Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

"Born" Rachel Meghan Markle

It is misleading for the article to state that the subject was "born Rachel Meghan Markle" because she still is Rachel Meghan Markle. That's what her daughter's birth certificate says. I do not understand editors who force consistency regardless of whether it produces inaccuracies. It's absurd. Wikipedia is supposed to be informative. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Open up an RFC on the matter, if you're so certain of your stance. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? PatGallacher (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The birth certificate supports "born", California birth certificates require the mother's birth name. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. It seems that we'll never have any proof that she has or has not changed her last name. "Born" is clearly correct in the sense that "born Barrack Hussein Obama II" would be correct, but I wonder if it can be phrased in a way that does not hint at a change that cannot be proven. Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Under common law, how married women "prove" their name is by using their married name. She has used her married name multiple times in bylines and credits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The question is not whether she calls herself duchess. It is what last name she uses when she does "need a surname", as the royal family's website puts it. According to that website, her husband's is Mountbatten-Windsor. Surtsicna (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

No point in speculating about when she would "need a surname", nor are we here to speculate about living people; she has publicly and consistently followed the custom of a woman who is the legal wife of a prince duke, no surname - U.K. and U.S. name law is deferential to women who decide to use marriage custom; in addition, in a legal context, it is reported she is the "former Meghan Markle"[1]. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no point in speculating indeed, so I am left wondering why the lead sentence should contain a hint of speculation. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is hinted, that sentence has only what is known. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

She was born Rachel Meghan Markle & is now Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. She was the Duchess of Sussex, when her two children were born, as well. Archie & Lilibet weren't born illegitimate. Surtsicna, if you're not going to accept that? then open up an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence of her ever having changed her last name. She can be both Markle and the duchess of Sussex, just like her husband is both Mountbatten-Windsor and the duke of Sussex. Children's legitimacy has nothing to do with their mother's last name. Surtsicna (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Open up an RFC on the topic. That would be more productive then slow editing warring. It would be better for you to get a consensus for what you want, rather then attempt to force what you want. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

British royal princes may use their surnames, their territorial names if they have one, or their first names only. Their wives can take any of these three names as married names or keep their maiden or previous surname. Just as with commoners, there is no is no formal method for choosing what last name for married woman to use. The only issue is what she actually uses and is recognized. TFD (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This article suggests that she kept using the Markle surname for a while into her marriage and dropped it in 2021. There seems to be a lot about it online but nothing looks well-researched. Surtsicna (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It is only used in the intro to indicate that she was born with a different name then the article title, nothing more. MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

And that should be revisited too per common name, since leaving the UK and abandoning royal duties, her birth name appears to be more common than her married name. TFD (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Open up an RFC on the matter for this BLP or perhaps all such bios, concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What exactly would you have this RFC ask? Surtsicna (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What would you have it ask. You're the one who was bold in the WP:BRD process. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing to ask in an RFC. You are the one who keeps suggesting an RFC. Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If you don't want to go the RFC route & instead chose to slow edit-war to get your own way? Then that's your risky choice. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm hoping that you won't be. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Just in case you're serious, an RFC is not the only alternative to an edit war, not every dispute can be most efficiently solved through an RFC, and you should not start an RFC in any case prior to a thorough discussion. See WP:RFC. Surtsicna (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

So far, you don't have a consensus for the change you wish to make. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment. Now please allow editors who cite sources to make their arguments. Surtsicna (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It's up to you. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Why does the page read like a puff piece

this page need serious editing--Boing55 (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Please be more specific with your points. Which part of the information are you trying to dispute, and what are your sources that would support any opposing narrative? Keivan.f^Talk 16:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to update Meghan Markle's photograph

A more updated version of Meghan Markle's photograph is needed. This is because the current photograph is taken before she became apart of the royal family. The new photograph must have the caption "The Duchess of Sussex". This is because it is still her legal royal title and if not done it may seem subjective as royals such as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, who are working and non-working both have their royal titles under their photograph. To conclude a new photograph of Meghan will be beneficial to keep wikipedia viewers updated and informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeveralst (talk • contribs) 21:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 8#Image. DrKay (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

A new portrait sized image of Meghan Markle must be uploaded on the wikipedia image search to upload — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeveralst (talk • contribs) 22:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

We cannot upload random photographs to the Commons simply because we don’t like the current photo of a subject. Any photo or image needs to be in public domain before it can be uploaded. Keivan.f^Talk 05:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Must be" gets you very little here. Anyway, has her appearance changed significantly since that was taken? Britmax (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe there has been some miscommunication. I see that the main administrators of this page have been on wikipedia for more than a decade. To re word my language I believe that a more updated picture of Meghan Markle would be beneficial as it makes the wikipedia page more accurate. There has been significant changes to Meghan Markle's profile since she legally became apart of the British Royal Family. Most users view Meghan Markle's wikipedia in order to gain an understanding of her life after she became apart of the Royal Family, this means that having a portrait of Meghan before she became apart of the family does not correspond with most users desire to view Meghan's page. Is it possible to upload a clear portrait size image of Meghan after she became apart of the Royal Family to the Wikipedia Commons. By doing this, it will abide by Wikipedia's values of keeping pages as updated as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeveralst (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Just for information "a part" of the family is written as two words, like that. Britmax (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It is possible to upload new images, if they comply with the image use policy. So, in this case any new image would need to be a free-use public domain image. Searches so far have not come up with any better than the current image. DrKay (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this image possible to upload. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meghan_Markle_visits_to_ActionAid_South_Africa_02_(cropped).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeveralst (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Theeveralst : Even the uncropped version of that image looks like it has been heavily photoshopped. Sampajanna (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The photograph suggested may be a potential photograph for an update however, this change would need approval from more editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosemoryOpen (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Switching from a high quality image to a lower quality image just because it was a taken a year later is not an improvement. We should use the image of higher resolution. DrKay (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this image viable for an update https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shutterstock_1498509200.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.53.118 (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

NO. Images must comply with our policies. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. Any new image must be a free-use public domain image. DrKay (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The current image seems excellent to me. The motivation for changing it appears to be in order to be able to put the words "Duchess of Sussex" under it. If that's what's wanted, I suggest keeping the image but possibly finding wording that includes the desired words; perhaps "Meghan Markle in 2018, before she became Duchess of Sussex" or "The Duchess in 2018, then known as Meghan Markle" or "The now-Duchess in 2018, then Meghan Markle" or "Markle in 2018, now Duchess" or other wording. (By the way, I think it's unnecessary to tell other Wikipedians about spelling or grammar errors etc. they made on talk pages as long as their meaning is clear.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The article sufficiently and throughly lists her titles and styles, I don't think any disambiguation is needed in the identification of the subject. The current caption satisfies MOS:CAPSUCCINCT.

I agree to a certain extent with @coopertwig. I believe there should be a change and the suggestions of changing the caption to something like "Markle in 2018 late The Duchess of Sussex", is a very good proposal. This will let viewers know that wikipedia is aiming to keep things updated as possible. This clears any belief of wikipedia being subjective as other working and non-working royal's title are mentioned in almost every paragraph on their wikipedia, thus sparking the question of why should it be different when it comes to Meghan Markle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeveralst (talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Can't it just be "Meghan in 2018"? Peter Ormond 💬 02:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It can be. DrKay (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

So the change should be implemented if there are no objections. Peter Ormond 💬 12:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, or even when there is an objection but consensus is clearly in favor. DrKay (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep calling her Meghan Markle? It's Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the caption to "Meghan in 2018" & do indeed recommend that the image be replaced with one of her as the Duchess of Sussex. FWIW, continued refusal to update the image, is frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I would be in favor of updating the image, but I went through the available images in Commons and quite frankly they're all pretty bad (grainy, low resolution, etc.). Unless someone can find a decent quality, appropriately licensed image, I don't see there being an easy solution to this problem. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of updating the image,however, until that is done I think the best thing to do is changing the caption from “Meghan Markle in 2018 later the Duchess of Sussex” Theeveralst (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meghan,_The_Duchess_of_Sussex.jpg. Is this a good photograph to use? It is copyright free and modification is allowed. I think it is best to crop The Duke of Sussex out and picture The Duchess of Sussex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.53.118 (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

