Talk:Katharine, Duchess of Kent

Untitled

• No doubt someone will want to invent an alternative title for this article. I wish you luck. Deb 16:54 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Note: At the time this comment was made, the article was at the title "Katharine Kent", before being cut-and-paste moved to its modern title. I've history-merged both this article and the early comment here. Graham87 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
• I have reverted from the previous version which talks about newspaper reports that the Duke and Duchess of Kent are to divorce. I could not find any authoritive source on these rumours. I would not say the Sun or Daily Mirror are appropiate sources for an encyclopedia. If it becomes official, then it can be reinstated. Astrotrain 22:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

The Duchess of Kent is best known for her conversion to Roman Catholicism, the first senior royal to do so since the passing of the Act of Settlement 1701.

To what extent is this really true? Ena of Battenberg converted to Catholicism, and she was the niece of Edward VII...Given that the term "senior royal" has no real meaning, I'm not sure this statement should be in there. john k 07:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The first person with the style and title of HRH then? I don't think Ena would be classed as a British royal? Astrotrain 20:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

All the talk of "relinquishing" the style Her Royal Highness isn't right. Styles are determined wholly by the Queen — one can't just decide one doesn't have a particular style any more. In the Duchess's case, nothing official has happened, and so she continues to have that style, regardless of whether she uses or wants it. The articles equates her with Princess Patricia of Connaught, but official documents were actually issued effecting Patricia's relinquishment, so the situations aren't at all the same. Also, saying that she expresses a preference for being formally styled "Katharine, Duchess of Kent" implies that she has a choice in the matter. Perhaps we can say she has said she would prefer to be styled that, but, as with HRH, she is "The Duchess of Kent" unless something official says otherwise. Proteus (Talk) 22:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It is incorrect to refer to the eldest son of The Duke of Kent as The Earl of St. Andrews. The correct form of address for this courtesy title is the Earl of St. Andrews. - it is however correct to begin a sentence with a capitalised word. Astrotrain 14:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

-- but a colon does not end a sentence...

• yes, but usually, on a new line, you would begin with a capital. Astrotrain 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We all by now understand that George Windsor, is not THE Earl of St. Andrews, that title still belongs to his father. But the sentence does look weird with a lower case the, especially as his sister is listed as The Lady Helen and his brother is The Lord Nicholas. Prsgoddess187 20:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move for this article and for other articles on Wives of Royal Peers see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Mac Domhnaill

The article should be changed to reflect the fact that The Duchess of Kent remains a Royal Highness. There isn't even any citation to reflect that she actually made the choice to not use the style. Additionally, she can't style herself as anything. Royal titles are directly the perview of the Queen and the The Queen still uses HRH The Duchess of Kent. Until an offical statement is made by The Queen that HRH The Duchess of Kent has lost ths style of Royal Highness then she sould continue to be addressed by it. She cannot style herself as Katherine, Duchess of Kent until she and The Duke actually divorce until then she has no choice in the matter. Queen Brandissima {{subst:unsignedIP|76.105.150.19|00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the reference to "Princess Diana" to read Diana, Princess of Wales. Diana was never ever Princess Diana. I also changed the "relinquish" part to chose not to use. She cannot relinquish the style even if she wanted to. Queen Brandissima — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.150.19 (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP issues

There are major BLP issues in the section that deals with the subject's health. What might be the source of those allegations of "not again"? Has the subject gone public with her health issues? Sources sorely needed. JFW | T@lk 11:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

marital problems

Any truth to the idea that the Duke and Duchess have unoffically seperated, which is one reason she uses the 'Katharine, Duchess of Kent' or "Katherine' nonsense instead of her proper Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent title? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20120229041929/http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDuchessofKent/Activitiesandinterests.aspx. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Katharine, Duchess of Kent. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120920212516/http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDuchessofKent/Activitiesandinterests.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDuchessofKent/Activitiesandinterests.aspx

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"had an abortion"

for clarification, perhaps the article could say "had a spontaneous abortion" - abortions can be spontaneous or therapeutic.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The citation says explicitly that she 'reluctantly agreed to have an abortion. It was her own decision..' That's not a miscarriage or a stillbirth or a 'spontaneous' abortion. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

School record

She left school with a pass in oral French and a "very good" in English literature.

