Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Afro American

Shouldn't Meghan Markles wikipage say she is Afro American? HardeeHar (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Why should it say that? Surtsicna (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Meghan Markle Afro American so shouldn't Meghan Markles wikipage say she is Afro American? HardeeHar (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

She isn't. Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

What is she then, mixed race? Shouldn't it say shes mixed race. HardeeHar (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It does say that below, in the body. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah good : )

Reason it was of interest to me is because the royal family has always been dogged by rumours that they are racists but harry marrying a mixed women helps disprove such rumours : ) HardeeHar (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that would disprove anything, but this talk page is not the place to discuss anything other than the article, per WP:NOTFORUM. Gap9551 (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Markle (as noted in the article) clearly stated: "My dad is Caucasian and my mom is African American. I'm half black and half white. ... I have come to embrace [this and] say who I am, to share where I'm from, to voice my pride in being a strong, confident, mixed-race woman." Being of mixed race does not negate that she is African American, any more than it negates Mariah Carey being African American. I recently noted this: Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 2#African American categories. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if RS don't call her african-american, and she self-identifies as mixed race, then we can't call her african-american. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources focus on what she stated of her racial identity, and nowhere does she state that she's not African American. Embracing that she is of mixed "race" (which is also what African Americans are in general; read the African Americans article) doesn't mean that she rejects the African American label for herself. I don't see a need to call Markle African American in the article, but we include a number of mixed-race people in the African American categories. In any case, I wanted to weigh in on the "she isn't" argument. And so I did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

American English template

I added this template and mdy because that is what the article currently uses. The template says "This article is written in American English"..."According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus." I figured it should be listed until/if there is consensus for a switch for British English. In my mind, that is a fairly minor issue but I thought that the templates should be used in the meantime for clarity. I am not stating that there is a consensus for it to remain in American English, only that the article currently uses that variety. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Actress / actor

While one other editor and I interpret WP:GNL as prescribing "actor" in preference to "actress", a third editor disagrees (for unspecified reasons). Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It has the disclaimer This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.. The third editor does not need a specified reason to disagree, as GNL is not a binding policy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed true that this is a mere essay. But whether or not you are convinced by the reasoning in the essay, at least it presents some reasoning. I wonder what the contrary reasoning might be. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A websearch shows a multitude for her as "actress", but are there any for her as "actor"? Qexigator (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are many. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning in the edit summary of another article the editor made this change to. As well as it only being an essay and not a binding policy, the essay also states “unless the topic requires it”. Its required in my opinion to keep the difference between a male and female actor intact and making these changes without so much as a discussion first considering this should be something applied to every article it pertains to is a bit concerning. Rusted AutoParts 00:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how the distinction between a male and female actor is helpful: whichever the gender, they're told their lines, they're told the situation, they learn their lines, they recite them while emoting, etc etc. It's the same job (even if women tend to get lower billing, lower pay, and more harassment). If OTOH you're saying that use of the term "actor" might blur Markle's gender for the reader, I don't think that this is likely, given that the article repeatedly refers to her as "she", and I think (and hope) never as "he" or indeed "it". -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s not really that. It’s been long established that when talking about those in the acting business, it’s always been the common thing to do. Daniel Day-Lewis is an actor, Hayley Atwell is an actress. It’s why award ceremonies have Best Actor and Best Actress categories. This is a move that should be discussed within the larger cinema/biography groups of Wikipedia as a whole as opposed to being enforced based off an unbinding essay. Rusted AutoParts 02:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet Helen Mirren and Whoopi Goldberg are actors. You may have missed it, but "actresses now prefer the word actor". I don't think this warrants a larger discussion if there is evidence that the subject prefers one term. Is there any indication? Her blog used to have a quote where she described her profession, but it is now gone, and some websites report she said she was an "actor" while others say "actress". Surtsicna (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m just saying there should be consensus before making changes that’ll undoubtedly cause a potential revert war over people who either don’t know this is the preferred phrasing or don’t agree with it. Then for the latter we can cite consensus as opposed to an essay, which I’ll again ya isn’t a policy or rule. By the way, one opinion piece doesn’t indicate to me that this is a widespread opinion. Rusted AutoParts 04:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This is another instance where Wikipedia should not be swayed by the personal preference or opinion of one or more editors or newspaper style guides. Let us surmise that about sixty years ago, say 1960, written sources (books, articles, magazines, newspapers) would mostly have been using "actor" for men and "actress" for women. Is there evidence that this has now changed to a predominant use of actor instead of actress, say thirty years ago (1990) or more recently (2010)? Do most people now in their forties normally use actor for females instead of actress which older people would feel was more natural? See here[1]: "...Does this mean that you believe that an actress becomes an actor after the age of 41?..." The response at a page on the website of The Stage (2014)[2] looks inconclusive, and does not support the opinionated overstatement "actresses now prefer the word actor". If a person, such as MM, takes care to present herself and pose stylishly in womanly dress, coiffure and makeup (see numerous online images, including IMDb[3]), whose profession has been to act female parts, and who is now in the public eye because she is about to remarry, this time into a royal family, it would seem more natural to use "actress", unless a context requires "actor". Qexigator (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