NO. It is obviously stolen from https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/prince-harry-duke-of-sussex-and-meghan-duchess-of-sussex-news-photo/1192408418?adppopup=true. Stop uploading copyrighted images. DrKay (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I object to replacing "Markle" with "Meghan" in the caption because there is nothing wrong with having "Markle". It is correct and reflects the fact that the media referred to her then (just as they do now) as Meghan Markle. That was her legal name then and for all we know, that is still her name since nobody has ever proved that she changed her last name at any point in her life. Half the text refers to her as Markle and there is no reason for the infobox to avoid her last name. Surtsicna (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You also objected in the last RM. Isn't it time to let go & accept that she's no longer "Meghan Markle". Just like the Duchess of Cambridge is no longer "Catherine Middleton" or "Kate Middleton"? Come on, please? GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the article be renamed. This is about a caption. It's time to accept that there is no evidence that Meghan Markle ever changed her last name, but even if she had, it would still be correct to call her Markle when discussing her pre-royal life. This is how it's done in the article about her sister-in-law too. Surtsicna (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the caption (which should satisfy everyone), until a post-marriage image is put in place. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, since nothing about the infobox photo says royal or non-royal, I see no need to replace it with anything inferior taken after her second marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If I recall correctly. You also objected to the article being named Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. As for the caption, either we go with "Meghan in 2018"? or we go with no caption, period. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK - @DrKay:, @Peter Ormond: & myself are fine, with using "Meghan in 2018" as the caption. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If anybody can come up with a post-marriage image of the Duchess of Sussex? it would be much appreciated. PS: Such an image would end this silly dispute over the caption, which (for the best) I've deleted. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Why does it bother you if she is called Markle in the caption? You've never explained. Surtsicna (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Drop it, ok. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No-one but you has expressed any dissatisfaction with calling her Markle in the caption. Refusing to provide an argument is not constructive. Surtsicna (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No caption (for now) is best. We can all wait until someone finds a licensed post-marriage image. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, two users have expressed dissatisfaction with the phrase “Markle in 2018” (GoodDay and Theeveralst). Everyone else has been rather indifferent, including me as I have no preferences either way. I think we can simply put the year (“In 2018”) if people cannot agree on what we need to be calling her, considering the photo was taken ‘before’ her marriage. Keivan.f^Talk 14:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Theeveralst wants a post-royal-marriage photo with a caption identifying her as duchess. They do not appear to be bothered by the present image identifying her as Markle.[2] No caption is fine with me because I do not find the caption very informative either way, but I want to preempt any suggestion that referring to her as Markle is wrong in all contexts. Surtsicna (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Initially when the photo was taken and published, an argument could be made against having a caption because it was relatively new. That's not the case anymore and people change over the years. That's why I'm in favor of including the year. Let's see if anyone can find a good post-marriage image, otherwise we can simply write down the year. And I'm in no way saying that referring to her by her pre-marriage surname is wrong, but I think it's better to keep it consistent with how the main images from articles on other royal women have been captioned. Keivan.f^Talk 04:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, it is now reasonable to update The Duchess of Sussex's photograph. This is because there is an updated version of her taken at the US Embassy The Hague. I have attached the link here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meghan,_The_Duchess_of_Sussex_(2022).JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeveralst (talk • contribs) 10:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Theeveralst : 'Reasonable' is subjective. So too is the possibility that the 2022 picture is not particularly flattering. Sampajanna (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment I didn't see this section before reverting today. Not sure if I made an error or not in this case. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: Given the prior discussions on this topic on the talk page, I think you made the right move in reverting. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sampajanna I've seen you a lot recently on this page. I believe that you are quite subjective when it comes to Meghan. Theeveralst (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Theeveralst : Beliefs do not necessarily establish veracity. Sampajanna (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's not as good as the one from 2018 mainly because the background is really crowded. In terms of coloring, I think we have editors who can try and do a little bit of retouching, but if no one has an issue with the overall atmosphere of the photo I think it can be added. As I said, personally, I don't like it because the people surrounding her are rather distracting. Keivan.f^Talk 22:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Between the two photos, I favor the 2018 photo due to the presence of other people in the newer photo and the overall better quality of the 2018 photo. The 2021 photo is probably the best Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• I agree withAoi (青い) that the overall quality of the existing 2018 photo is better. Sampajanna (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• As a side note, infobox photos don’t always have to be recent. See Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie as examples. Keivan.f^Talk 16:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Titles before marriage (2)

Following on from Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 3#Titles before marriage, I still see no evidence that she used Miss instead of Ms before her marriage, nor do I see any sources for her using her first husband's name unofficially, legally or professionally. Per Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, sources must support content explicitly. DrKay (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Titles and Styles

I think there should be consensus in order to change the description of her titles to a list of her styles/title changes. This used to be the case a few years ago. - See catherine, duchess of cambridge or prince harry, duke of sussex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeveralst (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

While I think it might be nice to have a full list of her titles, I don't think it's necessary. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and what information articles do include should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. If there are no such sources, I don't think it needs to be listed.

Also, a discussion of "titles" and styles" is understandable in the context of British royalty or aristocracy, but generally not in an American context. Before 2018, Meghan Markle (as she was then known) was an American, and this article had zero mention about whether she was officially "Miss Rachel Meghan Markle" or whether she took on her first husband's last name during their marriage. I mean, does it really matter what her "official style" (I'm using quotes here because I am also skeptical of whether any American who doesn't occupy some sort of official public office, such as a president, legislator, judge, etc. has an "official style") style was six or seven years before she became a royal family member? I don't really think it does. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said in edit summaries and implied in the talk page section above this one, I think it's made-up. I don't think she used those styles, and one of them is only used nowadays satirically or to make a chauvinist attack or by ignorant non-native English speakers who don't realise that they're being offensive. No-one has referred to female politicians as "Mrs Denis Thatcher", "Mrs Edward Castle", or "Mrs Philip May" since the 1950s. And if I speak of "Mrs Hugh O'Leary", do you have any idea who I'm talking about? No. Because no-one ever refers to her as such. It's not just in the UK either, people just don't go around saying "Mrs Doug Emhoff" or "Mrs Paul Pelosi" unless they want to be insulting or funny. DrKay (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I also agree with this, I believe that using your husbands name AND surname as your name is quite outdated. However, I am suggesting the idea of this format

Before- 18 May 2018- Ms Meghan markle 18 May 2018- present her royal highness the duchess of Sussex.

This is how it was for some time until @peter Ormond told me to get a consensus for my “bold” editing Theeveralst (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Before "19 May 2018: Ms Meghan Markle" is very vague. It gives a view she has been using it since birth, or since many years, but doesn't explicitly state when she personally adopted that style. After her engagement was announced, the Royal Family referred to her as "Ms Meghan Markle", as she was divorced, but this can be mentioned as a sentence in the prose, rather than presenting in list format. Peter Ormond 💬 03:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Add "The" in front of title

I think it is feasible to add the definite article "The" in front of title. This is because she is married to a Prince/Duke. Under the letters patent, only divorced duchesses should not use "The" in front of title, such as Sarah, Duchess of York. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerages_in_the_United_Kingdom#Styles_and_titles I understand this is somewhat a major change as married royal women also don't have "The" in front of titles but it is best to change it as it increases wikipedia accuracy and may not lead to other speculations from wikipedia viewers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeveralst (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed at length years ago, and the consensus was that formats such as “Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall”, “Charles, The Prince of Wales”, “Her Majesty The Queen” or “Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall” should be avoided when referring to royal individuals for the sake of simplicity and neutrality. We have to go with a name format that is plausible for inclusion on an encyclopedia; thus, we don’t have to always strictly follow the official rules regarding naming. Any deviation from the current convention requires a general consensus. At this point, there’s no need for singling out Meghan’s page. Keivan.f^Talk 16:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

We’ll I think that the change is needed. As if Wikipedia wants to follow the legitimate rules of royal titles, then it should be done. I say this because most of the time royal Wikipedia pages stick to the rules and are cautious when editing their pages. So it would be good to have the proper wording of the title. If this change is done it would be beneficial for the change to affect all royal titles not just Meghan’s Theeveralst (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In corpore sano

Where, if anywhere, would be the appropriate place to mention that her name is included in In corpore sano, Serbia's entry for the 2022 eurovision song contest?Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Literally nowhere, because it is purely trivial. A similar example would be Diana's name being mentioned in Lady Gaga's song "Dance in the Dark". This information is not worthy to be included in a biography, however, it can be incorporated into the template that we have on the subject which I have already done. Keivan.f^Talk 05:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

In Coat of Arms section change "3rd Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (Ireland)" to "3rd Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (Northern Ireland)" as is on

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Standard_of_the_United_Kingdom 201.182.150.107 (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done It's the coat of arms of Ireland not Northern Ireland. DrKay (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

agreed, according to the National Library of Ireland this is the arms of Ireland. https://www.nli.ie/en/heraldry-in-ireland-1943-2018.aspx Kerdooskis (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Tom Bower biography

