Talk:Princess Beatrice

message: She dose'nt look 16...
Women lie about their age.
:Not when you're royalty, you don't! Her age has been marked and written about since her birth. And since she has such an unusual birthdate (8/8/88), people will remember that. So if she tries to change her age, they'll know. She is 17 now, and will be 18 in August. Stephe1987 21:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As she's only 5th in the line of succession may be not yet :( Brandmeister 02:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that she's supposed to get the Coat of Arms at 21. But she could get it at 18, too. We'll see. She'll be 18 in in a little over four months. Stephe1987 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Queen granted Arms to Her Royal Highness by a Warrant dated 18 July 2006. Brian | (Talk) 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: She is listed on the Marlborourgh College page as an almuna, is this correct? I didn't think she went to marlborough. 130.195.86.36 22:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Random discussion about age

message: I found this phrase in the Princess Beatrice of York#Future section.  Is "precendance" a word?  Or is this a misspelling of "precedence".  Anyway, can someone shed light on what is the intended meaning of this phrase?  Thanks.  --tess 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Order of precedence (ladies) DBD 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the link doesn't work. I think the word "ladies" has been replaced by "women" over at the precendence page... 85.227.226.168 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  "Precendence"?  Is that another misspelling of "precedence"?  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "order of precendance of ladies"

message: Why is "She was the first Princess to be born into the immediate Royal family since the birth of Princess Anne in 1950" marked "citation needed". Isn't this fact quite obvious? 85.227.226.168 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the American word for this is "zing!" DBD 22:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation? 

message: The article refers to her Coat of Arms, I was wondering if anyone knows where an image of it can actually be found?  As the article gives no reference Jamandell (d69) 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms 

message: :Image:Beatricetatler.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Beatricetatler.jpg

message: I remember I was 14 and visiting my grandparents in Richmond, Indiana USA.  The news was all over the new princess being born and what a unique date it was.--Pittsburghmuggle 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 8/8/88

message: :Image:Beatricetatler.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Beatricetatler.jpg

message: It is reported that Princess Beatrice will read history at Goldsmiths, but I have also read that she will read textiles, fashion, design, or something like that. Is there any definite information about this? Is there any explanation about her choosing Goldsmiths?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: University

message: I notice that in the section on the princess' early life, there are several individuals mentioned who are currently red links: unless anybody thinks them particularly notable and intends to write pages for them, I'm going to de-link them. I'll give it a week or so to see if anyone comments: if not, I'll be bold  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red-linked relatives 

message: In the section "Titles and styles" it explains that Beatrice has no surname, but uses "York", just as William uses "Wales". 
:Past precedent is that such surnames are dropped from usage in adulthood, after which either title alone, or Mountbatten-Windsor is used.
The statement that such surnames are dropped in adulthood is sourced to this page from the Official Website of the British Monarchy. However, that page does not make any such claim. Is there a real source for that claim, or should it be removed from the article? Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious counterexample is Michael of Kent. —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I removed the bogus sentence. —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname 

message: References to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg are being added to multiple articles related to the Royal Family of the Commonwealth realms, and yet, not one reliable source has been provided. I yesterday began a discussion about this at Talk:House of Windsor#House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Input there by interested parties would be appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

message: The hat should probably get a brief mention; it's been the cause of by far the most media coverage she's received in recent years in the United States. AnonMoos (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: its totally a meme now and getting bigger and bigger, if we can have an article for a royal dress why not a royal hat  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.247.194 (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think it deserves a separate article of its own, but it does deserve a mention in this article (which it now has...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes here it is , although adding this even here may contravene Wiki policy on advertising? Even though it's for charity? It has had 53 bids and is at £16,100 with over 5 days still to go. As expected, bidders and buyer(s) can remain anonymous in this auction. 86.146.153.118 (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to add a direct link from the article to an auction which will finish in a few days anyway, but a general cited mention of the hat (as in the article now) is a good idea. AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hat

message: She has no middle names listed, but I can't believe she doesn't have any! 2.25.156.75 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Found, and added. 2.25.156.75 (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What was your source? The usual format for he opening sentence of an article for a member of the Royal Family is to have the full name in brackets. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  middle names 

message: *Someone spelled the word organized wrong. They spelled it organised. It is in the section Official Duties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christmas6 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 24 May 2011
**"Organised" can actually be spelled both ways, although I believe "organized" is more traditional. BTW, if something like that needs to be fixed, you can always fix it yourself. ;) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 00:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling error

