Talk:Zara Tindall/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Could anyone supply source of the statement that she has decreed her World Equestrian Game winnings to the Great Ormond St. Hospital? Don't know whether it needs to go in the article, but I'm curious as I have been unable to verify this through other sources. --Wilma Sweden 13:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, and in fact everywhere in the Commonwealth except Canada, "hockey" means hockey. Nobody in this region has heard the term "field hockey", and the notion of a member of the royal family playing ice hockey is risible. Use a wikilink to disambiguate, by all means, but "hockey" is the only word that needs to appear in the text. --Jumbo 10:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Leave it as it now stands, there is no ambiguity. Incidentally, there are plenty of pages with the word "football" to which you could apply the same logic - you'll start a war if you decide to change them all to "soccer". Budgiekiller 10:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we're not writing exclusively for "the Commonwealth". But it's good to know that we can hide monstrousities like "New York, USA" in links. - Nunh-huh 20:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is written in British English, not Canadian English, and in British English, hockey doesn't mean ice hockey. Likewise in Australian English, South African English, Jamaican English etc. --Jumbo 20:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And applying the same logic, we won't be correcting all

soccer players' articles who are described as footballers... Budgiekiller

21:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

From where does the name Zara come? Kingturtle 08:56 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

The bible, like most "Christian names"

What I mean is, was she named after someone in the family? Kingturtle 09:07 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

A quick google search comes up with the following, whether it's true or not I have no idea. http://www.askmen.com/women/models_150/167c_zara_phillips.html Mintguy

It could well be. I think it was a bit of a mystery at the time of her birth. Deb 20:29 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Any resource I can find indicates it is from the Arabic, but there seem to be different ideas on what the Arabic meant, e.g. "radiance", "dawn", "new flower". Ordinary Person 23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody keeps vandalising the transcript of her acceptance speech. Stop it will you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.133.239.211 (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that her status as granddaughter of the Queen, which made her famous long before she became a well known sports person, should be mentioned first.

Please leave the transcript for the acceptance of the award as it gives a great verbal insight into the girl's character. It is very relevant. —The preceding

While the quote is fine, it shouldn't contain the usual speech hesitancies like "um" and "ha ha ha". I've removed those. Gwernol 20:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That was the whole point so it's a waste of time with you lot as self-appointed axemen. —The preceding

First, I'm not self-appointed, I'm an admin appointed by the Wikipedia community. More importantly you cannot add information to Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting your own view of events. Please see our policy on maintaining a

neutral point of view. This is non-negotiable. Gwernol

01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First I'm sorry for the slight on your position. Second - it is not my point of view - it's exactly what happened and what was said. If the Telegraph can record it then why not here? I am disappointed at this action. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 82.21.90.179 (talk

) 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

The point is, as you said above "the whole point... is to give great verbal insight into the girl's character". It's your opinion that it gives such insight. It may be that under pressure she has some verbal ticks as most people do. This is why reputable journalists almost always exclude such hesitations when reporting verbatim speech unless they are trying to make a specific point. If the Telegraph has done so (I haven't read it) then you can

cite the specific article and note that the Telegraph said whatever conclusion they drew. You cannot use Wikipedia to provide particular "great insights" into people's character by selectively quoting them. Sorry, Gwernol

01:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why oh why oh why is her relationship with Mike Tindall keep being removed from this page? It must have been added and then removed atleast three or four times. Anyone care to explain? It's not as if they've tried to hide it. The King of Spain's beard 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I have restored the reference which seems to have got lost during the flurry of edits following her being voted Sports Personality of the Year. Hopefully things will now calm down to a more mature attitude Daemonic Kangaroo 10:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of serious problems with the citation in the paragraph you restored. First it doesn't appear to be a

reliable source; it appear to be a sensationalist, badly spelled blog entry. Second even if it were a reliable source it doesn't say that the couple are living together. That citation cannot be used to support what is currently written in the article. Hopefully a better citation from a reliable source can be found. Presumably their relationship has been written about in a reliable newspaper given the recent publicity? Otherwise that's an unsourced statement that should be removed from the article. Gwernol