Why has my edit about this new biography been reverted as "spam"? I have been a member on Wikipedia for 15 years, and have never resorted to "spam". Is this article a hagiography? Anne (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You wrote a book blurb, so it certainly looks like spam, and this article is a biography, it's not about someone else's book. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Re-worded, should it not be here? It is a bestseller already and will forever be part of the Sussexes story now.Anne (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a mini-industry writing books, someone wrote a biography in 2018, no doubt on someone's best seller list, but, no it should not be here, writing about other's books is not the topic here.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Why do other "people" biographies on Wikipedia have a "Further Reading" section covering biographical works on them, then? Anne (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What other "people"? Such a list is certainly not article text. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

See Winston Churchill which, amongst millions of other biographies, has a "Further Reading" section. The Tom Bower book will become an integral part of the Sussex's story, especially if Wikipedia promotes "neutrality". Anne (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

So, you have a POV opinion about this book, that's irrelevant. You did not even try to create such a list. Have you done the research to create such a list? NPOV would at the least demand that you do so neutrally, not with your POV. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to start a Further Reading Section to which others can add. Would that be acceptable? I have read this book, and it is entirely pertinent to this article. Finding Freedom is integral here, so shouldn't there be some balance? Anne (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. Your work so far suggests that you would not make a neutral or comprehensive list, but have you done the research? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

There are two books which should be on the Further Reading list. One by Tom Bower and another by Lady Colin Campbell. No biography on Meghan Markle is complete without these two books being included. Their authorised biography is used extensively here, which seems very POV to me. Anne (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not extensively used, it is discussed as part of court cases. And really? You only came up with two books? That does not suggest you would make a neutral or comprehensive list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem to think I am invested in researching Meghan Markle. I am simply suggesting that there are, to my knowledge, two books which give a counterargument to Finding Freedom, on which this article is based. Anne (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You are the one who now thinks there needs to be a list, so you have to be invested in creating a well researched, neutral list in a BLP. And this article is not based on Finding Freedom nor any single book. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I can put 5 books in a Further Reading List. Anyone else is free to add to that. I will do this shortly. Anne (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Lady Colin Campbell is a notorious fantasist. Her self-constructed life story and written works contain large doses of fiction. DrKay (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Further Reading is what the name implies. Lady Colin Campbell has written many books about the royal family, and she has many personal contacts within the royal family's circle. She has written about the subject of this biography. The alternative perspective has to be given as an option, to achieve "neutrality". Nobody has to read her books, any more than they have to read the subject's sister's book. Anne (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It might be worth adding that Lady C is extremely litigious - what is said about her needs to be said with caution. I gather she has never lost a case yet. Anne (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I call bullshit on both those claims. She doesn't have close contacts with people in the royal circle. She can't sue me and if she tried to do so, she'd prove herself to be a delusional fool. DrKay (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I've seen videos of her in the company of such people. You sound exceptionally prejudiced in your own POV. Anne (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I've seen videos of her arguing with such people when they tell her she's full of shit. DrKay (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not permitted to list books in Further Reading which are referenced throughout the article itself. Anne (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker, as I said, it is not allowed to have a book in further reading, which is cited in the article and therefore in the "References" section, which the Scobie/Durand book is at [167]. I will give you the opportunity to remove it yourself, but otherwise will remove it from "Further reading" if you fail to do so. Play by the rules. Anne (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No. You are wrong about the rule and wrong about [167]. Per MOS:FURTHER, the rule is to list the work in Further Reading, even if it is in references, when the reference section is long. The reference section here is extremely long at 303 references. Moreover, [167] is not the Scobie/Durand (2020) book , it is Harper's Bazaar (2022), a magazine article, nor is Durand there. Nowhere in the Wikipedia article is the book's bibliographic information, and even if it were, the rule is to list it in Further Reading, regardless, with such a long reference section. I don't know what you think your playing, but this is not a game. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Although MOS:FURTHER says that the further reading section "should normally not duplicate the content of the References section," it makes an exception where "the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list." Since there are over 200 references, all significant literature should be listed, even if it is already used as a source.

Tom Bowyer is a prominent writer on the royals. While some reviewers have questioned the veracity of Lady Colin Campbell's writing, her book was published by a reputable publisher (Simon & Schuster) and therefore both should be included in further reading.

TFD (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Keivan.f, removing Meghan Markle's sister's book comes as no surprise, (although for balance should be there) but to remove the Lacey, Robert, Battle of Brothers. William Collins (London, 2020) book needs an explanation. Markle was at the epicentre of the brothers' fall out, as the entire world knows. Anne (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Anne Ammundsen, I don't have anything against Samantha Markle personally, but, the two sisters are engaged in a legal fight and a public feud and I simply cannot imagine that she can offer an unbiased account of their lives together. This is the biography of a living person and we have to be cautious. On the other hand, Lacey's book was mainly concerned with the feud between William and Harry. While Meghan could be a contributing factor, she was not the book's main subject. As a result, I have listed the book on the “Further reading” sections on William and Harry's articles. Keivan.f^Talk 17:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Keivan.f, OK, thank you for your explanation. I sincerely hope no further changes/deletions will be made by other people, unless to add to the list. I have no wish to become invested in this woman's page and to continue to receive notifications. Anne (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Keivan.f, Other suggestions for a book to be included under Further Reading: Meghan Misunderstood (November 2020) Smith, Sean; Publisher: HarperCollins Publishers ISBN: 978000835960— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Added, unsigned IP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Alan for taking care of it. For some reason, I didn't get the notification. Keivan.f^Talk 21:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Lying about being a member SAG-AFTRA

There are a few issues with a line under the subject's acting career:

• The subjects lying/mischaracterization/alternative facts/what-have-you has been left out of this sentence: "For her role in Century City, she initially told the casting directors that she was a SAG-AFTRA member, but after being cast as a non-union member the employers helped her join the union according to the Taft–Hartley Act." The subject's quotes in the interview say the subject was not truthful, which needs to be included since as it is currently worded that isn't accurate. Soften the language of course, but WP is not her personal PR firm. The sentence could read something along these lines: "For her role in Century City, she initially told the casting directors that she was a SAG-AFTRA member when she was not, but..."
• I've read it over a few times, and I've read the footnote of course, but I don't understand the sentence overall (with or without the bolded part added). This is what happened, according to how I'm reading it: Meghan is not a member. Meghan says she is a member. The casting directors hire her for a non-union role. Meghan gets signed up for SAG-AFTRA. Something is missing there; either the directors knew she wasn't SAG-AFTRA and so cast her as a non-union part; or they took Meghan at her word, thought she was union, but then mistakenly gave her a union part, and then the union rushed to have her join anyway? I'm just not understanding what happened here.

Any thoughts appreciated! Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I've boldly updated the wording in this sentence to make it make sense. --Kbabej (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The source is what Markle told an interviewer, which was posted on youtube. If its included, it must be directly attributed to her. Her memory of events after all is contested. Unless it was reported in reliable sources, however, I don't think it warrants inclusion. TFD (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces, it is attributed to her. The sentence says "For her role in Century City, she initially told the casting directors that..." (bolding mine). --Kbabej (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

In-text attribution would be phrased something like, "According to Markle, for her role in Century City, she initially told the casting directors that...." The current test doesn't say where the story comes from. I see that her interview was reported in the Daily Mail, the Express, the Sun and the Daily Star, but I cannot find it in the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent or the Guardian. IOW deprecated and unreliable news sources reported her story, while reliable ones ignored it. That therefore creates a problem of weight. TFD (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't care if the information is removed one way or another. My initial concern is the information wasn't entirely accurate and was confusing as written. I've updated that wording, but if it's removed altogether that's fine too. --Kbabej (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed altogether. Yes, memories are not always intact but you couldn't possibly forget whether you were a union member or not when you were cast in your first 'major role'. And I'm not judging her based on what she did, but this is directly attributed to her. It is not a rumor, or something made up by the journalists. And, if it's important enough to be brought up by her during an interview, then we can safely assume that there's enough weight to have it included in the page, even if it wasn't reported by the media outlets. Keivan.f^Talk 21:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Markle activities

Hello! user:Keivan.f suggested I bring a discussion to the talk page. I believe we should mention her viral CBS interview Oprah with Meghan and Harry, her popular Spotify podcast, Netflix deal etc. These are all huge parts of her life post working royal, since the CBS interview was widely viewed and talked about endlessly for months, and her Spotify podcast is a huge hit beating even Joe Rogan. We shouldn't erase these accomplishments. The One I Left (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@The One I Left: Hello. Hope you are having a good week. Just wanted to let you know that I initially reverted your edit because, as I said in my edit summary, she's no longer a "working royal" but she's a royal like Princess Eugenie or Princess Michael of Kent, who don't work on behalf of The Crown. That being said, I reverted your second set of edits because it disrupted the third paragraph's structure to some extent. The interview with The Cut or any other outlets is not a crucial part of her biography, which is why I was planning to briefly mention it in the "Public image and style" section instead of putting it in the lede (it was their Fall Fashion issue after all). Her podcast and her children's book, however, are noteworthy and I included them at the end of the paragraph, because that would put things in the chronological order. If you have any other suggestions, please feel free to put them up for discussion. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 14:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: Thank you! Hope you are as well. Yeah I was a little confused by your reversions tbh since I just saw your recent edit and that was in fact my intended action by separating pre and post Harry life. Thank you for explaining. Could we add the viral CBS interview with Oprah Winfrey as well? It is definitely notable, as it was a reintroduction for Meghan to the public with almost 50 million people watching, spurning debate among online viewers, commentators, and historians for months. It even received multiple Primetime Emmy Award nominations.