Does that mean 'O' level? Valetude (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Date of birth

The year is incorrectly listed as 1833. I believe it should be 1933. YdnicG67 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Arms

Shouldn't her arms be depicted on a lozenge? 146.200.89.23 (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The late

why did people add this in? 121.98.92.167 (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Because she was known for never being very punctual? 86.187.236.155 (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Citation

A better- more detailed- citation is required than 'Le Petit Gotha' for her Cromwell descent. What edition, what page, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.193.119 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

synonymy

She also became synonymous with Wimbledon, where she presented the Ladies' Singles Trophy for more than three decades.

I disapprove of such use of synonymous. I'm no sports fan but has anyone heard of anyone playing tennis at the Duchess of Kent? —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

This comment had me instantly laughing! I would not readily use that description when talking about a person. Who, and did anyone, on published record use that description? If it was the case then it would be better to credit it in quotation marks eg 'She has been described by X as "synonymous with Wimbledon".Cloptonson (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I have changed the wording. ItsShandog (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

At least your rephrase makes the sentence a better informative one.Cloptonson (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I often played at the Duchess of Kent. Especially after she had her retractable roof fitted. 86.187.236.155 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

She was not the first member of the British royal family to convert since...

Beatrice, Duchess of Galliera, who as a male-line granddaughter of Queen Victoria was a British princess by birth and remained so until her death, was actually the first, in 1913. Kowalmistrz (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That looks like it is correct. But her article does not directly claim it. A source would be needed before the claim here could be removed or modified? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I have updated this info with a source. ItsShandog (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe it's also worth to mention the fact that although Beatrice was the first British princess to convert, she was not the first member of the royal family to do so. Her first cousin, Ena of Battenberg, did so in 1906, before her marriage to Alfonso XIII of Spain. She was also Queen Victoria's granddaughter but through a female-line, therefore formally not considered a British princess. However, a formal treaty was signed between the United Kingdom and Spain (actually, between her uncle, Edward VII and her future husband, Alfonso XIII) for her marriage. This proves pretty much that she was considered a member of the British royal family. Kowalmistrz (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The wording has been adjusted for now, pending further refinement. Given that at least two other royal conversions are documented, assigning a numerical position to Katharine’s is likely inappropriate. Do not understand the news reporting her as the first. ItsShandog (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" which provide "the news" are sometimes wrong, or at least too hasty, sometimes both. On seconds thoughts, in the light of this information, I'd suggest that all mention of her being "the Nth British royal to convert to Catholicism...", or whatever should be removed. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

So, to sum up what we know and can proof:

1. Beatrice was the first and Katharine the second British princess to convert to Catholicism in modern times. The difference between them to be highlighted (if deemed needed and/or appropriate) is that Beatrice was a princess by birth and Katharine, by marriage. Anyway, they were both Princesses of the United Kingdom.

2. Beatrice's first cousin, Princess Victoria Eugenia of Battenberg, converted before her, in 1906. She was widely considered a member of the British royal family as a granddaughter of Queen Victoria and, at the time of her conversion, niece of the reigning King (Edward VII). However, she was not formally a British princess neither by birth nor in any other way (such as marriage or grant, vide the daughters of Louise, Princess Royal) since her connection to the Sovereign was through a female-line. Kowalmistrz (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This is all very interesting and, I'm sure, perfectly correct. Thank you for clarifying. But did any of this have any direct relevance to Katharine's decision? I'd suggest not, unless sources could be found to the contrary. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe it's worth to mention that she was the second British princess to convert to Catholicism, yes. Kowalmistrz (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that update. But I have moved the explanatory material into a footnote, as I do not believe it is of direct relevance to Katharine herself. Please restore to the narrative text of you think otherwise. I think any detail about Ena of Battenberg might also be fairly footnoted. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That looks good, I agree a footnote for Ena of Battenberg probably is needed. ItsShandog (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO mentioning her as the second British princess to do so is best (cause she indeed was the second British princess to convert to Catholicism) and then the case of Ena of Battenberg (who was not a British princess) can be also mentioned in a footnote. Kowalmistrz (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps. I think any detail, even in a footnote, ought to be as brief as possible, as it had no real personal significance for Katharine herself. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Is she officially considered a British princess, or only a duchess? I know she married a prince, but was she ever given a title that includes 'princess'? ItsShandog (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