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Beatrice2009 youngvictoria.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: What has Princess Bea been doing since her graduation from Goldsmiths? It seems pretty clear she and Eugeiene are not likely to carry out a schedule of engagements like their father, or be put on the Civil List, no matter how much their father or mother want. Does she have a job? Is she partying with two police detectives in tow? What's she going to do? 74.69.6.182 (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  post-Goldsmiths 

message: HRH the Princess Beatrice of York accompanied her grandparents the Queen and Prince Philip to York Minster for the Royal Maundy service on 5th April. Should be added under 'official duties'.
:I agree that it was a significant occasion but I do not believe it was an "official duty".  The Princess is not listed as a working member of the Royal Family by Buckingham Palace and receives no emolument from the Privy Purse. She carries out engagements as a member of the Royal Family; she does not perform official duties.  I have amended the section to make this clear.Strawbridge2017 (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice of York is not entitled to the be styled as "HRH the Princess Beatrice of York.  The use of the prefix "the" is reserved for children of the Monarch. Strawbridge2017 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maundy service 

message: Princess Beatrice of York had the privlidge of riding in the state Bentley this Christmas to church at Sandringham with Her Majesty. Add under 'official duties' 74.69.11.229 (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Rising in a motor car cannot be considered to be an official duty. The Princess is not listed as a working member of the Royal Family by Buckingham Palace and receives no emolument from the Privy Purse.  She carries out engagements as a member of the Royal Family; she does not perform official duties.Strawbridge2017 (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not an "engagement" or "official duty" it is just getting a ride to what is a private visit to the church. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas 2012 

message: In view of consensus favouring prose over a list format per WP:PROSE, especially when the list is not a list at all but a single item (per RfC: Bullet point in the Prince George "Title and style" section) and edit a similar format is in order here, per WikiProject British Royalty. --Qexigator (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While precedent shows it might be her title, we have no idea if it's actually her title until the Palace releases something saying so, just how we didn't add Princess Eugenie's married name until she was referred to as such in court circular.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's given now at https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_11.pdf. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, great find!--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles and styles, use of prose 

message: Suggest adding section on Career.Strawbridge2017 (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, Strawbridge2017. LavaBaron (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career 

message: Is it really necessary to have a paragraph devoted to her weight? How on earth is that worthy of its own section? She never seemed to have much of an issue and I'm not sure why it's particularly noteworthy here. I'm inclined to delete it as irrelevant. ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It has received widespread coverage in reliable sources. Irrelevant things don't receive widespread coverage in reliable sources, ChiHistoryeditor. LavaBaron (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

text: A bit like a hippo at a balloon convention? But puh-leeeze.... The Daily Beast? "... lost a ton of weight"?? Could we get any more tabloid? 217.38.163.209 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