Although it may become insignificant compared to other events in the long run, just as "An Interview with HRH The Princess of Wales" and Charles: The Private Man, the Public Role became over the years despite being highly viewed at the time, it is for now a notable moment in her life, so I mentioned it briefly at the end of the paragraph. Others are welcome to chime in with their opinions regarding this change. Keivan.f^Talk 15:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank for including it. Perhaps it may become insignificant, but I doubt it, I think the most apt comparison is the interview Diana Spencer had with journalist Martin Bashir, which was widely talked about then and is still talked about today as a major part of her life. One cannot discuss Diana, without mentioning the infamous interview. Almost every documentary on her includes footage from that Bashir interview. It could be said that its perhaps the most important interview of her life. So I have to disagree with you on its lack of significance.The One I Left (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2022

Change "Archtypes" to "Archetypes".

Article Context: "launched a Spotify podcast, called Archtypes"

Source: https://open.spotify.com/show/6UfyXZgVAUX1UzF8j5L72t EverEphemeral (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

Change 'cyborgs', under the "On Twitter and other platforms", subheading to 'bots'

cyborgs does not make sense in this context FrogWRLD (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. I left the target, Cyborg (social media) the same, although I find that an odd use of the term. That target redirects to Social media#Bots, which lists Internet bot as its main article, although we also have social bot. It's a mess and I'm not sure which is the right target. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This page needs severe editing

The problem with the content- this keeps reading like a promotional page. Is there a way to keep publicists off wikipedia?The page is very disorganized with all these disparate elements. Should all statements made by her in interviews be taken as facts? [ WP:BLP Redaction] The page should be in the hands of senior Wikipedia editors. Boing55 (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

See, WP:BLP, we don´t attack living people on Wikipedia talk pages or in our articles. At any rate, I agree that the article is not good, but not for your reason (you seem quite emotionally involved), rather, like too many of the Wiki´s modern bio articles, it goes on, and on, and on, about every tidbit, more in gossip rag fashion or someone´s obsessive blog than in writing an encyclopedia article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you made it about me. Asking for fact checking and better content and editing is not unreasonable.

Can wikipedia be what it is supposed to be - not a platform for publicity? Boing55 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Boing55 Judgung by your edits they seem to show your personal dissatisfaction with Meghan. Whatever your beliefs are on Meghan, this page needs to be kept neutral. Please halt yourself from doing this as it violated Wikipedia rules Theeveralst (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Boing55: your edit has been reverted four times now by four different editors. Do not make this change again before you establish consensus. For what it's worth, the lead sentence did not mention Meghan's specific relation to the sovereign at all until this edit on 9 September, before which it read "member of the British royal family and former actress" and nothing more. Personally, as "daughter-in-law of the King" doesn't confer any particular title or notability on its own and Meghan is not in the line of succession, I think it's irrelevant to include; wife of Prince Harry I'm not sure about since it's implied by Duchess (Harry being the corresponding Duke). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022 (2)

The article states "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (/ˈmɛɡən/; born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981) is an American member of the British royal family, daughter-in-law of King Charles III, and former actress."

In order for it to be in-line with other members of the British Royal family this should read.

"Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (/ˈmɛɡən/; born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981) is an American member of the British royal family, She is married to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and is a former actress. " Vana-ainur (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done: the proposed change is grammatically incorrect, and consensus for the change should be established before requesting it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Can you please explain further, Catherine Princess of Wales does not use this for her position in the family.

  It does not state she is daughter in law to the King. None of the other family members Wikipedia use this type of language,

  The King need no mention in that sentence.

  Can this be reviewed by someone else. Where was this information provided from anyway? Vana-ainur (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  and by inline with - i mean the wikipedia pages of other family members. sorry if that was unclear. Vana-ainur (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Vana-ainur: apologies, I didn't see your replies until today. I declined your request only because it's evidently controversial, and edit requests should only be used for obvious corrections, or for edits to be made after a discussion with editors when the editors involved aren't able to make the edit themselves. I did not mean to give an opinion of the merit of the edit. You're welcome to ask for more opinions, in fact Wikipedia encourages it. For now, see the section directly below where this very issue is being discussed. In general, see WP:DISCUSSION and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Role

Surely instead of being "an American member of the British royal family and former actress", she is "an American former actress who is now a minor member of the British Royal family"? The current explanation of her makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.68.3 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see the discussion directly above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. See the wording in Encyclopedia Britannica: "Meghan, duchess of Sussex, original name in full Rachel Meghan Markle, (born August 4, 1981, Los Angeles, California, U.S.), American British actress and consort (2018– ) of Prince Harry, duke of Sussex and fifth in line to the British throne."[3] I suggest, "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (/ˈmɛɡən/; born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981) is an America actress and wife of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, the younger son of King Charles III of the United Kingdom." Apparently, she did not reside in the UK long enough to even become a permanent resident.[4] TFD (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see the discussion directly above. There's no need to have two parallel discussions on the same talk page about the same thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just remove the header. TFD (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

Remove Duchess of Sussex, as they had their titles removed 2A02:C7E:1EAA:3700:2CE5:DB3E:C93C:76F0 (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

They retain the peerage. DrKay (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Stripped of Title No longer Duchess

The Queen stripped Harry and Meghan of their titles Duke and Duchess of Sussex and it would be more accurate to say FORMER. 2601:804:8401:34D0:D1F:51B9:4BF2:F8D0 (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

None of this is true though. No idea where you got this idea, some right-wing and tabloid media are suggesting that they should be stripped, but considering the blatant racist treatment they gave Meghan all along, such suggestions come as no surprise and don't make this a reality. Fram (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

In any case, she's called the Duchess of Sussex because she is married to the Duke of Sussex, just as Mrs. O'Leary was called that because she was married to Mr. O'Leary. Women have the right to use their husband's name unless they remarry. TFD (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Meghan will be a The duchess of Sussex, countess of Dumbarton and baroness of kikeel as she is married to Prince Harry. Her title is Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Sussex, but she chose not to use the HRH. She was not stripped of anything. Theeveralst (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Date of Birth

Someone with the ability to do needs to correct the year of her birth to 1977 as she graduated from Immaculate Heart in 1995. Saying she was born in 1981 would mean she graduated when she was only 13 years old, especially when she only started there in 1992 Cdoole1984 (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

How do you know when she graduated from high school? Since what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources say she was born in 1981, that's the year we have to use. TFD (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Article title

More accurate and informative to say “Former Senior Member of the British Royal Family”

This is also parallel to her description as a “former actress”

She no longer does anything to support the individuals or mission of the British Royal Family, and this break should be reflected here. 108.6.34.58 (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, she's a former 'senior' member but she's still a member of the family. And she's not the only person who holds a rank but does not work on behalf of the Crown. Others like her and Harry include Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. Keivan.f^Talk 17:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are not in the same boat as Harry and Meghan. They chose to walk away - Other members of the Royal family step up and do duty when it is required of them. They have never formally wish to leave and step back. Vana-ainur (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I have trouble with the term "senior." Even Harry in his letter put it in quotes. What does it mean? Are they now junior members of the family? Who are the junior and senior members of any extended family? Why not use the term the Queen used, "working members?" TFD (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with, 'working'. There are those whose job it is to represent the monarch, funded by the Sovereign Grant, and then the other family members. 'Senior' could mean degree of relationship to the Sovereign but that is unaffected by 'working' or not, or perhaps order of precedence or for some order of succession, but those also seem unaffected by being a 'working royal' or not. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The king plans to stream line the royal family. I suspect that means (for example) Buckingham Palace balcony appearances, will be limited to Charles III's immediate family. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be most informative to call by Meghan Markle and Prince Harry “Estranged member of British royal family”. Her Wikipedia title should be Meghan Markle. She is a citizen of, and lives in, the United States. There is no monarchy or aristocracy in the US. Odd to give her a title from a nation where she lived for such a short period of time. Globalbrian (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Meghan's title/style as a Princess of the United Kingdom

While Meghan is technically by definition a princess of the United Kingdom, it is a description of her position through marriage to Harry, not her title. She is not "Princess Meghan," but rather "Princess Harry" or "Princess Henry." 72.80.197.42 (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Find and reproduce here a single link to a reliable source referring to the former Meghan Markle as "Princess Harry" as anything other than a joke, and then we'll discuss it. Note that this article does not currently refer to her as "Princess Meghan". General Ization ^Talk 06:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the IP is right, which is why this article does not refer to her as Princess Meghan. One person who uses her husband's princely title is Princess Michael of Kent, wife of Prince Michael of Kent. In the same way, Mr. John Smith's wife can be known as Mrs. John Smith. Since Markle uses Duchess as a form of address, I don't see that any changes are needed. TFD (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022

Change this:

In January 2020, the pair stepped down as senior members of the royal family and later settled in California.