So, if a physician wears womanly dresses and makeup, is she a lady doctor, a doctress, or still just a doctor? I also do not see how Markle's remarriage, into a royal family or not, makes it more natural to use one term or another. There certainly are reasons to use "actress", but your arguments seem a bit odd. Surtsicna (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

... if a physician... false comparison (straw man?): Look again at comment above: "Let us surmise that about sixty years ago, say 1960, written sources (books, articles, magazines, newspapers) would mostly have been using "actor" for men and "actress" for women...now in the public eye because she is about to remarry..." By nearer comparison, see Judi Dench, Claire Foy, Helena Bonham Carter. By contrast, note also instances such as "The feminine form, executrix, may sometimes be used" for executor. Qexigator (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is how Markle has described herself:

1. 2016 essay for Elle: "My gig as a working actor is the hand that feeds me."
   "To use whatever status I have as an actress to make a tangible impact."
2. 2015 essay for Elle: "I would decide to become an actress."
   "I'm an actress, a writer, the Editor-in-Chief of my lifestyle brand The Tig, a pretty good cook and a firm believer in handwritten notes."

Please add more examples if you find them. Surtsicna (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Good examples of context. "...my gig as a working actor is the hand that feeds me. .... While most become star struck by A-list actors..." (2016); "...I would decide to become an actress. There couldn't possibly be a more label-driven industry than acting, seeing as every audition comes with a character breakdown..." (2015)". Qexigator (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed infobox

Meghan
Duchess of Sussex (more)
Markle in January 2013
Born	Rachel Meghan Markle (1981-08-04)4 August 1981 Los Angeles, California, United States
Spouse	Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex ​ ​ (m. 2018)​
House	Windsor (by marriage)
Father	Thomas Markle
Mother	Doria Ragland
Signature

A proposed infobox for after the marriage. CookieMonster755✉ 23:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of this section? Surtsicna (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

firstly "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections." MOS:ACCESS#Text/MOS:FONTSIZE. secondly here title is not yet confirmed. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It is just a proposed concept. The title is not confirmed, but it shows what an infobox may look like if she receives a title by marriage. CookieMonster755✉ 00:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay... how about we cross that bridge when we get there? In about five months? And if we get there. Surtsicna (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Ancestry Section

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

---

Should the article Meghan Markle have a section on her ancestry? More specifically, should the details of her ethnic background be included? Should discussion of her ancestors who lived in the 17th century be included? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't forget about her white ancestor from the 17th century - Captain Christopher Hussey (died 1686). He is a direct ancestor of Markle's grt grt grt grandmother Mary Hussey Smith (died 1908). His chair is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

Markle's OWN family - for 20 years - have been well aware of this family connection as the respected UK Daily Telegraph tells us on 18th November 2017.

