Talk:Princess Beatrice

Random discussion about age

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)

She will be turning 18 very soon, will she be getting her own Coat of Arms?

As she's only 5th in the line of succession may be not yet :( Brandmeister 02:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

The Queen granted Arms to Her Royal Highness by a Warrant dated 18 July 2006. Brian | (Talk) 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

"order of precendance of ladies"

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)

Order of precedence (ladies) DBD 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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 I think the word "ladies" has been replaced by "women" over at the precendence page... 85.227.226.168 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Precendence"? Is that another misspelling of "precedence"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation?

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)

I edited out "has a wide variety of friends who are royals and commoners.", who is to decide who is and isnt 'common'. Disguesting to label people in such a way and yet another example about why the royal family is outdated and unfair.

How can it possibly be disgusting? Saying that someone is a "commoner" is not the same as saying they are 'common.' Commoner refers to lack of title or other distinction while being common refers to someone like yourself who lacks class.

I am afraid you definition what commoner is, is incorrect. A "commoner" is who someone does NOT hold a peerage in his own right. Therefore, Princess Beatrice who unlike her father doesn't hold a peerage in her own right is infact a commoner. The title of princess is a courtesy title she acquired as male-line descendant of the Monarch. Hold of courtesy titles are regarded as commoners under english law, this includes princesses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.34.34 (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the American word for this is "zing!" DBD 22:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatricetatler.jpg

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)

8/8/88

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)

Unfortunately for her, it meant she was (possibly) the youngest in her class, that plus her dyslexia resulted in her repeating a year of high school Satyris410 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatricetatler.jpg

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)

University

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)

Red-linked relatives

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)

Surname

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)

The obvious counterexample is Michael of Kent. —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

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)

Hat

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)

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)

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)

Yes here it is [1], 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)

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)

middle names

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)

Found, and added. 2.25.156.75 (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Spelling error

• 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)
    • Organised is the correct spelling in Britain, and since Beatrice is British, BrE should be used. Teyrn of Highever (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • It is not that simple. Both spellings are OK in BrE - it just depends which version you go for. Please check the Oxford dictionaries. Best wishes 82.34.71.202 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Beatrice2009 youngvictoria.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Beatrice2009 youngvictoria.jpg, 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 image page (File:Beatrice2009 youngvictoria.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

post-Goldsmiths

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)

Maundy service

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)

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)

Christmas 2012

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)

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)

Carrying out "engagements" actually ARE "official duties". Different name, same thing. Disagree at your leisure but please provide an actual source for why you are so stubborn about this. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

Titles and styles, use of prose

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)[2] and edit[3] a similar format is in order here, per WikiProject British Royalty[4]. --Qexigator (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As Princess Beatrice of York is now married to Count Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi will she be styled as HRH Princess Beatrice Countess Mapelli Mozzi Tishboy (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No. The title Count Mapelli Mozzi is not recognized in the UK. In theory, she should be Princess Beatrice, Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi but I imagine this style is too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.79.82 (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes, great find!--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Career

Suggest adding section on Career.Strawbridge2017 (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, Strawbridge2017. LavaBaron (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Her weight

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)

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)

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)

I agree. Writing about her weight is ridiculous. She is not involved in performing arts or martial arts of any kind; her status as princess (which makes her notable) is not in any way related to any of her measurements. And yes, irrelevant things do regularly receive widespread coverage. Surtsicna (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Wow. Just wow. Surtsicna (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I know, right? LavaBaron (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Her weight isn't a good thing or a bad thing. It's irrelevant here and not a significant accomplishment or failure in her life. And this isn't a biography--it's a Wikipedia entry; WP:NOTEVERYTHING — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiHistoryeditor (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Section on weight struggles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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: [5])

"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)

Survey

• 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)

• 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)