To this:

In January 2020, the pair stepped down as working members of the royal family and later settled in California. 174.46.204.10 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you find some sources that use the term "working members" instead of "senior members"? I understand the reasons for this proposed change, but the current sources cited in the article use "senior members" instead of "working members." Generally, Wikipedia articles are written to reflect what the sources say. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's what senior members means. I prefer working members because it is more precise. TFD (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it's fine that the language doesn't match up directly since the meaning is obvious. I'll make the change. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

She doesn't hold any titles

Since whoever edited Catherine's page insisted on clarifying this it seems like it should be done here too. She doesn't hold any titles either, she's only entitled to using Harry's by marriage. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It says in Catherine's article, "Catherine does not hold any titles herself, but is entitled to use the feminine versions of her husband's titles." This should be pointed out because people who marry into royalty sometimes are awarded titles, such as the late Duke of Edinburgh or Lord Snowden. It's the same thing when Jane Doe marries Richard Roe and becomes known as Mrs. Richard Roe. TFD (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, so why doesn't it say the same here? Meghan certainly had no titles until she married Harry and they are only courtesy titles, not her own. 142.189.134.56 (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sprawl

As noted in February, this article is spiralling out of control. We seem to be ignoring WP:NOTDIARY and instead listing every little thing she does. It is high time we decided how to deal with it. Do we split it into multiple sub-articles (e.g. Privacy and media relations of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Charity work and advocacy of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex) or do we prune it down drastically to summarize the information? Something has to give. I agree with Bettydaisies's argument that, if we managed to summarize Elizabeth II's 96 years of life (and 70 years of reign) in one article, we should be able to do fit Meghan's biography into one article, but I believe the split would be better than what we have now. Surtsicna (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe that not every single detail is added. For example, she's currently doing a podcast but we are not running a weekly coverage here (and we shouldn't IMO). I don't find the article to be particularly long, especially the section on her charity work, when compared to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, William, Prince of Wales, Catherine, Princess of Wales, etc. This was also noted by Bettydaisies back in February. So maybe we should come up with a plan to split all of these articles and not just Meghan's? And it really doesn't help that the younger generation of royals have a complicated relationship with the media, and unlike the late Queen they occasionally "complain and explain". There are aspects of Elizabeth's bio that are covered exclusively in articles such as Personality and image of Elizabeth II. The article on Diana, Princess of Wales is also long, which is why User:Bettydaisies helped with creating Fashion of Diana, Princess of Wales. Similar drafts were also set up for Catherine and Meghan (Draft:Fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales and Draft:Fashion of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex), but have not been completed as of yet. Let's see what everyone else thinks, but if they decide that all is fine with this and other similar pages we should probably avoid coming back to this topic for a while. Keivan.f^Talk 16:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Meghan-Trevor

"The act of entering judgment is carried out by the court and it creates a formal record of the decision that is reached and the outcome" which was on Mar 7 2014. The marriage was terminated on Feb 24 2014 from the document. Leaving this here to avoid any confusion with the divorce document.[5] --Aaron106 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2022

change first picture, 2018 one, because the smile looks weird and creepy (perhaps someone has done that with bad intent on purpose) to another picture. thx Mnlfp098 (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Changed to which one? Lemonaka (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 16:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Pregnancy conspiracy theories

Here’s an article on the online conspiracy community that claims she faked her pregnancies (and in some cases, that her children don’t actually exist). Her own half-sister has promoted these theories too. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

They have no place in the biography of a living person unless they are proven to be true. Keivan.f^Talk 04:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Meghan-hating media fraternity

Dan Wootton, Piers Morgan, Nigel Farage, Tom Bower, Brendan O’Neill, Freddy Gray, Richard Tice, Toby Young and Rod Liddle.[6] 91.54.15.103 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

An opinion piece by Catherine Bennett is not enough to label a group of people as haters. Keivan.f^Talk 04:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Princess of the United Kingdom?

I know she's the wife of a "prince of the United Kingdom", but I don't think that makes her a "princess of the United Kingdom". You'd have to be a daughter or granddaughter of the monarch, to be a "princess of the United Kingdom". A royal of the blood. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that Harry is a "Prince of the United Kingdom." In any case, the source for the claim is Archie's birth certificate, which is not rs for the mother's occupation. TFD (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Like Catherine, Meghan is a princess of the United Kingdom by marriage as she married a British prince. She is not a Princess in her own right but a princess by marriage Theeveralst (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Whether that is true or not, we cannot make statements in articles unless they are reliably sourced. Do you have a source that says that? TFD (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Archie's birth certificate has her listed as a "Princess of the United Kingdom", and it is similar to how Catherine has been listed on her children's birth certificate or Diana was listed on her children's before them. So I guess it's safe to assume that the husband's status is extended to the wife. Keivan.f^Talk 04:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Birth certificates have been discussed in other articles. They are not reliable sources for information about the parents. TFD (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

She became a princess because of her marriage, is the BBC's analysis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Since it is a courtesy title, not a substantive one, it doesn't necessarily mean that she is a princess. Archie Windsor-Mountbatten for example could use his father's subsidiary title of Earl of Dumbarton. But the Duke of Sussex would be the actual earl. And note that Markle does not use the courtesy title of Princess Harry. TFD (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Following the BBC source, it is not dependent on what she goes by, or what we know her by, it's only dependent on her marriage. As to whether it is "courtesy" or not (she is not the prince, the duke, or the earl), it does not follow that she can't also be princess -- princess is a rank established in their system and there are two ways to for a woman be it: their birth within lawful marriage to a father of the required close degree to the sovereign (or to the sovereign), or their own lawful marriage to a husband of the close degree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Second mention of name

Since this discussion turned out to discuss "do we need consensus to make exceptions to MOS, even when the MOS itself allows for variance?", and thus is very little about the actual article Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, I'm collapsing this for posterity. CapnZapp (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