text: We document the weight struggles of Oprah and Kirstie Alley who are not martial artists. Beatrice's weight struggles have received significant - not simply fleeting or one-off - coverage which can be sourced to high-quality RS. To obfuscate them from this article would be to whitewash it, to rewrite history for the sake of presenting a glamorized image of, what appears to be based on your edit history, a favorite celebrity of yours, Surtsicna. We present the facts at WP, glamorous or ugly. This is not a case of WP:UNDUE, the matter received widespread attention over a period of time. LavaBaron (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oprah and Kirstie Alley are in the performing arts, which you conveniently left out. They are television people. Beatrice is not. They actively spoke about their weight. Beatrice did not. Beatrice's weight has been nobody's business but hers. Your conclusion that she is my "favorite celebrity" on the basis of my "edit history" (?) is laughable. Should I bring up the fact that you tried to create a whole article called Scandals of Prince Harry?  Surtsicna (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Is there a WP policy of which I'm not aware that prevents us mentioning well-documented personal struggles of anyone unless they're in the performing arts? As for SOPH, bring it up if you like. I incorporated all the text of that into the main Prince Harry article and asked it be deleted since I decided it was a content fork. LavaBaron (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "By 2011, the Daily Beast noted that she'd "lost a ton of weight", quoting one London stylist who noted that "Beatrice can actually fit into many more clothes now".[11][13]" And my reaction to these vague comments is, "who cares?" Can it be proved that she does indeed wear "many more" clothes now? Why should anyone care? This is simply fat-shaming followed by a virtual pat on the head to a young woman who "succeeded" in looking more acceptable to a culture obsessed with women's so-called ideal bodies. Also, the information is 8 and 5 years old. Not particularly relevant anymore, if ever. ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  By that logic we shouldn't mention her birthdate. That's well over 8 years old. A biography is the life story of a person (good, bad and ugly) not what they've been doing in the last 6 months (and limited to only flattering things). LavaBaron (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Just wow. Surtsicna (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, right? LavaBaron (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her weight 

message: Should the following section be included in personal life? (The sources The Independent, Belfast Telegraph, Yahoo News, etc. have been deleted here for ease of consumption but are included in this diff: )
:"Beatrice has long struggled with maintaining a healthy weight. At the age of eight, according to reports, she was put on a diet, her mother at the time explaining that "over-eating sort of runs in the family". As an adult, in 2008, she was "castigated in the British press" over her weight after appearing in a two-piece swimsuit in the Caribbean.  In the aftermath of that, Beatrice said she promised herself she would lose weight. By 2011, the Daily Beast noted that she'd "lost a ton of weight", quoting one London stylist who noted that "Beatrice can actually fit into many more clothes now".
LavaBaron (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *Include. Several reliable sources and she herself have talked about her weight concerns, making it one factor in her current notability. More importantly, Wikipedia's coverage should not attempt to minimize, ignore, deprecate or steer the factors for which this BLP is  is known to the public in a direction that we consider more "appropriate." FactStraight (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense, Mendaliv. Do you support the inclusion of such a section in theory assuming resolution of the issues you've identified? I'm thinking about improving the sourcing with some other options I've found but would like to get your take first. LavaBaron (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine to include a brief discussion provided the sourcing is very good. Just bear in mind that BLP is a factor, and that Wikipedia isn't a gossip rag. I'm not saying that's what you're trying to do, but it's something to bear in mind. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Great input, Mendaliv- thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Great points, Mendaliv. She did also give an entire interview about her weight issues to the Daily Mail (obvs not a RS so didn't include it). The reason this originally piqued my interest is that I was wondering the other day how Fergie's well-publicized status as a celebrity spokeswoman for Weight Watchers had impacted her expanded family, looked up Beatrice on WP and found nothing on it to inform my question. A quick Google search, though, produced scads of info. Of course, the Firm has lots of faithful fans on WP and, thus, WP:DRAMA was born. :) LavaBaron (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see! Interviews aren't as horrible as you might think. They're tough to use in articles, but the fact that she's gone on record to talk about this sort of thing really softens the BLP concerns. I'm guessing that she talks about her mother's work for WeightWatchers in there somewhere, which might be the start of something worth including. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Mendaliv - any thoughts on People magazine as RS? Beatrice's personal trainer gave an interview to them  about the major lifestyle changes Beatrice undertook to lose the weight. People is a RS, non-tabloid lifestyle pub and, when someone completes the London Marathon, I sort-of feel that merits inclusion in their BLP, along with context about how this occurred. (I was going to try to put this into the original version before it was 3RR'ed away.) LavaBaron (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Excellent suggested wording Engleham IMO. Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I think you mean "like her mother's"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on weight struggles

