal, Kate Middleton is therefore Jewish). The logical flaws are, I think, obvious. In the absence of an actual reference for this purported "fact", the category doesn't belong here. In fact, Kate Middleton's maternal line is quite well-known. She descends from Elizabeth Dunn, b. abt. 1660, d. Oct. 1719 (Dunn ☞ Proud ☞ Douglas ☞ Atkinson ☞ Peacock ☞ Swailes ☞ Myers ☞ Temple ☞ Harrison ☞ Goldsmith ☞ Middleton). None Jewish. - Nunh-huh 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the site, which is reliable, despite your misinterpretation of their caveats. - Nunh-huh 18:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear that you have no clue as to which genealogic sites are reliable. William Addams Reitwiesner is the author of American Ancestors and Cousins of The Princess of Wales and of The Lesbian Ancestors of Prince Rainier of Monaco, Dr. Otto von Habsburg, Brooke Shields, and the Marquis de Sade. His website has been the source for numerous newspaper stories (most recently about the slave-owning ancestors of Barak Obama), and is regularly used as a source on WIkipedia. He is honest enough to indicate that his site may contain errors - a warning that applies to any source whatsoever - but does not mean that his site should not be used. If we didn't use sources that might contain errors, we would use no sources. The site is in fact researched extensively; that it is open to emendation and characterizes itself as a draft  is no disqualifier. Kindly do not remove this until you achieve some sort of agreement that it should not be used. - Nunh-huh 01:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, you began the process by summarily removing a source you were unfamiliar with rather than discussing it on the talk page. And no "errored information" is being sourced. - Nunh-huh 19:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: When your removal of a perfectly good source is repeatedly reverted, it's time to stop reverting and start talking, because it's a clear indication that there's a disagreement to be settled. That's why I brought it to the talk page. - Nunh-huh 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not that you were "hesitant about adding that site": you were actively removing it. It's good that you agree, now, that it should stay. - Nunh-huh 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly the Lesbian ancestors title was meant to amuse (particularly as it was written when lesbian rumors were floating about one of the persons mentioned in the title). But though the title is amusing, it's a serious work - "Lesbian" meaning "pertaining to the island of Lesbos in the northern part of the Grecian archipelago". You can read it online here. Albert II, Prince of Monaco is a 23nd generation descendant of Francesco I Gattilusio, founder of the Lesbian Gattilusii dynasty. - Nunh-huh 00:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our anonymous Jew-labeler 

message: Having checked the source which details her father's background - it is http://www.leedstoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=102&ArticleID=1760281, source 3 in the footnotes - it seems Kate's grandfather's father married a Lupton. I think mentioning the connection to this family in the article would give it undue weight, as it's not much of a connection. Perhaps there is scope for a little more about her father's family background, as there's a bit about her mother's. For now, I've just put in that he is from Leeds.Hobson 00:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand the point of this.  Is the idea that the Luptons are some kind of blue bloods and establishing a connection between them and Kate Middleton somehow makes her more worthy to be Queen?  Really, its the 21st century, who gives a f***? Chump Manbear 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leeds, Luptons 

message: This article bothers me. I understand Kate Middleton is the accepted steady girlfriend of Prince William. I also understand that the media desperately wants to push her as his future wife because they have invested a lot into the relationship, and they want their financial return. So I think that she has an article is appropriate. What bothers me is the way the whole article is presented. It strikes me as something you might find on a fansite, in the biography section. It just does not strike me as appropriately written for an The Free Encyclopedia. Kate Middleton is a person of some note now, having a world reputation and household name, a permanent celebrity no matter if she does not become Princess William. So she should have an article. But there is far too much IF and CLAIMS made in this page, with only at best The Daily Mail to back it up. I think the speculation should all just be erased. Even that story of the "breakup" from The Sun. A simple statement could be made to explain the on/off nature of the relationship, and the development of her media profile.
--Ashley Rovira 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Stephe1987 07:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The tabloid speculations should not be on here, good or bad. This includes all the breakup press. They broke up, but we don't need a list of reasons that are made up by the same tabs that, just days/weeks earlier, had Kate and Prince William ready to get engaged. It also includes the speculation about Kate being invited to spend Christmas with the Royal Family despite the "no-girlfriends" rule (is there a real source for this, or just tabloids again? Did BH or CH release any statements about this?) Another thing, Kate finally did quit her 3 days/week job with Jigsaw. There were some articles published about her going-away luncheon that Jigsaw does for the employees that leave. Her next job is said to be a photographer, but what kind is speculation, as well as if she'll go through with it or not. Maybe we'll get the pleasure of seeing a gallery soon (it would be nice to see Kate's work, since she was an art history student after all) or maybe it's just an idea of hers that she's considering but won't get the chance to go through with (like the children's clothing line). You never know... ;) Stephe1987 07:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much like a fansite? 