The family is not a reliable source for a 17th century ancestor, unsigned. An uncle who self-publishes genealogy online and may be following specious connections (most likely the article from the Plantagenet Connection that admitted the Hussey link was weak. Also, a reliable source (not the DailyMail or the Telegraph, or the Australian amateur historian, would need to publish a conclusion that the Bachiler chair proved a Christopher Hussey to Lord Hussey connection. Since a chair cannot be that proof, that will not actually happen. Satyadasa (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Sure, why not? Royalty is all about ancestry, and Harry’s BLP has long contained such a section. Just make sure it doesn’t get so big as to be undue weight. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

All royal "people" have pages that have their ancestry. Her 17th century ancestry and shared cousinship with her finance is interesting. 2001:8003:4FE9:1B00:7418:F491:EF9A:E098 (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support if reliably sourced No need to not include this sourced reliably. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• We are rushing things. Anythingyouwant says that ancestry is commonly explained in articles about royal people, but Markle is not royal yet. If the marriage were to never take place, the ancestry section would look out of place in the article about an actor. If the ancestry is relevant when the subject is royal, let's include it when Markle is actually royal. Surtsicna (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of ancestry sections in articles about actors. See Ben Affleck for one.
• She herself has spoken on the record about her ancestry (both paternal and maternal). As the fiancé of a royal, her "New England (American)", noble and royal ancestry has been confirmed and published widely. Her family has been familiar with some of this research according to the UK Daily Telegraph. Yes - it should be included.203.132.68.1 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Literally everyone with English ancestry is descended from Edward III, including Markle. Funny how that needs to be highlighted only if/when the person becomes engaged to a modern royal! Never mind that it's also true for literally everyone else. Surtsicna (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Poor us - our family PAID MONEY to get proof of our New England ancestry (hoping too, for proof of noble and royal links!) nd the professional geneaologists could not come up with ANY proof beyond 4 generations back. Lucky Meghan.
      • Obviously everyone is descended from the people of their country 700 years ago, and of the whole world within a few thousands (see the Identical ancestor point. That's how maths work. The difference in that in Wikipedia pages that include a small ancestry section, this is a published, sourced line of descent. When I was editing this, I was removing inaccurate claims by such as the Daily Mail and only including material from organizations like the NEHGS. Satyadasa (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• I believe there is undue weight being paid to her ancestry, particularly to tenuous links to English nobility. The current version here is better than some previous, but there is still extraneous detail. She is a 17th cousin of Prince Harry? So is most of the population of North America.
  • Mathematically, yes. Attested in records, no. Satyadasa (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry is important for royals as it establishes their legitimacy as royals. The most interesting aspect of Markle's ancestry, with respect to her status as the future wife of a prince, is that she is a commoner. I would suggest we consider the articles of other commoners who also married into royalty, e.g. Grace Kelly (no ancestry section) or Wallis Simpson (a simple chart back to her great-great-grandparents). See also another commoner who married one of QEII's grandsons, Autumn Phillips - not a word about her ancestry.

Put another way: Markle was notable for her own accomplishments long before she became the future Mrs. Harry Windsor. Was her descent from Sir Philip Wentworth notable then? And if not, what makes it notable now? - Eron^Talk 05:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Markle has some confirmed ancestors who have had their own Wikipedia pages for years. So does Sophie Rhys Jones and Sarah Ferguson. Autumn Phillips does not have any significant ancestors with their own Wikipedia pages. It makes absolute sense to link Markle's notable ancestors into her own page - especially as her ancestry has been confirmed and is connected to her fiance's. I would place the ancestry section towards the end of the article.2001:8003:4FE9:1B00:CC2F:2627:E756:1D2F (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That Autumn Phillips has no significant ancestors with biographies on Wikipedia is demonstratively false. I have cited articles which explain in detail that every person of English ancestry is descended from Edward III. Furthermore, every person of European ancestry is descended from Charlemagne. In fact, every person from the 9th century or earlier who has surviving descendants is an ancestor of every living person of European ancestry. Genealogical research of celebrities is a fad that provides no meaningful information. There is no sensible reason not to consider this more trivial than the subject's dietary habits, height and weight, style choices, workout routine, etc; the availability of information does not necessarily mean the information is encyclopedically relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's a fad, it's centuries old. As I've mentioned in the other talk sections on this, 1911 Britannica is also full of such "fad" genealogical information about the notable distant relations of notable individuals. The articles that explain ancestry from Edward III are mathematical in nature, and this information belongs in articles like Identical ancestors point and Most recent common ancestor. You're absolutely right that Markle's ancestry is not special; it's only that New England colonial ancestry is some of the best traced in the world. However, there is precedent. I do not buy that Wikipedia policy is that the burden is on those who propose including this information. You'll need to cite policy on that. Satyadasa (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Yes. General media coverage reflects public interest in the subject in her public role as royalty. Wikipedia ought to cautiously mirror that. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

