Talk:Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Copenhagen12 in topic Image dispute
 | A fact from Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 May 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Article Name
editKitty is not widely known enough as "Kitty Pakenham" to avoid the usual MoS rules, which clearly state she be down as "Kitty Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington". Most people have not heard of her, few article link to her, and she is not really notable in her own right, so she should definatley be under this title. --UpDown 13:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Where she is known, she is known as Kitty Pakenham, but failing that she should be at Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington, not some name by which she is never referred to. Yomanganitalk 18:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why should should she be at Catherine, when she was known as Kitty? --UpDown 13:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- She was commonly known as "Kitty Pakenham" (both before and after her marriage). She may have been referred to as just "Kitty" in the company of her friends, but not "Kitty Wellesley" and she certainly wasn't called "Kitty Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington" which would have been too formal for her friends and too familiar for anybody else. If her title was used she would be referred to as "Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington", "Catherine Pakenham Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington", or just "Duchess of Wellington". Yomanganitalk 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, many of the article titles you suggest are totally out the question, you can't have her maiden name and married name joined together, nor can you just use her title. And this is not about what her friends called her, I doubt friends called her husband Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, it would be quite a mouthful! The article title should use the forename she is commonly known by, ie Kitty, and then include her peerage title to bring it in line with other peerage titles. It may be "too formal for her friends", but this is not for her friends, nor is it a social network page, it is an encyclopedia, so her name and legal title should be used. --UpDown 07:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting those as article titles, I was illustrating the names she has been called by, none of which include "Kitty Wellesley". My suggestion for the title is "Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington" as I stated above. The current title is the equivalent of having an entry for Michael Micklewhite - taking the first name that they are commonly known by and adding their real surname to create a new hybrid name that has never been used by anybody. No, neither his friends nor her friends would have referred to her husband as "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington", but many historians have. Nobody has referred to her as Kitty Wellesley apart from this article title. As you so succinctly put it this is an encyclopedia, so her name and legal title should be used, so "Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington" rather than some original melding of half her nickname and half her married name. Yomanganitalk 11:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest you are failing to see my point. Throughout her life she was known as "Kitty", that is why the article is where it is. From the moment she married Arthur Wellesley, she took the surname Wellesley, her legal surname, so it is perfectly logical to put the the two together. --UpDown 12:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, I see your point, but not the sense of it. Even if your argument above was logical, people aren't named by logic. You are assigning her an entirely new name that has never been used from pieces of existing names. She was known throughout her life as "Kitty Pakenham", so we have a redirect for that. She was known as "Catherine Pakenham" so we have a redirect for that. Redirects for "Kitty Wellesley" and "Kitty Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington" would be pointless and misleading but cost nothing. You could even have a link from the disambiguation page for Kitty. But what possible benefit do we derive from having the article at a title that has never been used except by you. This is original research unsupported by any sources: a reader may go away with the impression that she is commonly referred to as "Kitty Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington" or ""Kitty Wellesley", when she wasn't. It's much like renaming the Wellington article "Wellington Wellesley" on the basis he's commonly known as Wellington, but his surname is Wellesley. Do you have any objection to "Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington", her official married name and title? Yomanganitalk 12:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would prefer Kitty, but in the spirit of comprise I'll move it Catherine. --UpDown 11:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Only I can't, It won't allow me to do so. We'll have to get an admin. --UpDown 11:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll do it. Yomanganitalk 11:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Only I can't, It won't allow me to do so. We'll have to get an admin. --UpDown 11:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would prefer Kitty, but in the spirit of comprise I'll move it Catherine. --UpDown 11:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, I see your point, but not the sense of it. Even if your argument above was logical, people aren't named by logic. You are assigning her an entirely new name that has never been used from pieces of existing names. She was known throughout her life as "Kitty Pakenham", so we have a redirect for that. She was known as "Catherine Pakenham" so we have a redirect for that. Redirects for "Kitty Wellesley" and "Kitty Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington" would be pointless and misleading but cost nothing. You could even have a link from the disambiguation page for Kitty. But what possible benefit do we derive from having the article at a title that has never been used except by you. This is original research unsupported by any sources: a reader may go away with the impression that she is commonly referred to as "Kitty Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington" or ""Kitty Wellesley", when she wasn't. It's much like renaming the Wellington article "Wellington Wellesley" on the basis he's commonly known as Wellington, but his surname is Wellesley. Do you have any objection to "Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington", her official married name and title? Yomanganitalk 12:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest you are failing to see my point. Throughout her life she was known as "Kitty", that is why the article is where it is. From the moment she married Arthur Wellesley, she took the surname Wellesley, her legal surname, so it is perfectly logical to put the the two together. --UpDown 12:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting those as article titles, I was illustrating the names she has been called by, none of which include "Kitty Wellesley". My suggestion for the title is "Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington" as I stated above. The current title is the equivalent of having an entry for Michael Micklewhite - taking the first name that they are commonly known by and adding their real surname to create a new hybrid name that has never been used by anybody. No, neither his friends nor her friends would have referred to her husband as "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington", but many historians have. Nobody has referred to her as Kitty Wellesley apart from this article title. As you so succinctly put it this is an encyclopedia, so her name and legal title should be used, so "Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington" rather than some original melding of half her nickname and half her married name. Yomanganitalk 11:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, many of the article titles you suggest are totally out the question, you can't have her maiden name and married name joined together, nor can you just use her title. And this is not about what her friends called her, I doubt friends called her husband Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, it would be quite a mouthful! The article title should use the forename she is commonly known by, ie Kitty, and then include her peerage title to bring it in line with other peerage titles. It may be "too formal for her friends", but this is not for her friends, nor is it a social network page, it is an encyclopedia, so her name and legal title should be used. --UpDown 07:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- She was commonly known as "Kitty Pakenham" (both before and after her marriage). She may have been referred to as just "Kitty" in the company of her friends, but not "Kitty Wellesley" and she certainly wasn't called "Kitty Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington" which would have been too formal for her friends and too familiar for anybody else. If her title was used she would be referred to as "Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington", "Catherine Pakenham Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington", or just "Duchess of Wellington". Yomanganitalk 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why should should she be at Catherine, when she was known as Kitty? --UpDown 13:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image dispute
editA user has made a claim that the image in use for Catherine is that of Elizabeth Hay, not of Catherine. Any insight or evidence either way would be appreciated.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 09:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
If you google image "James Swinton portrait of Duchess of Wellington", the 2nd image is of the disputed Swinton image of the Wikipedia page for 1st Duke of Wellington. If you follow the link from the google image to the webpage, www.regencyhistory.net you'll find the same image correctly labelled as Elizabeth (nee Hay) 2nd Dss of Wellington. I am the archivist at Stratfield Saye and see the original painting every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copenhagen12 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)