message: (1) What religion is she, if any? (This is significant because, if memory serves, if she married William, she would have to convert to Church of England if she wasn't already, or in any case not be Catholic.) 
(2) What information is known about her previous boyfriends? (This is significant because in previous generations, including Charles, royal men were expected to marry women who could at least pretend to be virgins.)
218.167.170.71 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that she's church of england, but I can't think of an article right now to verify it.   If you can find one, feel free to add the fact in with a reference.  If she were catholic, I'd assume it would have been mentioned and extensively discussed in the press.  As far as previous boyfriends, again, I can't find a reliable source on the matter, but if you have one you're encouraged to add it in. Vickser (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info to include, if possible 

message: This is just the official notice that :Image:William_and_Kate.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Vickser (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:William_and_Kate.jpg listed for deletion 

message: I saw someone added socialite to the introduction, and then someone else took it out, so I figured it might be worth starting an actual discussion on the matter.  While I agree that the introduction could be improved by having a term more descriptive than "English woman", I honestly can't think of anything more appropriate.  I don't think socialite is good because it's not generally a term that's used to describe her in the press, and really, she doesn't quite do the socialite thing of attending many parties and being known for it.  She doesn't seem to have a career though, since as far as I can tell the photographer thing hasn't resulted in any actual commissions.
Does anyone have any better suggestions for how we could phrase the introduction?  What are opinions on using socialite vs. woman in the intro? Vickser (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above, "English woman" could do with improving but socialite is not the right word [I was the one who removed it]. As Vickser says, she is not really a socialite. But what else to describe her bar woman - there isn't really. Work wise she is currently working for her family's company, so that doesn't really work. I think our only option is to leave it was "woman" and just hope they get engaged soon so we can put something better!--UpDown (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, what would people think of "... is the English girlfriend of Prince William of Wales."  Although, that seems a little little off, since describing her as the English girlfriend seems almost to imply that he might have another of a different nationality.  We could do just "... is the long-term girlfriend of Prince William of Wales." Any thoughts on that?  Vickser (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I decided to be bold and go ahead and change it myself, along with making some additions since a single sentence is really too short for a lead.  People are encouraged to change it around as they see fit. Vickser (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Think your changes are great, and certainly the best possible way to describe Middleton at the moment. As you say the lead did need to be longer. I mean to tidy this page generally soon, so if there is an engagement its in a far better state.--UpDown (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agreed that it's desperately in need of a clean up.  The chronology issues between the relationship and recent events sections are truly ridiculous.  It's been on my list of thing that I need to WP:SOFIXIT for a while, but I haven't yet found the time/motivation.  If you do get a chance to do some clean up, it would be excellent and highly necessary. Vickser (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've started. It's going to take some time, as the refs aren't that good (one ref that was meant to back up two things, back up neither!).--UpDown (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialite 

message: Why is the provenance of one of her great grandparents mentioned in the article?  In my humble opinion to put one of her EIGHT great grandparents out as being worthy of mention due to her last name reeks of classism and snobbishness.  The very fact that a person would be ashamed to be descended from working class people or that one of her great grandparents is worthy of mention over any other is not what wikipedia is about.  Her Lupton origins are irrelevant, perhaps a more relevant discussion would examine the snobbery with which some in the media and those dependent on their surname or titles regard her, a fact that puts to shame those doing the put downs.   Please consider this, and consider removing the reference to her great grandmother, or provide an extensive family history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.242.49 (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lupton family is mentioned because they are notable in the area, and the whole section is clearly referenced. I really think you are imagining any "classism and snobbishness". The section gives a short summary of her family's history, including her mother's working-class ancestors.--UpDown (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lupton? 