I have added a second, more relible link, but cannot find anything very recent, although there is a mention of their relationship on the BBC website regarding her SPOTY win [1] Daemonic Kangaroo 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It says that she will be succeeded by, "cucumber". Although highly amusing, can somebody fix this? 154.20.157.6 01:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the painting will ever be available as a print? Twobells (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I misinterpreted the source that I thought attributed arms to Zara. I have removed the arms. They actually belong to Sarah, Duchess of York. If anyone knows Zara's actual arms, please let me know and I'll try to illustrate them. A1 Aardvark (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the most recently uploaded version of your file File:Zara Phillips Coat of Arms.svg correct? If so, it should be added to this article, if not, it should be removed from articles on other Wikipedias. AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

My apollogies for not commenting sooner. These are the correct arms. The source can verify this. I have put them in the COA box used on many bio pages. Cheers A1 Aardvark (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The children of Princess Anne were never, simply by being the children of Princess Anne, entitled to any "royal" titles. They were not going to be "HRH" or be titled Prince or Princess. See the 2 most recent similar examples, Princess Margaret (the current queen's sister) and Princess Mary (her aunt, and like Anne titled Princess Royal). Their children, though they were/are grandchildren of a monarch, were not Princes or Princesses because that distinction is reserved for the children and male-line grandchildren of the monarch. Yes, it is certainly within the prerogative of the Queen to grant titles to these individuals, and the numerous references to Princess Anne requesting that her children not be "titled" would be to any such titles the Queen may otherwise have granted. It does not mean that Zara Phillips is or was a "Princess by birth" as at least one recent edit stated. LarryJeff (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that she's married, is the current CoA incorrect? I understood that a lozenge tied with a ribbon was reserved for unmarried women. I think for an armigerous woman, married to a non-amigerous man, it ought to be a shield with a contrasting escutcheon? Anybody got any ideas on this one? 86.146.144.142 (talk) (I just realised I didn't sign in, so for reference, it's JCUK) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

I checked Boutell's Heraldry (1978), but it does not give any advice - it is best to wait and see what happens, otherwise the result will not be verifiable. Of course, Mike Tindall mught apply for a coat of arms which would solve everything. Martinvl (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Or he may commission Her Majesty's College of Arms, for about £3,000, to design one for him. DBD 23:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the Complete Guide to Heraldry by Arthur Charles Fox-Davies and the conclusion is clear: "The lozenge of an unmarried lady is frequently surmounted by a true lover's knot of ribbon, usually painted blue". Thus the blue ribbon depicts an unmarried woman. This is the case with the picture File:Coat of Arms of Zara Phillips.svg used now at this page. However since she is married that picture is not correct anymore. According to the guide: "the correct way for a married woman to use arms, if she desires the display thereof to be personal to herself rather than to her husband, is to place her husband's arms impaled with her own upon a shield suspended from a true lover's knot, and without helmet, mantling, crest, or motto." She may however continue to use her father's coat of arms on a lozenge as personal coat of arms, but then without the lover's knot. I read that, by heraldic traditions, in the case of married and widow ladies sometimes a cordeliere (decorative cord) is used to display a woman's individual coat of arms (see File:Cordeliere.jpg). But anyway, a different coat of arms of Zara Phillips should be used at this page. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Since she is married I have changed the coat of arms at this page. The lozenge is depicted now without the lover's knot. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I question whether a section entitled "royal" engagements is appropriate. I believe it is consensus that while she is a relative of The Royal Family, she herself is not an official member of it. As a female-line grandchild she carries no royal titles. Buckingham Palace's list on royal.gov.uk do not include Zara Phillips-Tindall, nor Peter Phillips. Therefore it is clear she's not a royal and any "engagements" which she chooses to carry out are not royal nor considered "public" engagements (not listed in the Court Circular on behalf of the Crown). The heading should altered to reflect reality. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

How about "charitable engagements"?

Seven Letters

22:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. Just not royal. On her brother's page there was a whole bunch of hair-splitting nonsense over whether he was the first "royal" baby born in 500 years without a title, and after six months and splitting of hairs (as well as graying of some) it was decided that since he's in the female-line,he's a relative of the Royal Family but not 'royal' himself and not entitled to be called a royal. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The BBC reported that she will continue to use her maiden name, though the report might be a little speculative. I would normally have wanted something more substantial than the quote I used, but I decided to use it anyway to save somebody the work or renaming the article only to find their work wasted.