message: * Include but do not expand further Transient mentions about a person's weight are WP:UNDUE, however, Beatrice's weight struggles have been an important, heavily documented, issue in the life of this former entertainment industry figure / film producer whose mother was a former Weight Watchers spokeswoman. We chronicle the weight struggles of other public figures (e.g. Oprah, Kristie Alley) when it was received consistent, ongoing coverage in WP:RS. The topic should be approached concisely, delicately and tastefully but it does a disservice to our readers for us to pretend this has not been a major aspect of her otherwise incredible life story. We have to present a person's biography accurately - the good, the bad and the ugly. If this is to be an encyclopedia, we can't promote glamorized, flawless versions of celebrities. (However, expanding it beyond this concise paragraph risks becoming UNDUE.) LavaBaron (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *Include. Several reliable sources and she herself have talked about her weight concerns, making it one factor in her current notability. More importantly, Wikipedia's coverage should not attempt to minimize, ignore, deprecate or steer the factors for which this BLP is  is known to the public in a direction that we consider more "appropriate." FactStraight (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense, Mendaliv. Do you support the inclusion of such a section in theory assuming resolution of the issues you've identified? I'm thinking about improving the sourcing with some other options I've found but would like to get your take first. LavaBaron (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine to include a brief discussion provided the sourcing is very good. Just bear in mind that BLP is a factor, and that Wikipedia isn't a gossip rag. I'm not saying that's what you're trying to do, but it's something to bear in mind. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Great input, Mendaliv- thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Great points, Mendaliv. She did also give an entire interview about her weight issues to the Daily Mail (obvs not a RS so didn't include it). The reason this originally piqued my interest is that I was wondering the other day how Fergie's well-publicized status as a celebrity spokeswoman for Weight Watchers had impacted her expanded family, looked up Beatrice on WP and found nothing on it to inform my question. A quick Google search, though, produced scads of info. Of course, the Firm has lots of faithful fans on WP and, thus, WP:DRAMA was born. :) LavaBaron (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see! Interviews aren't as horrible as you might think. They're tough to use in articles, but the fact that she's gone on record to talk about this sort of thing really softens the BLP concerns. I'm guessing that she talks about her mother's work for WeightWatchers in there somewhere, which might be the start of something worth including. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Mendaliv - any thoughts on People magazine as RS? Beatrice's personal trainer gave an interview to them  about the major lifestyle changes Beatrice undertook to lose the weight. People is a RS, non-tabloid lifestyle pub and, when someone completes the London Marathon, I sort-of feel that merits inclusion in their BLP, along with context about how this occurred. (I was going to try to put this into the original version before it was 3RR'ed away.) LavaBaron (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Excellent suggested wording Engleham IMO. Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I think you mean "like her mother's"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I removed the Sheeran tabloid story as anything that starts "According to a tabloid press report" is clearly not encyclopedic or particularly noteworthy. My removal was reverted with the comment that the incident was widely reported, it may have been widely reported but it is still trivia and tabloid stuff and should be removed per NOTNEWS. MilborneOne (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the story is not particularly encyclopedic or noteworthy, I'm not too keen on removing it, partly because there is not much of substance to say about her life and so almost everything said about her is suitable for a tabloid press report, but also (and more importantly) because it tells us something about her: that she parties with celebrities and is part of a rich young people social set. If a 'real' biographer ever wrote her life story, I think they might include this as a kind of 'vignette', as we might do. So, I don't particularly want to defend the one sentence on it, but I'm not convinced that one sentence is too much to devote to it. It seems proportional in comparison to the other content here. My edits were intended to make the sentence fair rather than a plea to keep it in. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the story, and am broadly in agreement with Celia Homeford. Of course this was trivial incident, but I suspect it is one of the few things (along with the royal wedding fascinator) that the person-in-the-street knows about Beatrice; and that it will still be remembered and reported in five or indeed ten years time. And (from the reports) the injury could easily have been much more serious. It is comparable to, say, her having been involved in a potentially serious car accident: I imagine we would probably still find that worthy of a one-sentence mention. That said, I'm really not happy with the current wording, "According to a tabloid press report ...", which comes across as implying "this story is dubious". As far as I'm aware, although the story was reported first in the Sun, and picked up from there by the respectable press, no-one has disputed the facts of the case. I would be much happier with a return to something along the lines of "... was the subject of press reports ..."; or removing that clause altogether, and simply starting the sentence "In November 2016, Beatrice accidentally cut Ed Sheeran's cheek ...". Eric Pode lives (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

text: And you are not a "keyboard warrior" because ...??? Eric Pode lives (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Tabloid reporting

message: There is a discussion at Charles, Prince of Wales, relating to this article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  British succession or not. 