message: With her mother's surname being Goldsmith, is there a possibility that Kate Middleton is Jewish?? Has this been researched?Barmispain (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious heritage 

message: I note that Kate Middleton was in the crowd watching Andy Murray's match at Wimbledon today, without Prince William. (Her attendance is mentioned on the BBC Sport live update page.) Would that appearance be enough to invalidate the fair-use justification on the photo used here at the moment, given that it would seem to negate the "doesn't do public appearances" section of the justifying text? I have no opinion either way, but thought it worth asking the question. Loganberry (Talk) 17:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking it over, as much as it pains me (since we probably won't get a replacement photo for a while), I'm pretty sure this is no longer justified under WP image policy.  Since it's the right thing to do, I'm going to go ahead and nominate it for deletion, even though I'll do so with a heavy heart.  Vickser (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I reverted back to the other picture for a few reasons. I was putting them in the edit summary, and my finger slipped committing the change. Clumsy. Anyway, first, this is an article about Middleton, not about William. Therefore, it gives too much weight to the engagement and marriage. Second, if you look at the licensing information, it has some issues, and it's not clear that we should use it at all. Finally, there were some formatting issues inadvertently introduced, but those I could have fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo question 

message: Is the blatant Woolworths advertising on this page necessary?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.238.125 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "Woolworths advertising", especially since Woolworths is now defunt, so there is nothing to advertise. 79.78.38.160 (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woolworths 

message: There is the serious possibility that she will marry William before very long.  If so, what will her title be?  The most recent case of the wife of the oldest son of the oldest son of a British monarch was Queen Mary, who was fairly briefly Duchess of York.  By strict naming conventions she might be "Princess William of Wales" but I think people would baulk at that, as they baulked at "Princess Charles" for Diana.  She might be entitled to the courtesy titles of Countess of Chester and Carrick.  They will probably get round it by giving William a Dukedom (or an Earldom) before he marries, but are there any titles going spare? PatGallacher (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: She certainly won't be Countess of Chester or Countess of Carrick, just like William isn't Earl of Chester or Earl of Carrick. British princes never use their father's subsidary titles as courtesy titles. She will be "HRH Princess William of Wales" and will be formally styled as such unless William is granted a peerage title. Diana was always entitled to use "HRH The Princess of Wales" so she never really had to use "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales [etc]". It's been suggested that William will receive the Dukedom of Clarence. Surtsicna (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

text: it has been speculated in the british press with will become Princess Catherine (of Wales) Legalways (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: According to BBC World (TV,) the couple has announced their engagement and will be married in summer, 2011.  Update, please!  114.167.136.246 (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC says they're getting married 

message: William's course is said to be "tough". This is spamming.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: The well known actress Anna Middleton who was a star of the Royal Shakespeare Company in the 70´s 88.2.237.248 (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's your point?  Even assuming that a Jewish ancestor would be relevant to this article, none of the Princess-to-be's relatives mentioned in the article seem to be named Anna, unless I missed one.  Middleton sounds like a fairly common name to me. Neutron (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Her mothers maiden name is Goldsmith; a very common jewish name. I think it is relevant to add this information of Kate infact being Jewish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.14.109 (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's very true.  Surnames don't necessarily mean about a person's ancestry.  We once had a guest speaker at our church, a rabbi name Percy Johnson.  How Jewish sounding is that?  Colour names are usually Scottish anyway.
 
No mate I'm afraid your wrong Goldsmith is an English surname, originating from Norfolk.109.154.2.55 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