If somebody comes accross a better reference, please us it. Martinvl (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been some discussion as to whether she shoulf be known as Miss Zara Phillips or Mrs Zara Phillips. Since she appears to have elected to keep her maiden name, we have no precedence to follow, so it is best to leave things as they are until a verifiable precendent has been set. For the record, my understanding is that a woman who is using her maiden name is known as Miss XXX, but if she is using her married name, she is known as Mrs XXXX - at least that is the format used at Wimbledon. Therefore, leasve things as they were before the wedding until we have a verifiable source - it is of course possible that she will be known as "Miss Phillips" in equestrian circles, but as "Mrs Tindall" in social circles. Martinvl (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Cilla Black always gets introduced as Miss Cilla Black and she is another lady who kept her name due to her prior fame and work.RafikiSykes (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as Cilla Black is only a stage name, it may not be the best example. I suspect Martinvl is probably right that there will be some mix of the 2 names used in different settings. LarryJeff (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Or she could use

Neutron (talk

) 21:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask for move protection untill wedding fever has died down? At the moment we have Zara Tindall.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained to Mr Martinvl, there is a set way in which social prefixes for women legally work in this country:

I just changed it so there is no prefix at all. Mrs. Phillips is incorrect, or at least confusing, because she is not married to Mr. Phillips. Miss Phillips is incorrect because she is married. Her name, so far as the sources indicate at this time, is still Zara Phillips. Why isn't that enough?

Neutron (talk

) 23:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That is probably best until the preferred style emerges. Meanwhile I have looked at [[2]] and it gives no clear guidance - it suggests that it is whatever the woman in question prefers, or taken a step further, you should not infer a woman's marital status by her use of Miss/Ms/Mrs. Martinvl (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that her name at the start of the article should read Zara Tindall nee Phillips even if she is continuing to use her maiden name in professional circles she is legally Mrs. Tindall now... Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.38 (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What is her "legal" name? If you visit this website you will see that this is a quagmire. In short, leave things alone until a reliable source contradicts reports published on her wedding day. Martinvl (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that source (the UK passport site) supports the idea that her "legal" name (at least for passport purposes) is what she chooses it to be. As for what she chooses, that appears to have changed, or has at least become unclear. Although she had originally said she was continuing to use her maiden name, there is now a source cited in the intro that suggests that she is using both names, for different purposes. Her exact quote in the source is: “I’m very much Mrs Tindall. Just for professional and sponsors I’m going to keep Phillips.” That statement could be interpreted a couple of different ways, but it does muddy things up. I would suggest that the article title not be changed, but I think she can be identified in the first sentence of the intro as "Zara Phillips, also known as Zara Tindall...."

Neutron (talk

) 18:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if people are still interested in this, but the website of the British Monarchy lists her als "Mrs. Zara Tindall" in their line of succession [3], which I take to mean that Tindall is indeed her (new) legal name and Phillips is only used for professional purposes. It's still not 100% clear, but I don't think we will get a definite clarification of this. So basically, this is the best we've got for now. --91.0.39.128 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

She's still being referred to in all newspaper articles as Zara Phillips (both on and off her horse). I don't believe there is any law in relation to naming. It's all a matter of custom. I don't think there is a "formal", "official" or "legal" answer to the issue; just lots of people with an opinion. In the absence of a official statement from the lady herself, I think the *factual* thing to do in the article is to simply name her how she is generally referred to and separately list what other alternatives are in use and by whom. Given that, I think the first sentence should be "Zara Anne Elizabeth Phillips MBE (born ...) is the eldest granddaughter ..." and then in the second sentence it should be "but continues to be known by her maiden name" (saying nothing about the public occasions). Then go on to say what other people might be calling her, such as in the line of succession etc. "However, she is also referred to as Whatever in Wherever and SomeThingElse in SomeWhereElse" with appropriate citations. Kerry (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Dropped maiden name March 2016. With the announcement of her second pregnancy mostly now referred to as Mrs Tindall

She is related to the Mountbatten-Windsor through female line and as such, is not a member. Her family is the Phillipses and now, also the Tindalls through marriage. Just like The Queen's family is Windsor and not Bowes-Lyon. She is also, through marriage, a member of the Mountbatten family started by Prince Philip when he adopted that name.. I think the M-W family category should be removed from this article.

The category is"Mountbatten-Windsor family" rather than "Mountbatten-Windsor surname". On that basis, I would expect to see any descendant (including spouses) listed under the category, which would therefore include Zara, her husband and any children they might have. The category itself is not clear about who/what is intended to be included in it. And if you take Zara out, then presumably some of the others would have to go too. I think the question is better raised on the talk page for the category as the issue is the intended purpose of the category. Kerry (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

All of the Philipses should be removed. Can you tell me why anyone else would have to be?

