![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was wondering why we are putting Kate Middleton and Prince William in this when NOTHING has been confirmed about the two EVER by any of the official palaces! Until this is for sure I am taking it down.. there is NO official source for this. -- Lady Meg ( talk) 05:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are they two articles with the same title ( Duke of Cambridge and Duke of Cambridge) ? 82.237.218.242 ( talk) 11:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems odd that there is no distinction made here in Wikipedia between Dukedoms and Royal Dukedoms. As I recall, there are a number of Dukedoms traditionally reserved for royalty: Cornwall, York, Kent, Gloucester, the unfortunate Clarence, Cambridge, etc. etc. By the way, as of this morning, it is now official that William and Kate are the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Beowulf ( talk) 11:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
On the Earl of Wessex page it is alleged that he held the title for a brief time.
It does seem odd that the dukes and marquesses of Cambridge are kept together in one article while the Earls of Cambridge have their own article. Some dukedoms keep their precussor titles in the same page, such as the Duke of Fife or Duke of Buckingham, while the Duke of Cornwall has its precussor title the Earl of Cornwall in a separate page. I suggest the dukes, marquesses and earls of Cambridge kept together in one article or each split into three separate articles. HLE ( talk) 10:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Prince William, an heir to the throne of a hereditary monarchy, is descended from another member of that very same hereditary monarchy is hardly a coincidence. This entry is hard to follow and I'm not really sure what it adds to the article. -- EcoChap ( talk) 10:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not certain the section on "the only way" Prince George could inherit the titles is correct. For one thing, if the monarchy were to be abolished then it might also be that Royal Dukedoms and other Royal titles were abolished too. Also, no consideration is given to what would happen if the Duke of Cambridge were to renounce his claim to the throne or abdicate having succeeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oinky ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Duke of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a slowish edit war carrying on between a couple of users over who should be listed as first holder in the infobox. Can we please discuss this here, rather than having a back and forth on the article itself, which helps no one. Thank you.
As i see it, the question is, does "First holder" imply the first person of the current creation, which would be
William, or the first person of the first creation,
James. So, does the phrase "first holder" mean anything about the creation? Happy days,
Lindsay
Hello
08:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I am basing the current and previous royal Dukedoms on this template.
Dukedom of Edinburgh | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Creation | Third |
Created by | George VI |
Peerage | Peerage of the United Kingdom |
Status | Extant |
Mr Hall of England ( talk) 21:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
My personal view is that it makes sense to have the parameter filled, explicitly mentioning, if necessary, which creation is being shown. Leaving the parameter blank also has a lot going for it, especially in cases, such as the current one, when there are multiple creations. Despite the "creation =" parameter being present, i find that a silent use of the first holder of the current creation (William, for the Duke of Cambridge, his grandfather for the example given to the right) is rather disconcerting. That being said, infoboxes are only there to summarise key points from the article, so it's less important how we present what we put in the box than it is that we get the facts correct, both there and in the body. And that being said, the only thing that really concerns me is that we don't have a going back and forth between two styles or opinions. Let's come to an agreement, and stick with it. Happy days, Lindsay Hello 14:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was wondering why we are putting Kate Middleton and Prince William in this when NOTHING has been confirmed about the two EVER by any of the official palaces! Until this is for sure I am taking it down.. there is NO official source for this. -- Lady Meg ( talk) 05:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are they two articles with the same title ( Duke of Cambridge and Duke of Cambridge) ? 82.237.218.242 ( talk) 11:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems odd that there is no distinction made here in Wikipedia between Dukedoms and Royal Dukedoms. As I recall, there are a number of Dukedoms traditionally reserved for royalty: Cornwall, York, Kent, Gloucester, the unfortunate Clarence, Cambridge, etc. etc. By the way, as of this morning, it is now official that William and Kate are the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Beowulf ( talk) 11:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
On the Earl of Wessex page it is alleged that he held the title for a brief time.
It does seem odd that the dukes and marquesses of Cambridge are kept together in one article while the Earls of Cambridge have their own article. Some dukedoms keep their precussor titles in the same page, such as the Duke of Fife or Duke of Buckingham, while the Duke of Cornwall has its precussor title the Earl of Cornwall in a separate page. I suggest the dukes, marquesses and earls of Cambridge kept together in one article or each split into three separate articles. HLE ( talk) 10:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Prince William, an heir to the throne of a hereditary monarchy, is descended from another member of that very same hereditary monarchy is hardly a coincidence. This entry is hard to follow and I'm not really sure what it adds to the article. -- EcoChap ( talk) 10:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not certain the section on "the only way" Prince George could inherit the titles is correct. For one thing, if the monarchy were to be abolished then it might also be that Royal Dukedoms and other Royal titles were abolished too. Also, no consideration is given to what would happen if the Duke of Cambridge were to renounce his claim to the throne or abdicate having succeeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oinky ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Duke of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a slowish edit war carrying on between a couple of users over who should be listed as first holder in the infobox. Can we please discuss this here, rather than having a back and forth on the article itself, which helps no one. Thank you.
As i see it, the question is, does "First holder" imply the first person of the current creation, which would be
William, or the first person of the first creation,
James. So, does the phrase "first holder" mean anything about the creation? Happy days,
Lindsay
Hello
08:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I am basing the current and previous royal Dukedoms on this template.
Dukedom of Edinburgh | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Creation | Third |
Created by | George VI |
Peerage | Peerage of the United Kingdom |
Status | Extant |
Mr Hall of England ( talk) 21:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
My personal view is that it makes sense to have the parameter filled, explicitly mentioning, if necessary, which creation is being shown. Leaving the parameter blank also has a lot going for it, especially in cases, such as the current one, when there are multiple creations. Despite the "creation =" parameter being present, i find that a silent use of the first holder of the current creation (William, for the Duke of Cambridge, his grandfather for the example given to the right) is rather disconcerting. That being said, infoboxes are only there to summarise key points from the article, so it's less important how we present what we put in the box than it is that we get the facts correct, both there and in the body. And that being said, the only thing that really concerns me is that we don't have a going back and forth between two styles or opinions. Let's come to an agreement, and stick with it. Happy days, Lindsay Hello 14:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)