text: So for the sake of this beautiful young woman with her whole life before her (and who, with her chav blood and her Jewish blood, I just can't help believing is essentially marrying beneath her by throwing in her lot with the weirdest clan this side of the Addams Family), let us hope that her Prince has more of his mother than his father in him. 
On the other hand, JWeekly tells us that she is almost certainly not Jewish.. If we had a reliable source that indicated she had some Jewish ancestry it might be worth including since I'm sure it would generate some commentary but since it seems to be an unfounded rumor it doesn't seem worth addressing. GabrielF (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The ancestry of Kate Middleton is documented here (and indeed, this link and reference is used in this wiki article). She has no traceable Jewish ancestry, and her "Goldsmith" line goes back to an English carpenter named John Goldsmith who was born in the late 1700s in Kent. "Goldsmith" can just as easily be a non-Jewish English name as it can be a Jewish one (it's a simple occupational name in England), as can many other names that start with "Gold" (and Middleton herself has another ancestor on that tree surnamed "Golden"). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No I think you are all missing the point that she is IN FACT Jewish and GOLDSMITH IS A JEWISH NAME! How would I know this? Oh gee um let's see maybe because perhaps it's a Jewish last name!!! It is a common last name because Jews hundreds of years ago in Europe AND ENGLAND worked regularly in jewelry smithing; hence GOLDSMITH. I know many 'puritans' would have a problem with the next born heir to the throne of the UK being Jewish, much as you try to keep a breed of dog seperate from another, or a pig seperate from a mustang; but you must relinquish and add this important information to the article121.214.14.109 (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try using some logic here - not all goldsmiths were Jewish. That would be like stating, using your analogy, all spotted black and white dogs are Dalmations, which clearly they're not. Scrapbkn (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question can be closed no evidence that it is true (or relevant) and does not appear to be particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Goldsmith is an ancient Jewish name, and a very famous one. It was only used by practicing jews who, here's the complicated bit - where workers of gold or jewlers. I now this is an extremely uncomfortable situation for all the Royal admirers, indeed a very strange clan of humans, but the Goldsmith name is as Jewish as they get, just as Solomon and Jewison are. HOWEVER, this does not mean Kate or her immediate family are Jewish or practicing Jews. All it means is that her ancestors were Jewish jewlers. It really doesn't matter, however if the article is going to crawl on its knees to appease the royals by talking about her ancient Hugenot ancestry, the least it can do in the Wiki ideals of honesty and facts is mention her jewish roots which are obvious. I doubt however it will be a popular choice for the lovers of the Royal family editors and what they believe they stand for and I am sure they will attempt to cover it up and it will slowly leak like an old russian nuclear plant. All I am saying is in this day and age, it would be a lot more logical and mature to simply acknowledge all her ancestry, Royal compliant or not and thus describe and represent honestly the mixed society we inhabit in the UK. Anything else is just really sinister.Reaper7 (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Assertion is not argument. Give some evidence of Jewish ancestry besides the surname, which is obviously inconclusive. john k (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

text: All a bit original research and even if true is not really notable, then either is the mention of the scottish and hugenot lines. Not sure why anybody would be uncomfortable with jewish or any ancestors which is a bit of a presumption but as has been said not really notable to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reaper, "Goldsmith" is not an exclusively Jewish name. It's a name that can simply be of English (non-Jewish) background (consider Oliver Goldsmith). Middleton's last traceable "Goldsmith" ancestor was John Goldsmith, a carpenter who was born in Kent around 1783. At the time, though, most British Jews were Sephardic, and Sephardic Jews don't usually have names like "Goldsmith", making it unlikely that John Goldsmith was Jewish (frankly, even his first name, "John" - at the time - would have been an unlikely name for a Jewish man - unlike today). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

text:  Actually money exchange/lending and presious metal working were at various times exclusively jewish trades and one of the few they were restricted to in Europe. As for all Jews having to possess a Sephardic Jewish name in the 18 Century Britain, I believe that is unsourced nonsence. Here is an interesting article on Jewish names, Goldsmith is mentioned in context: Goldsmith.  Reaper7 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot believe we are still having this discussion. It doesn't matter how many Jews have had the surname of Goldsmith. It doesn't matter what articles say about the history of Jewish names, both surnames and given names, including, by the way, not surprisingly, articles at Wikipedia itself. What matters is whether there is any reliable source that indicates that a relatively recent (too remote won't cut it) ancestor of Middleton is Jewish AND whether that assertion is sufficiently notable to include in the article. I've resisted making comments to this topic because I don't want to encourage continued discussion, but I agree with MilborneOne's comment in the section above: "I think the question can be closed no evidence that it is true (or relevant) and does not appear to be particularly notable."--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Hey! at least she isn't Catholic - that would really put the cat among the pigeons!  Such biggotry really doesn't do Wikipedians justice, but really, what does it matter if she has, several generations back, some small amount of Jewish ancestry? If we all go back far enough, we are all related to each other. (see Mitochondrial Eve or Y-Chromosomal Adam for example). Lynbarn (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying that any suggestion or edit should be accepted without question regardless of supporting evidence to back it up?  Since when does seeking accuracy in light of baseless assertion equate to bigotry?  All people are really saying here is that a surname having more than one ethnic derivation isn't enough to go on. --ArmsHeldOut (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sorry, far from it, I didn't put my point very well. What I was trying to say was that whether she has or doesn't have jewish ancestry is not particularly notable or relevent to the article and the "Goldsmith" link is at best very tenuous. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kate Middleton´s Jewish connections 