Seven Letters

01:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's decided that the purpose of the category is for people using the surname M-W, then I agree with you that the Phillips folk should be removed from it. But what about Princess Di? Did she still call herself M-W after her divorce? But my point is that this is a discussion about the category, not just about Zara. We could make the current "M-W family" category for any family member and create a sub-category "M-W surname" for those family members using the M-W surname. That would create the distinction between the two and the Phillips folk would end up in the first but not the second. That would accommodate both points of view. Kerry (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Mountbatten-Windsors are the male-line descendants of Her Majesty the Queen (and their respective spouses). It has nothing to do with using it as a surname because all Prince(sse)s of the United Kingdom are surnameless unless they (the princesses) acquire one by marriage. Technically, we should scrap the category altogether because they are still officially the House of Windsor, although that designation is used to represent two male lines (Wettin and Oldenburg). *If* this category remains and is limited to male-line descendants of the Queen and their spouses, Diana should remain because she was at one point a spouse. I must emphatically state that the Philipses are not Windsors, Mountbatten-Windsors or members of the British Royal Family (they are members of the Queen's (royal with a small 'r') family.

Seven Letters

01:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth II and her children belong to the House of Windsor by her decree to that effect, but that decree's ambit does not extend to any generation beyond that of her children, since the decree does not say that it does so. Whether the "Mountbatten-Windsor" category should extend to those who have never held that surname but descend from those who do, I offer no opinion upon, beyond noting that the pattern on Wikipedia seems to be that articles about such families tend to restrict themselves to those who have borne the surname, whereas categories often include others who recently descend from the family in question. It is, however, a widespread untruth bordering on an urban legend that royalty in general and British royalty in particular lack last names on principle (some do, some don't: generally Italian and French royalty had surnames -- especially if their family became hereditary sovereigns post-medievally, e.g. Medici, Farnese, Este, Gonzaga -- while French kings and their children may not have had surnames, all of their other male-line descendants indisputedly did and do, e.g. Valois, Bourbon, Orleans). The existence of surnames for British royalty is explicitly acknowledged on the British Royal Family's website here and was also acknowledged by George V in his 1917 proclamation on the subject. As an encyclopaedia, we should be correcting the stubborn inaccuracy that it is wrong or ahistorical to attribute surnames to royalty. FactStraight (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we want to add a line about her being prince george's god mother — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.0.107.112 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the description of High Kingdom as a 'new horse' - it's inaccurate, he wasn't new to her at the time of Olympic selection, she's ridden him since he was quite a youngster. The Old Trout (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120110202109/http://www.lucyairambulance.org.uk:80/donate/all-news/our-patron-zara-philips-speaks-out-in-support to http://www.lucyairambulance.org.uk/donate/all-news/our-patron-zara-philips-speaks-out-in-support

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

IS it really notable a minor sports figure and minor relative of Prince William miscarried? Many women miscarry, we don't go gaga about it. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a minor relative of Prince William. Grandchild of the Queen. She is notable enough for reputable sources to report the miscarriage, unlike "many women", so we go gaga about it. Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it is more than worth keeping. It is an important instance in her personal life. Excluding it would make that section of her bio incomplete. Additionally, I believe she was 6th in line to the throne at the time of her birth. She is currently 16th in line to the throne (and, presumably, her unborn child would have been 18th at the time of its birth). And as for the notability of her as a sport figure, she has a rather noteworthy medal record. SecretName101 (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zara Tindall. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110610075047/http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/293313.html to http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/293313.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120801094114/http://www.london2012.com/news/articles/women-shine-cross-country-course.html to http://www.london2012.com/news/articles/women-shine-cross-country-course.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zara Tindall. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20090108001902/http://www.askmen.com/women/models_150/167c_zara_phillips.html to http://www.askmen.com/women/models_150/167c_zara_phillips.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007185759/http://www.musto.com/fcp/content/zara_video/content to http://www.musto.com/fcp/content/zara_video/content

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

What was the reason for the change of main image here? There was no explanation. I don't think it's in any way an improvement. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The resolution is poorer, but she is facing the reader, so I am not sure which one I prefer. Surtsicna (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, and grandchildren (11440082454) (cropped1).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think the infobox image should be changed to this picture, as the current image is very grainy and in poor quality. It's also more identifying, given her career. I'd prefer to put the original, uncropped version depicting both her and her husband in the "Personal life" section. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettydaisies (talk • contribs) 23:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)