message: For anybody unfamiliar with the British Royal Family and its line of succession, please note that Beatrice's future stepson, Christopher, who at this time is a young child, will not be added into the line of succession because he will not be a biological relative. Coming into the family through marriage does not give somebody a place in that line. The brave celery (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I do not see that anyone here has suggested that the article should say otherwise. Talk pages are for improving articles. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Not what I said. I said that when the wedding happens we will probably have an influx of people saying this should be added. It was pre-emptive. For people who are so famous a surprising amount of people don't know the line of succession. The brave celery (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on future stepson 

message: Her husband's title is no longer legally recognised in Italy and as he is a British citizen it is not recognised in the UK either. Consequently, I think that her name ought to be listed as HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs Eduardo Mapelli Mozzi not HRH Princess Beatrice, Countess Eduardo Mapelli Mozzi. That is how she will be referred to in the Court Circular. The body of the text can refer to his Italian title but it is not an official title. jwasanders (talk)
:The situation with abolished titles and their use outside the original country is much more complicated than at first seems - there are various conventions that continue to recognise the titles (and the UK has no concept of legal name anyway) but not any claims to power/territory historically association with them and most republics' governments don't seem to make any fuss these days. Rather than what we "think that her name ought to be listed as" we should see what it is listed as first. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The British Crown has a habit of recognizing foreign titles of abolished systems.. Look at their cousins, the Hanovers. Not to mention Princess Katarina of Yugoslavia. Perhaps a more appropriate example would be Princess Michael of Kent. Her German baronial title from birth had no legal standing in Germany. However, from my understanding, one needs permission from the Crown in order to use these titles in England (I believe this was why the Radziwiłłs could not use their princely titles in England. I don't believe any such permission has been made known for the groom's family. As such, I say we hold off on changing her title until we see what the Court Circular says. Otherwise it is merely speculation. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point talk   who  says - "Perhaps a more appropriate example would be Princess Michael of Kent. Her German baronial title from birth had no legal standing in Germany" -  I  am tempted to  remove her "illegal/defunct" German title from the Princess  Michael of Kent  page. The Germans abolished their nobility  system shortly after WW1. The princess  was born in the 1940s  so there is no way that her (birth) title is  anything more than a courtesy  title -  just like  Edo's. We need  to  be  consistent 175.32.11.165 (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. Unlike Mapelli Mozzi, the House of Windsor announced her marriage with her German title, so her's was recognized. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Does anyone know why there seems to be a white string or wire running from the right side of her head (her right) behind her head and extending across her left shoulder? When I first looked at it I thought it was a cochlear implant use by people with a hearing impairment, but it's not in her other photos. Overall the image is very good quality, but whatever that is, it's distracting. Sundayclose (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: She's wearing a microphone, which is moved up into a non-speaking position. DrKay (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: Are we stuck in the 50ies? Since when are women referred to by their husbands name anymore?? 78.55.75.134 (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprise! The institution based on the hereditary transfer of power is not the most progressive in the world. Who would have thought? Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi"?! 

message: There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III#RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house" which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on Charles III 

message: How come her jubilee medals aren’t listed but Edo’s Zara’s are? 2.24.250.51 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jubilee medals 

message: The notes state: ""  But this claim is unsourced. The illustration shows what appears to be a crown, not a coronet. Why is this? 86.187.239.160 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It also seems that crosses formy are the same thing as crosses pattee. So not sure which is the more correct term and when. 86.187.239.160 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

text: No, it's just a coronet as it does not have arches. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   Coat of arms 

message: A discussion is going on at the Commons concerning the copyright status of several coats of arms that are in use on pages related to British royalty. Please feel free to share your comments and input at :commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Coat of arms of Queen Camilla.svg. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 18:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coats of arms and copyright