message: The article talks about Kate's ancient descent including the Scottish and Huguenot lines. But surely if her mother's maiden name was Goldsmith - this is a famous name of Jewish descent, no matter how uncomfortable that may be for the Royals and their admirers. I understand Kate's mother is not a practicing jew or her immediate descendents (grandparents etc), but if we are going as far back for the pride of the royal family to the Hugenots, I am sure the Goldsmith connection is as strong, if not stronger. Could it be included? Or is only the ancient Hugenot and Scottish ancestors that must be mentioned and remembered? Reaper7 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All a bit original research and even if true is not really notable, then either is the mention of the scottish and hugenot lines. Not sure why anybody would be uncomfortable with jewish or any ancestors which is a bit of a presumption but as has been said not really notable to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reaper, "Goldsmith" is not an exclusively Jewish name. It's a name that can simply be of English (non-Jewish) background (consider Oliver Goldsmith). Middleton's last traceable "Goldsmith" ancestor was John Goldsmith, a carpenter who was born in Kent around 1783. At the time, though, most British Jews were Sephardic, and Sephardic Jews don't usually have names like "Goldsmith", making it unlikely that John Goldsmith was Jewish (frankly, even his first name, "John" - at the time - would have been an unlikely name for a Jewish man - unlike today). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

text:  Actually money exchange/lending and presious metal working were at various times exclusively jewish trades and one of the few they were restricted to in Europe. As for all Jews having to possess a Sephardic Jewish name in the 18 Century Britain, I believe that is unsourced nonsence. Here is an interesting article on Jewish names, Goldsmith is mentioned in context: Goldsmith.  Reaper7 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot believe we are still having this discussion. It doesn't matter how many Jews have had the surname of Goldsmith. It doesn't matter what articles say about the history of Jewish names, both surnames and given names, including, by the way, not surprisingly, articles at Wikipedia itself. What matters is whether there is any reliable source that indicates that a relatively recent (too remote won't cut it) ancestor of Middleton is Jewish AND whether that assertion is sufficiently notable to include in the article. I've resisted making comments to this topic because I don't want to encourage continued discussion, but I agree with MilborneOne's comment in the section above: "I think the question can be closed no evidence that it is true (or relevant) and does not appear to be particularly notable."--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Hey! at least she isn't Catholic - that would really put the cat among the pigeons!  Such biggotry really doesn't do Wikipedians justice, but really, what does it matter if she has, several generations back, some small amount of Jewish ancestry? If we all go back far enough, we are all related to each other. (see Mitochondrial Eve or Y-Chromosomal Adam for example). Lynbarn (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying that any suggestion or edit should be accepted without question regardless of supporting evidence to back it up?  Since when does seeking accuracy in light of baseless assertion equate to bigotry?  All people are really saying here is that a surname having more than one ethnic derivation isn't enough to go on. --ArmsHeldOut (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sorry, far from it, I didn't put my point very well. What I was trying to say was that whether she has or doesn't have jewish ancestry is not particularly notable or relevent to the article and the "Goldsmith" link is at best very tenuous. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldsmith 

message: delete "were working class labourers and miners"
we know there is a class system , dont rub our noses in it  
114.76.138.248 (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Not a valid reason to remove information. -Atmoz (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 114.76.138.248, 16 November 2010 

message: In addition to St Andrew's Pangbourne and Marlborough College, Kate also attended Downe House.  See this article in the Guardian for details: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/18/monarchy.features
94.195.173.79 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schooling 

message: Can't we get a photo of Kate with her future husband, rather than her future brother-in-law?  I mean, if there were several photos in the article, it might make sense to keep the one with Harry, but as the only photo in the article, it looks kind of odd.  I notice on this talk page that one pic of the happy couple was deleted, but with the amount of attention being paid to them now, it seems like we should be able to get a photo that we can use.  I would volunteer, but their home is an inconveniently long swim away from mine.  Neutron (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with this about wrong photo. 86.28.240.54 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice picture of a hat.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.140.233 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry, in Japan, we don't get pictures of her, why is she obscured by the UFO? Does she look weird on that one side?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, we're stuck with copyright-free images of living people. Unless there are any on Flickr (which I will now check), we must wait. Rodhullandemu 00:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: When I added the "refimprove" template earlier today, there were a total of 33 references. Since then, there has been an increase in references of 33%. Great job, everyone! This shows what can happen when we act collaboratively. We are all Wikipedians, and everyone deserves a pat on the back. AlaskaMike (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job on references