• Trim back or remove: Many of the listed sources are actually not reliable. The NY Daily News "gossip" column, for instance, isn't a good idea. The Daily Beast and Marie Claire pieces aren't so great, and are very gossipy rather than journalistic. The Yahoo! Style article isn't half bad, particularly since it actually quotes Princess Beatrice. The piece in the Independent carries only the most passing mention of Princess Beatrice. The piece in the Belfast Telegraph isn't terrible, but like the Independent, it's really all very passing. I don't think the coverage we have here is quite good enough, and certainly not good enough to support the two-paragraph discussion being proposed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Great input, Mendaliv- thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Do not include. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Columns and tabloids do not count as reliable sources. A featured article about an actress such as Angelina Jolie, whose appearance is one of the things that make her one of the most famous living people, does not mention the word "weight" once, despite there being (unsurprisingly) an extensive coverage of her recent weight changes. Beatrice's appearance, on the other hand, is hardly (if at all) relevant to what makes her notable. Of course we can find sources confirming how much she weighed from birth to present, her eye colour, her preferred nailpolish colour, her favourite cartoon and what not - but none of that is encyclopedic material. Unlike Oprah and Kirstie Alley, Beatrice never spoke out about her weight. Besides, there is nothing "bad or ugly" about being overweight, nor does being overweight make a person not "flawless". If she wore a swastika, that would be worthy of inclusion because of her constitutional status and role. A few kilograms extra, as perceived by some, is something Wikipedians should leave to bloggers. Surtsicna (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, actually, from the better sources in the mix, Princess Beatrice has spoken about her weight publicly. However, I don't believe those mentions are significant enough to support what is being proposed. There are, however, hints in those sources of previous coverage of her weight—most likely from the 1990s that might be more difficult to find. A more interesting question, though, would be whether talk a celebrity's weight and physical appearance on this order rises beyond routine coverage. Just about every woman in entertainment and the peerage has been described as overweight, trying to lose weight, or contemplating plastic surgery. Princess Beatrice isn't an outlier in any of those senses, else the media would have devoted much more attention to it in the way that, say, Oprah Winfrey's weight loss travails have been publicized. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Also, Mendaliv - any thoughts on People magazine as RS? Beatrice's personal trainer gave an interview to them [6] 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)

• Radical slim down. Unless we see "Fat Magnets by Royal Appointment to Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice", or similar, I'd suggest no "major coverage" is warranted here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC) .. or of, course, if she had actually tipped the scales on prime time or had been dragged out on "I dated a 20-stone minger from Windsor" on a respectable UK show.

• Nope. Her weight isn't a good thing or a bad thing. It's not a significant accomplishment or failure in her life. Just because being overweight is seen by the media as some sort of failing doesn't make it so. Her mother's stint as a Weight Watchers spokesperson is irrelevant. WP:NOTEVERYTHING ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Do not include I don't see enough high-quality sources with any substantial coverage about her weight gain/loss that would warrant inclusion. The proposed content looks sensationalist, like what you would read in a tabloid, not an encyclopedia.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Trim back heavily or remove Sources aren't very good and no reason to think that this has received the kind of attention in RS that would justify it as significant. Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Irrelevant - NQ (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Edit severely. It's enough to say something along the lines of 'Like her mother, Beatrice's weight and dieting have occasionally been the subject of media attention. Anything more than a sentence is erring into obsessional trivia. Engleham (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

• Omit as not significant or, at most, I would endorse Engleham's one line suggestion above. Jschnur (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Remove and Omit - The information is clearly tabloid fodder. Now, if her weight was an issue reportable by the wider media and gained non-gossip interest, I'd be okay with it. But this is routine, trivial "celebrity weight watching" coverage that is not of encyclopedic interest. I use the words "routine" and "trivial" meaningfully here-- Wikipedia standards have always held that "routine" coverage does not establish notability (for an article as a whole). I would extend that policy to facts within an article. Fieari (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Expanded discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tabloid reporting

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)

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)

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)

Ed Sheeran admits it was a fabrication. This is why Wikipedia is such a joke. Its standards are entirely arbitrary as to what is and is not "trivial," decided by a keyboard warrior who jealously guards their infinitely tiny area of interest, whether it is of interest or not. Since they say it was a hoax, if anything was written at all, it should be "Hoax perpetrated on Princess Beatrice, a non-working insignificant in-law of Kate Middleton and Prince George," and be done with it. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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

British succession or not.

There is a discussion at Charles, Prince of Wales, relating to this article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Note on future stepson

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)

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)

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)

Title

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have learned from long experience that we would be best off waiting for her to appear again in the Court Circular post-marriage before we "decide" what her marital style might be! DBD 16:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC) quite so.

Infobox image

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)

She's wearing a microphone, which is moved up into a non-speaking position. DrKay (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

"Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi"?!

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)

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)

It’s the equivalent of the average wife taking her husband’s last name, as well as taking his title (“Princess of Wales,” “Duchess of York,” etc), so chill out – it is not a big deal. AKTC3 (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Charles III

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)

Jubilee medals

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)

Coat of arms

The notes state: "Coronet: a coronet composed of four crosses formy and four strawberry leaves." 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)

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)

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

Coats of arms and copyright

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.f^Talk 18:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)