WP:SURNAME makes no exception for the first mention in the lead. We need an exception determined by consensus to state her full name in the second mention. Sundayclose (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC) As I stated on my talk page MOS:SURNAME is a guideline, not a policy, and its content can be interpreted in different ways. There are dozens of pages that do include the full name of the subject in the very first section, including Catherine, Princess of Wales, Angelina Jolie, Johnny Depp, etc. And it makes sense. When a reader wants to find information about a person's background, he/she should be able to find them in the corresponding section. And that includes their name at birth. Keivan.fTalk 18:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Please don't drag out the useless argument that MOS is a guideline not a policy. That's not a justification for ignoring a major guideline without consensus. MOS is widely accepted. We follow guidelines until a consensus to make an exception occurs. When it is challenged (as is the case here), it needs to be justified here and have an exception by consensus. What is your rationale for making an exception to MOS? As for other articles "other crap exists" is never an acceptable excuse to justify an edit. Sundayclose (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC) I edit articles based on precedent, so if you consider them to be "crap" that's your issue. I stated it once, and I'm gonna repeat it again. Her date of birth and her name at birth are two important pieces of information that should be included in the Early life section. Also, a stable article should not change because of your personal interpretations of MOS. As I pointed out in the edit summaries the guideline doesn't establish a clear-cut rule that must be obeyed, which is evident by the use of adverb "generally" as Surtsicna has pointed out here. Not to mention that it does not forbid including the full name multiple times if necessary. Keivan.fTalk 19:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Your interpretation of "precedent" does not take priority over a widely accepted MOS. I could quickly list dozens of well written articles that are a precedent for not using the full name after it is used in the lead, but that would be a pointless waste of everyone's time. "Precedent" has no meaning when it's WP:POV. Again, what is your rationale that this specific article (not other articles) should have an exception to WP:SURNAME? Sundayclose (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC) I have already stated it and so has another person. There is no exception being made here. The MOS specifies a guideline that should be followed "generally", not "always". Says nothing about a ban on repeating the full name multiple times. And the example given within it, is not that of an article's lede or opening section. Some articles follow this guideline, and some don't (and frankly they don't have to because it is not a policy). If you want to turn it to a rule that must be obeyed by all articles you should seek consensus somewhere else. Otherwise, there is no obligation to follow one specific rule because WP:MOSBIO exists for achieving visual and textual consistency, and this article is indeed consistent with dozens of others in terms of how its very first section has been set up. Keivan.fTalk 19:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC) It is an exception if there isn't s specific indication that "generally" excludes the lead. It's also an exception because it has been challenged. That requires consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC) There isn't specific indication that "generally" 'includes' the lede either. And it is not an exception because dozens of other articles repeat the full name twice as well, which is in line with WP:MOSBIO's guidance for achieving visual and textual consistency. And it makes perfect sense to include the full name in the first section of "this article" for a couple of reasons put forward by two different people. The date of birth and name at birth are two crucial pieces of information about a person's early life, and there is a source cited within that section that I would rather not have in the lede, because the lede is meant to be a summary of the article, not where you introduce new citations to back up information that appear nowhere else. Keivan.fTalk 19:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Again, pointing to other articles as if that's a justification for this or any article to make an exception to WP:SURNAME as it is literally written is a POV excuse. You're arguing in circles, but here's the bottom line: This requires consensus, especially since it is challenged and there are lots of articles that don't make the exception, so we'll see what happens. And by the way, two editors do not make a consensus. Consensus is not determined by counting !votes, so there's no need to repeatedly remind us about another editor's opinion that we are all capable of reading. Sundayclose (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Apparently you're the one who enjoys repeating the same argument over and over again. So let me remind you, there is NO exception. There is only an exception created by you based on your own interpretation of MOS, which 'again' is not a rule. You point out that we should not concern ourselves with other articles, yet you talk about lots of articles being written in a way contrary to this one. You also point out that votes don't count, yet you appear to be implying that the opinions of two people is not necessarily enough to establish consensus even though they might have made valid points. So which is it then? You asked for a reason to justify this so called "exception", and I gave you a couple of them. 1) The Early life section should contain information about a person's background and that includes her full name. 2) There are citations there that I would rather not have in the lede, as the lede is not a place for introducing new citations. 3) The lede should be a summary of the article and not a place where you put in information that appear nowhere else, and that includes her full name at birth, her date of birth, the names of her husbands and children, etc. all of which are repeated in the appropriate sections within the article. I'll leave this to other users now, but I doubt anyone would oppose the inclusion of her name in that section. Keivan.fTalk 20:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Yes, two people is not enough participation to determine consensus, especially less than two hours after the discussion begins, and especially for an article that has as much traffic as this one and for a guideline that has been firmly established for many years. That has nothing to do with counting !votes. Neither you nor I is in a position to declare consensus. Now, I'm finished encouraging you to beat this dead horse. I'm not repeatedly refuting the argument that you make over and over. We will see where this discussion goes. Sundayclose (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC) And neither am I willing to repeat the same thing ten more times. It is apparent that you and I cannot see eye to eye on this matter, but the article cannot change without consensus and based on a non-mandatory guideline and someone's interpretation of it. Keivan.fTalk 22:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC) WP:SURNAME says "generally". Besides, the examples cited give no impression that this is meant to apply to people who are article subjects. I find the use of full name in the Early life section to be a good opportunity to cite a source for the information; I'd rather not have the citation clog up the lead. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC) @Sundayclose Would you please briefly outline (without reference to MOS:SURNAME) the disadvantages to including the full name in the Early life section? @Keivan.f Would you please outline the advantages? - Ryk72 talk 22:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC) @Ryk72: I mean no disrespect and you certainly have a right to pose your request, but I (nor anyone) should be required to justify adherence to a well-established MOS guideline without reference to the guideline. The only justification required is WP:SURNAME. I think we can safely assume that the MOS guidelines were established by consensus for good reasons. I assume at least one of those reasons is to avoid unnecessary redundancy and thus avoid poor writing style. I agree with that reason. In biographies there is no need to repeat the full name after the first use, which in this case is in the lead. That's the only justification needed. If we want to make an exception that includes the second mention, that needs to be established by consensus at WT:MOSBIO. Sundayclose (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Hi Ryk72 and thanks for showing interest in the topic. I actually tried to make my points in the previous comments but I guess they ended up being buried. There are three main points that should be considered 'in my opinion' and I'll leave them here for anyone else who might be interested: 1) The Early life section should contain information about a person's background and that includes her full name, date of birth, etc. 2) There are citations there supporting the information in the very first sentence of that section that I would rather not have in the lede, as the lede is usually not a place for introducing new citations (see WP:LEAD, another part of the Manual of Style that could be considered in this case). It should simply be a summary of the article. 3) The lede is equally not a place where you put in information that appear nowhere else, and that includes her full name at birth, her date of birth, the names of her husbands and children, etc. all of which are repeated in the appropriate sections within the article. Keivan.fTalk 22:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Thank you both. Appreciate the time taken to outline your positions. Per my comments below, the MOS:SURNAME guideline does not support the position that articles must always refer to the subject by surname only; provided that the article generally refers to the subject in such a manner, the guideline accommodates occasionally referring to the subject using other terms. In the absence of any other (non-MOS:SURNAME) reasons for removing the second reference to "Rachel Meghan Markle" in the Early life section, those advocating retaining that reference (on the grounds outlined by Keivan.f) would appear to have the stronger argument. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 06:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC) While I agree this is against the MOS, it appears to be common practice. See the early life sections for Sarah Ferguson, Diana Spencer, Wallis Simpson, Jill Biden and Hillary Clinton, which are the first I found for comparison. This specific section of the MOS appears to be commonly ignored. Therefore, it would probably be best to get a clarification in the MOS. Should we change all these articles or change the MOS? It's better to have the discussion there, since it would impact many articles. TFD (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC) I agree that we need to bring this up at WT:MOSBIO to determine whether an exception is acceptable. I don't think we have any evidence that it is more of a "common practice" to make the exception than it is "common practice" to comply with the guideline. Sundayclose (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Why are we still talking about the Duchess of Sussex's surname? She no longer publicly uses one. She goes by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex. cookie monster 755 01:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC) She was born Rachel Meghan Markle. The issue here is whether her full name should be used in the second mention of her birth name. Sundayclose (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC) To make this further clear, the discussion is not about using her surname throughout the article. We are debating the issue of whether we need to have her full name at birth in the 'Early life' section, or merely her surname. Keivan.fTalk 02:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Articles usually refer to people by the name they used during the period in question. So she would be Markle until she assumed her husband's name. TFD (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC) @TFD Re: I agree this is against the MOS; my initial thoughts were the same, but now I'm not entirely sure that it is. The guidance provided by MOS:SURNAME is After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only ... or may be referred to by a pronoun. emphasis added. That's a general guidance, not an absolute prohibition. Both the versions align with that guidance. In the body of the article, the text "Markle", in reference to the article subject appears approximately 50 times, of which only 3 include additional portions of the name. She is "generally referred to by surname only" in either version. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 02:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC) I don't see a problem mentioning "Rachel Meghan Markle" in the "early life" section to introduce the subject. If it were a transgender person or someone who was adopted, that would be a different story. cookie monster 755 04:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC) You need a reason why this is an exception. I think an argument could be made that since the person was born with a different name from their current one, it makes sense to give their original name in full in the early life section. But I still think that should be discussed at MOS. My assertion is that it (this article) is not an exception; that it satisfies the guidance of MOS, which is that the surname only (or a pronoun) should generally be used. (Contrasting the MOS text, "generally referred to", with the non-present, "only referred to"). An alternative phrasing of that assertion would be that MOS:SURNAME already contains an allowance for exceptions; provided that the exceptions do not become the general usage. MOS does not support the absolutist position asserted by Sundayclose. (As always, happy to agree to disagree). - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 05:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC) "generally" does not mean that there are routine exceptions. TFD (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Hrm... interesting. The obvious (and unecessarily glib) reply would be that "generally" doesn't preclude routine exceptions, and does indeed allow exceptions without the "rule being broken". But that wouldn't advance the discussion significantly, and I regard you too highly to be so glib. I'd prefer to understand your position; and perhaps better articulate mine. So... are we able to agree that: 1. The requirement at MOS is that the article "generally" refer to the subject by surname only (in contrast to "always"); 2. The article text refers to the subject using surname only in approximately 38 of 40 instances (excluding quotes, image captions, lists of books, & the first reference); 3. The article, therefore, generally refers to the subject by surname only, for the commonly understood definitions of "generally". See:Def 1,Def 2,Defs a&b; 4. That 3., therefore, satisfies the MOS requirement at 1.? If not, then on which points do we not align? - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 06:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC) cookie monster, I would be interested to know what Markle uses as her legal name. Married women remain entitled to use their maiden names unless they change their names by deed poll. While Sussex is not a surname, its a territorial name in the UK, but what is it in the U.S.? And Harry of course may have a surname that he could use. TFD (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC) I felt the need to chime in and point out that there was a discussion about her legal name in the past (see Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex/Archive_10#Title and style). I thought it could help with refreshing memories. With regards to Harry, he put "The Duke of Sussex, His Royal Highness" on his daughter's birth certificate (1). Though if he were to use a proper surname, I guess it would probably be Mountbatten-Windsor, the surname used for the male-line descendants of Elizabeth II and Philip. Keivan.fTalk 08:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC) It's done at Catherine, Princess of Wales's page. I reckon if one wants this changed, a discussion at the appropriate place would need to occur. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC) TFD Keivan.f there is really no reliable source stating what her legal name is. If very well may still be her maiden name, Rachel Meghan Markle, which was listed on her daughter's birth certificate. But this is WP:SPECULATION. cookie monster 755 19:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC) No. This has also been discussed here before. California law requires the mother's "birth name", "Markle" is listed as the mother's birth name on her daughter's certificate.[7] Unlike the English certificate for her son, [8] the released California certificate has no place for her current name (The English certificate has both mother's current name and birth name ("maiden name")). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC) I find it rather disappointing that we are having a 16,000+ character long debate about something so inconsequential. Whether that one sentence says "Markle" or "Rachel Meghan Markle" has no effect on the quality of the article. I wish all this effort could be directed at discussing the actual content of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Agree and if it helps, I also agree with others that the current set-up with the name also in "Early Life" accords just fine with SURNAME and LEAD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Citizenship