But she is not royalty yet and her 15th century ancestors have nothing to do with her public role. They do not have anything to do with any aspect of her life, actually. Surtsicna (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As reported, Markle's grt grt grt grandmother is landowner Mary Hussey Smith (d.1908), the descendant of founding Hampton, New Hampshire councillor Christopher Hussey (died 1686) - (this is in the 17th century - not the 14th century!). This ancestor has a fair bit to do with the life of Markle's family. It is not for you to say that it is not important. The Markle family themselves are reported as being aware of their own ancestry - see UK Daily Telegraph article. Why should Sophie Rhys Jones have an ancestry section (her grandmother was Patricia Molesworth - a descendant of Lord Molesworth) and not Markle - whose grt grt grt grandfather Jacob Lee Merril was a descendant of the Rev. Skipper who first came to New England in the 1630s. It is not for us to say that that these people are of no importance to the Markle Family or historians Srbernadette (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

And how exactly is "landowner Mary Hussey Smith (d.1908)" or "Christopher Hussey (died 1686)" or "Jacob Lee Merril" or "Rev. Skipper" relevant to Meghan Markle's acting career or royal future? It is not for us to say what's relevant to Markle's family or historians, but it is for us to say what's relevant to Wikipedia. See WP:ONUS: not every sourced piece of information belongs to an encyclopedia. That is why we do not deal with Markle's gym routine or dietary habits here and why we should not dedicate an entire section to trivia about distant relatives. Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree - I HATE Markle!!!! I agree with you that only nice, upper-class, white "gels" should have their nice, white, ancestry sections on the their Wikipedia page because it's "relevant to them". Markle's nice, white, notable ancestry can go to hell! Stupid, elitist Washington Post and UK Daily Telegraph for publishing it on page 5. Their many readers will NEVER be interested in Markle's nice, white aristocratic background. Cheers Srbernadette (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Defacing this article to make a point, as you did here, is not going to help you convince anyone. Please keep your editorializing about the content of the article on this Talk page, where it belongs. - Eron^Talk 22:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

My own research is about her mother's side, but as it isn't published at the moment it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It should, eventually, as her non-Royal ancestry in North America, Africa, and Europe are indeed equally relevant. Satyadasa (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Markle herself says that "I have come to embrace [this and] say who I am, to share where I'm from... " - but on Wikipedia we will NOT be going into any detail as to "where she is from". NO ANCESTRY SECTION ALLOWED FOR MARKLE. Of course, YES to an ancestry section for fellow White commoner (and soon to be relative) Sophie Rhys Jones. Cheers Srbernadette (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Holy cow. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's all just a bit of fun here on Wikipedia! Srbernadette (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You may find this essay relevant. - Eron^Talk 23:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. She is formally associated with royalty, and there has been significant media attention regarding her ancestry. People may come here to get an overview of these reports. If the engagement were to end, we can always consider removing the section. I agree with others that the section shouldn't be too long (focussing on a few notable ancestors, preferably somewhat recent ones) and near the end of the article. Gap9551 (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