She was officially a British princess and became one when she married Prince Edward. One can be(come) a British princess by birth, marriage or grant (usually through letters patent). *For example, the daughters of Princess Louise, Duchess of Fife, were named princesses by their grandfather, Edward VII, when he gave Louise the title of Princess Royal. But by birth, as daughters of a non-royal duke, they were styled "merely" as ladies. **Additionally, in 1914, the children of Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick, were given British princely title and style by George V. The Hanoverian royal family could (and technically, still can) be considered British dynasts since they are male-line descendants of George III and up to the generation of Ernest Augustus himself were naturally considered British princes and princesses. Kowalmistrz (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Further to the problems with the claims of her being the first convert, we know Beatrice had a Catholic funeral in 1966 and we know Henry Benedict had a Catholic funeral in 1807, so we have to keep the phrasing 'first royal Catholic funeral in the United Kingdom in modern history', not 'first Catholic funeral in the British royal family in modern history' or similar, as that would be wrong. 1966 and 1807 both count as modern history. Just because a thing can be sourced doesn't mean it should be included — see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

While Princess Beatrice (1966) and Henry Benedict Stuart (1807) had Catholic funerals, neither was an active senior member of the British Royal Family at the time, and neither funeral took place in the UK under modern constitutional definitions. Beatrice had long resided abroad and was buried in Spain; Henry Benedict was buried in Italy. The Palace’s phrasing deliberately distinguishes Katharine’s funeral as the first of its kind in a UK royal context — not merely the first Catholic funeral involving royal lineage. ItsShandog (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

As I said, phrase it accordingly, but don't spread something we know to be false. What you've said above is true. What you said in the article was false. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Also in regards to the 300-year phrasing it is based on the official royal.uk website, which states that Katharine was the first Member of the Royal Family to convert to Catholicism in 300 years. This is not a journalistic error — it’s a formal statement from the Royal Household. The distinction is constitutional and ceremonial. Earlier converts such as Princess Beatrice and Princess Victoria Eugenie were either married or about to marry into foreign dynasties or no longer active members of the British Royal Family at the time of their conversion. The Palace’s phrasing reflects that — they do not mention those earlier cases, which suggests they were not considered part of the working royal family under modern definitions. ItsShandog (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I refer you to the last sentence of my first comment and the first sentence of my edit summary. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m aware of “verifiability does not guarantee inclusion” clause, but in this case the royal.uk website is not just verifiable — it’s the official voice of the institution. The Palace would be fully aware of earlier converts like Princess Beatrice and Victoria Eugenie, and their omission is intentional. To avoid confusion or misinterpretation, I intentionally added the footnote clarifying the distinction — it’s not as though the earlier converts were left out without explanation. ItsShandog (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

If we can’t treat royal.uk — the official website of the Royal Family — as a reliable source for statements about its own members, then it undermines the foundation of WP:RS. This isn’t a tabloid or third-party speculation; it’s the institution itself speaking about its own history. It’s highly unlikely that the Royal Household would publish something factually incorrect about its own members, especially when the phrasing reflects a deliberate constitutional distinction. If we start dismissing official institutional sources like this, then we’re applying a standard that no source could meet. ItsShandog (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Them being married into a foreign royal family does not remove their eligibility as members of the British royal family. Yes, they would no longer carry out public engagements representing the British crown but they would still be considered members. Modern examples would be Queen Anne-Marie of Greece and Queen Sofía of Spain. They no longer represent Danish and Greek royal families in official events but they are included in all the important family functions, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 17:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that marrying into a foreign royal family doesn’t remove someone’s eligibility as a member of the British royal family — especially in terms of lineage and inclusion in family functions. The issue here seems to be what the "first in 300 years" phrasing actually refers to. Is it about being a royal by birth, or being an active, working member of the British royal family at the time of conversion? ItsShandog (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Your interpretation of wikipedia policy is incorrect. Both the verifiability and the reliable sources policies are very clear that independent sources are preferred. If we preferred official sources then that would lead to all sorts of absurd and ridiculous claims being given more prominence than they deserve. Just think of all the asinine and frankly false statements made by Trump and his officials, or Putin and his officials. You really want those to be given precedence over independent commentators with a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy and peer review? Official institutional sources should be treated with the same skepticism and critical thinking as any other source. DrKay (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I completely get your point about source hierarchy — independent sources are rightly preferred under Wikipedia’s verifiability and reliability policies, especially when interpreting or analysing claims. But in this case, the issue isn’t about privileging official sources over independent ones — it’s that every source, official and independent alike, seems to be framing the same claim. So either:

• Every source is incorrect or unaware of earlier examples like Princess Beatrice and Princess Victoria Eugenie,

• Or they’re deliberately framing the claim around someone who was an active, working member of the British royal family at the time of conversion — not just someone with royal lineage. ItsShandog (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the confusion stems from the fact that none of the sources explicitly clarify what the "first in 300 years" phrasing actually refers to. They repeat the claim without defining whether it’s based on lineage, constitutional status, or active royal duties at the time of conversion — and that ambiguity is what’s causing the difficulty here.

I’m happy to defer to consensus. I only reinstated the phrasing because it was supported by both an official source and an independent one. But without clarity on what criteria those sources are applying, I agree it risks causing more confusion than clarity. ItsShandog (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Katharine and Koala

Is this the best we can do for a lead image? I know it is colourful and she is smiling, but her face is partly obscured. Was she particularly involved with wildlife conservation? Even if she was, we aren't talking Jane Goodall and the chimps here, are we. Any suggestions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You know where to find available images of her. You may also find photographs that you like on the Internet and ask the copyright holders to release them. Surtsicna (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I am surprised you have no view on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It is difficult to be choosy when I have nothing to choose from. Also, rather awkwardly, it is I who found and uploaded the koala photo. Surtsicna (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That explains your slight reticence. Forgive me for not checking. Surprised there's nothing from Wimbledon. But I suspect you may have have already searched. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Excellent photos of Katharine were uploaded on FlickR the day after she died. The copyright owner is a professional photographer, though. If you want to test your luck, ask him to change the license of one or more of the photos to either Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) or Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). Surtsicna (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they are good. I've tried many times for other articles. The usual response is: "only if you credit me on the article page", which we don't do. But maybe worth asking. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I have now been in touch with Steve Taylor on FlickrR and he asks which image we were think of using, which sounds promising. Any suggestions? I've suggested that he follows the discussion here, so he might appear as an IP editor, or as a new Wikipedia user at some stage. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I love the regality in the state dinner photos, but this one would probably be the best choice for the infobox. It would certainly be great to have Steve Taylor onboard. Photographs are major contributions to this project. John Mathew Smith, whom I had approached for our current infobox photo of Diana, ended up providing 1,677 photographs, hundreds of which were of people of whom we had had no photographs at all. That scale of contribution is unfathomable. Surtsicna (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that one does look very good. I think I'll need to spend some more time looking over all of them. Yes, it would certainly be great to have Steve Taylor onboard. Wow, that was a very generous gift from John Mathew Smith. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought this one very good, although her open mouth not ideal for a lead image. She does look very regal in many of them. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I wonder if he would have any photos of Princess Alexandra that are better quality, even if it's an older image than the current one. In the current one her face is more obscured and dark. Perhaps you could ask because I doubt that all of his photos are on Flickr. Rexophile (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I suspect any photo of her he might have would be from the previous century. Surtsicna (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Even if its an older image a better quality image would do 😊 Rexophile (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Of course, but we already have good quality 20th-century photos of her. Then again, we can never have too many. Surtsicna (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldnt say a photo with her wearing a hat obstructing part of her appearance and also it being 15 yrs old would be high quality Rexophile (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2026