Is she a British national? 2A02:8440:5218:FC6:F540:EB4F:7ACB:DA2D (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably not. At the time of her wedding it was announced that she would acquire British citizenship, but we got no updates afterwards to the best of my knowledge. Keivan.f^Talk 04:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No she did not complete the residency requirements. If the usual requirements had been waved by the Home Secretary, I may be mistaken on this point, they would’ve had to announce it publicly. DSQ (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Disputes with the British Royal family

I think perhaps it might be time to start a section for "Disputes with the British Royal Family." that seems to be one major theme of Meghan's current public activites and creative output. I suggest we start looking at ways to formulate and compile this topic into an informative section. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Which disputes are you referring to exactly? I'm asking because we have to be specific. As you know there are articles published daily about these disputes and dramas, none of which are actually confirmed to be true by either the Palace or the Sussexes, and frankly without confirmation we can only treat them as gossip. The legal disputes with the media are already covered, and so is the Oprah interview to some extent (we also have a whole separate article on the interview itself). So far they have not made any defamatory claims openly in recent times, thus, I suggest we avoid introducing new information that has not come out of either her or her husband's mouth. The article is already deemed to be too long by some users, and we should avoid making it unnecessarily longer. Keivan.f^Talk 20:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

A country’s minorities are crying out for better policing, housing and healthcare, but instead they are faced with a debate over which princess made the other one cry over a bridesmaid dress.--91.54.15.103 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that when it comes to people in the public figure domain, that is people of high visibility such as Harry Windsor, everything in detail must be written as factually and accurately as possible. Disputes, as there will be, must be constant in accuracy as possible. 2600:6C40:5A00:7A7:4544:EE0D:A174:9627 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Image update

I know this conversation has happened before but I believe that there should be a strong effort by Wikipedia editors to look for a copyright free clear image of Meghan. It has nearly been 5 years since the current picture was taken she is now 41 and a mother of 2 and no longer a working member of the family. A lot has changed. The picture should reflect that with a more updated image. Theeveralst (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I concur. A true image of the subject must be used. 2600:6C40:5A00:7A7:4544:EE0D:A174:9627 (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree I will try myself but if other wiki users could help find a more up to date picture it would make a good difference to this article! LaVozSA (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• 

This image was suggested by LaVozSA I definitely think its acceptable. --Aaron106 (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I would support that change. I think that image is also better since it's a frontal shot and not a side shot like the current one. Regards SoWhy 12:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The current image on the wikipedia page is of the utmost absurd images. It looks like the subject is dressed in character for an English, romance television movie.-l= 2600:6C40:5A00:7A7:4544:EE0D:A174:9627 (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This should be the picture as it’s a clear image of her face, frontal image and the most up to date one we currently have. I support this change and would love to see it happen LaVozSA (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the change. The newer image is lower resolution and of poorer quality. There's no discernible change in her appearance, so there's no benefit in a change. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose it as well. Mainly because of the image's poorer quality and its busy background, which I find very distracting. Keivan.f^Talk 08:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the opposes, the proposed image is poorer quality, cluttered, and it does not so much look like 'front-shot', as a slap-dash, poorly set, technically, poorly adjusted camera, where 'camera-person-is-about-to-bump-into-subject-shot', also the time issue is pretty meaningless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

YouGov

YouGov is used on a variety of articles, specifically regarding the British royals, and perhaps a discussion needs to be had on its reliability. This is the most immediate link describing their sampling process. Does WP have guidelines for this sort of thing? Bettydaisies (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any specific guidelines regarding the reliability of polling. For what it's worth, FiveThirtyEight's pollster rating gives YouGov a B+, which is pretty respectable, but I believe their rating is based solely on American polls and I'm not sure if the British methodology differs from the American one.

Maybe this question might be better asked at the reliable sources noticeboard. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023

She did NOT become a Princess of the United Kingdom by marrying Prince Harry, that's not how it works. She became the Duchess of Sussex, not a Princess of the UK . That line should be removed from the "Titles" section. 24.137.108.197 (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom, women share their husbands' titles. That is how it works. See British princess for further information on this specific title. Surtsicna (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Do you have a reliable source that describes her as a princess? M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding a source that explains why she can't be described as such. M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The source you cited quite clearly calls her Princess Henry of Wales. Her son's birth certificate describes her as Princess of the United Kingdom. Surtsicna (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: The source states many things, but it doesn't support what you restored. "Princess Henry of Wales" and "princess of the United Kingdom" are two different titles. M.Bitton (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a good thing then that the source cited in the content I restored is a different source, which does call her "Princess of the United Kingdom". A "Princess Henry of Wales" is a princess of the United Kingdom, just like Princess Charlotte of Wales is a princess of the United Kingdom. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Was there a Princess Sarah, is there a Princess Sophie, was Camilla ever Princess Camillia. I know that Diana was often called Princess Di or Princess Diana, but that was a mistake by the media. The media rarely uses Princess Catherine or Princess Meghan, but rather more often (and erroneously) Catherine Middleton & Meghan Markle. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that the lack of explanation is what's behind the confusion. If her son's birth certificate describes her as Princess of the United Kingdom, then that should be made clear. Explaining why she can't style the word Princess before her name (a privilege reserved for those born into the family) would also help. M.Bitton (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be over the top for this article. We have an article about the title princess of the United Kingdom, which explains the matter. Nobody calls her Princess Meghan anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

An "over the top" explanation (we're talking about a single sentence) is better than a misleading statement. M.Bitton (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Which statement is misleading? Surtsicna (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The one that prompted the edit request and GoodDay's comment. M.Bitton (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading about, 'on her marriage, became a princess.' The linked article explains it and so does the BBC.([9]:"You might know Meghan as the Duchess of Sussex, but following her May 2018 marriage she did also technically become a princess.") -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I wonder why the BBC states that "she did also technically become a princess" (emphasis mine)? M.Bitton (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Because it happens upon marriage. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Why can't she style the word Princess before her name? Don't you think that the reader ought to know that? M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it's no different for her than any other woman that lawfully marries a prince, so it's not peculiar to her bio. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece married a prince. M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, Paul (her husband) isn't a Greek prince anymore, but rather a Danish prince, with 'no rights' to the Danish throne. As for the Greek throne? it no longer exists. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Her Royal Highness Princess Sarah Zeid of Jordan also married a prince. M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Mayte Garcia also married Prince. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Now that we established that not being able to style the word Princess before her name is peculiar to her, can we add it to the article? M.Bitton (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

We have established no such thing. This has been explained to you by Alanscottwalker. You have also been directed to the article British princess multiple times. Please read it. Surtsicna (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

They said that it's no different for her than any other woman that lawfully marries a prince, a claim that has since been proven wrong. M.Bitton (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. Throwing out random names established nothing, nor did they prove anything. (And it is very odd that you went beyond living people who married British princes). At any rate, do you have any serious reliable sources that bother to say that trivia? That's how thing are established, and evaluated for weight. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• If no valid explanation is given as to why such important information should be mentioned, I will hand it over to the community (start a RfC). M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence of importance, and indeed no evidence at all. What are your sources? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What was your it's no different for her than any other woman that lawfully marries a prince about? M.Bitton (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The other article, you have been directed to, on British princesses. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Really? The discussion's history and diffs show that as your reply to: Why can't she style the word Princess before her name? M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I will try it one more time: Meghan is not "Princess Meghan" because wives of British princes use their husband's name with their title. It is not peculiar to Meghan. This is explained at the British princess article. There is no need to repeat it in every such princess's biography. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to read a wiki article since I have a source that says: only those born into the family can style the Word Princess before their Name. In other words, she cannot be described as Princess Meghan (although she can adopt the title "Princess Henry of Wales"). M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That source is not WP:BLP compliant, it's gossip relying on Best Life and The Daily Express. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What part of that source do you disagree with? M.Bitton (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a bad source, so it can't be used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you agree with what it says. M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No, only "high quality" sources are allowed in a BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the other claims: have a look at the biographies of Diana and Meghan on the official website of the British royal family. Diana is described as Princes of Wales, as well as "the Princess", while Meghan is described as Duchess of Sussex. M.Bitton (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

So what? It does not describe Diana as Princess Diana, either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss the merits of the source when it does not even contradict the content of the article or what we are saying. Diana was the princess of Wales and a princess of the United Kingdom. Meghan is the duchess of Sussex and a princess of the United Kingdom. It is all in the article you are refusing to acknowledge, let alone read. Nothing further can be contributed to this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The official website gives a different story, but you're right, there is no point in continuing this discussion. I will await for some more answers before starting a RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it does not give a different story. Our articles and the sources you and the rest of us cited here all give the same story. You are just unable or unwilling to process it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an issue with letting the community have its say? M.Bitton (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The community is having its say. You are not listening. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no different story on the website. Diana was Princess of Wales, thus The Princess she is never referred to as Princess Diana on the website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

she is never referred to as Princess Diana on the website Let's see:

"The final stop of the day for The Duke and Duchess in Manchester, which Princess Diana officially opened in 1991".

"Staged on what would have been Princess Diana’s 46th birthday.

So much for your "never". M.Bitton (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the bio web page you gave before, not other pages, or tweets. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a very poor excuse. What you said is there in green. M.Bitton (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I was responding to your earlier link. So, anyone of good faith would know that is what I was responding to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I've had it with this utter nonsense. I will await some more before starting a RfC. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

And what will you be asking in this RfC? Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Asking for proposed article text, and high quality sources that directly support the proposed text in a BLP is not nonsense. This began as an edit request, the proper response to any edit request is what text do you want and what sources do you have. So, again what proposed text do you want, and what high quality sources do you have that directly support it? Answering that would be the proper way to do RfC Before. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Starting an RfC will get you nowhere since you're the one who has been misinterpreting everything. The British royal family uses a system based on which when you marry a male member of the royal family you pick up their title and rank, but you cannot have the word "Princess" attached to your name unless you are a princess of the blood. Example: Princess Michael of Kent, who is married to Prince Michael of Kent but is not "Princess Marie-Christine". Similarly, Diana was not "Princess Diana" either and Catherine, Princess of Wales is not "Princess Catherine". She is The Princess of Wales. Keivan.f^Talk 23:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Princess Diana is described as such on the official website. I have no horse in this race and frankly, I couldn't care less where it goes. All I know is that the answers I have been given so far are less than satisfactory. I guess, you'll get the chance to have your say like everyone else once the RfC is underway. M.Bitton (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No, Diana is not described as such on the official website. Show me a sentence from her official bio which describes her as "Princess Diana". Keivan.f^Talk 23:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

See sources listed above (it is on their official website and therefore, reliable). Is Meghan described as such (or even as princess of any kind) on their website? M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a detailed article by the BBC: But Sarah Ferguson was never Princess Sarah and Sophie Rhys-Jones - the wife of Prince Edward - is not Princess Sophie. The rules also meant - to the consternation of many - that Lady Diana Spencer was never officially Princess Diana. She was the Princess of Wales and, after her divorce from Prince Charles, she was Diana, Princess of Wales. So it is impossible for a princess by marriage to have the word "Princess" attached to their name, but that has no effect on their 'rank' as Princess of the United Kingdom as demonstrated by the birth certificate of Prince George (who was born when his mother was still Duchess of Cambridge) and that of Meghan's son Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. Keivan.f^Talk 23:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You can't get more official than the official website that describes Diana as "Princes Diana", without ever describing Meghan as such or even using the word Princess in anything that is related to her. Incidentally, Kate is also described as as a princess. M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the official website, her official bio does not use the phrase "Princess Diana" at all. And neither do the bios on her ex-husband and her sons. The only instance is the one which is an announcement by the organizers of Concert for Diana, which had no authority on royal titles, and a tweet, which is hardly a reliable source. Keivan.f^Talk 00:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

And yes, Catherine is The Princess of Wales but she's not "Princess Catherine". Yet, having the word "Princess" attached to your name has no effect on your rank, which is why Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, Katharine, Duchess of Kent, and Princess Michael of Kent are all princesses of the United Kingdom. You only need to look at their children's official birth certificates. Is it really that hard to understand? Keivan.f^Talk 00:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no reason to assume or believe that they are incapable of using the correct terms and titles on their website.

None of this explains what I highlighted above: unlike the others, the word Princess doesn't appears anywhere near Meghan's name on their website. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It does not appear anywhere near the names of Sophie, Birgitte, Katharine, or Marie-Christine either. Because they are not titled as "Princess of X". Yet, official documents record their rank as "Princess of the United Kingdom". Keivan.f^Talk 00:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Here are the letters patent stating the rules clearly in 1923 when Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married Prince Albert, Duke of York and became The Duchess of York (not Princess Elizabeth though): The Home Office's ceremonial secretary, Boyd, replied the same day, after consulting Garter, that by virtue of the custom that a wife takes the rank of her husband, she would indeed become a Royal Highness, and a Princess as well (although she would not use the title any more than her husband the duke of York), without any need for a formal document. The same answer applied, of course, to the Prince of Wales's eventual wife. Keivan.f^Talk 00:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but what's the difference between Kate and Meghan and why is only the former described as Princess on their website? M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Because her title is "The Princess of Wales", so in a sentence they would refer to her as the Princess. Sophie, Countess of Wessex is also referred to as the Countess, but as the wife of a prince her 'rank' is that of a princess. Just like Elizabeth, Duchess of York who was indeed a princess (as demonstrated by the Home Office's statement) before becoming queen, but she was never referred to as Princess Elizabeth or the Princess. Title and rank are two different things. Keivan.f^Talk 00:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Just so that we are clear that this has to do with her title, the official website referred to her as the Duchess when she had not become the Princess of Wales. But her rank has always been that of a princess since her marriage to William as demonstrated by their children's birth certificates. Keivan.f^Talk 00:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. One more question: according to some sources, Meghan could adopt the title "Princess Henry of Wales". Assuming that's true, why would she have to add "Henry"? M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Had Harry not been granted a peerage, his wife Meghan would assume the feminine form of his 'title'. Which is why Prince Michael of Kent's wife is Princess Michael of Kent, and Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester was known as Princess Richard of Gloucester before her husband became the Duke of Gloucester. If Harry were to be stripped of his peerage now, Meghan would most likely become "The Princess Henry" as Harry is no longer "Prince Henry of Wales" because he's no longer the son of the Prince of Wales but the son of the Sovereign. Also, technically, she became "Princess Henry of Wales" upon marriage but there was no need to use that because she was the Duchess of Sussex. The same is true for Catherine who became Princess William of Wales. They cannot have their own names attached to the word "Princess" because they are not princesses of the blood. Keivan.f^Talk 00:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what I call a convincing argument. I won't be pursuing this and I hope that the IP who requested the edit would be as satisfied with it as I am. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Photo

Why is this the main photo that’s been chosen when there are so many better options? ClaireJohnsonIndia (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@ClaireJohnsonIndia, if you have suggestions for a replacement picture, feel free to propose them here. However, keep in mind that the image needs to either be in the public domain or licensed in such a way that the image can be freely used (we can't just use any old image found on Google--the file we choose must meet Wikipedia's image use policy). The issue in the past has been a lack of freely reusable, high quality images. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

change 1981 to 1977 94.207.255.96 (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

DOB and age

Her date of birth is 4 August 1977, this makes her 45 years old, this is according to her father, Thomas Markle. AshleyVeritas (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the California Birth Index, her birthdate is 08/04/1981. M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Her father has always maintained that she was born in 1981. If you claim otherwise, you should provide a source to back that claim up. Keivan.f^Talk 05:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Television Feature in South Park

The episode is called The Worldwide Privacy Tour 2405:6E00:1311:A300:8193:189B:FE8E:B89E (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2023

Age Update 51.191.103.43 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)