But how does being associated with royalty make one's ancestry more relevant, Gap9551? Harry's ancestry is relevant because it makes him royal and confers a constitutional position on him. Markle's ancestry did not lead to her being associated with royalty. Harry did not fall for her because she was his 17th cousin or a descendant of a William Skipper. And notability is not temporary; we cannot now decide that an entire section is relevant, only to change our minds if things don't work out the way we expected, without looking like fools. Why cannot we cover her ancestry briefly in the Early life section, mentioning her notable and recent ancestors (per your suggestion) and without going into undue detail? Surtsicna (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

True, Harry's ancestry is more important than Markle's, even when they are married. But I think her ancestry is important enough to discuss here in more detail than before, due to her engagement to a royal (of course the sources only appeared after the relationship became known). Ancestry is an important concept for royalty, and through her engagement to a royal, I feel hers become more notable too (I admit I cannot argue this better, and if many disagree I'll happily accept that, but several media outlets clearly think her ancestry is more relevant now, too). I believe The section in the GNG you link to via "notability is not temporary" is about notability of standalone articles, not subtopics within articles, but apart from that, inclusion of any topic in Wikipedia can in principle be re-evaluated at any time. Wikipedia wouldn't look like a fool if we ever decide to change content. I'm ok with one or two paragraphs in her Early life section about ancestry instead of a separate section (actually I had misread the first few words of this RfC, I thought it was about including her ancestry at all, not just about a dedicated section. But in the current version ancestry isn't covered anywhere, apart from her parents.). Gap9551 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that we do not have any major disagreements then; I am definitely not against covering the basics of her origin (see the featured article on fellow actor Angelina Jolie#Early life and family for example). What I oppose is dedicating four paragraphs to it and bringing up random people from the Middle Ages. Surtsicna (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Great that user:Surtsicna has now "lowered her standards" enough to almost contemplate Markle's white notable aristocratic ancestors - who have their own Wikipedia pages. Good news!Srbernadette (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The derision in your comments is obnoxious. Surtsicna (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Lighten up!!! I'm just muckin' around Surtsicna. The reliable UK and USA broadsheets and TV networks will continue to publish for the benefit of their readers Markle's white aristocratic ancestry for the rest of her life - regardless of what we put down on Wikipedia pages! Surely you know that.

FWIW - do you understand that Autumn Phillips would indeed, as you correctly say, be a direct descendant of Edward III but that any research done on Phillip's ancestry failed to PROOVE this? That's why it is not on her Wikipedia page. If Burke's Peerage researchers or any other reputable sources had such "facts", the information would be available for to read as it is with Sophie, Countess of Wessex; this is the case with most other royal wives. Markle is no longer an actress - so PLEASE do not compare her Wikipedia page with actress Angelina Jolie!!!! There is evidence that Markle is now a working royal - and will remain as such for some time!!

N.B. Markle's publicity and all media attention now relates and personifies her as a royal - NOT as an actress. We can absolutely categorically state that as a fact. Cheers Srbernadette (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It has been proven that Autumn Phillips is a descendant of Edward III. I have cited the research. I won't even attempt to address the rest of your gibberish. Surtsicna (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - the 17th century ancestor that this RFC is specifically asking about has no due WP:WEIGHT in coverage. I think the above replies that say support were *not* advocating for that either, but instead are support for general ancestry remarks. By basic Google that has some minor weight - Markle gets 70M hits, her ancestry gets 1M. But 17th century -- seems only 6 thousand hits, which makes it not significant enough percentage to mention. Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I am not sure that King Edward III is a "random" person, or John Hussey, 1st Baron Hussey of Sleaford for that matter. The more these confirmed direct ancestors are discussed and highlighted in major global newspapers (see above), the more likely it is that Wikipedia will have to record the major global newspaper's reports and place the information in a formal ancestry section - similarly to the ancestry section of another commoner who married a royal - Sophie, Countess of Wessex. Stay tuned Srbernadette (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support To be honest, I think such section should be included in the body of the article. She is expected to become a high ranking member of the royal family, and one of the elements that is associated with royalty is their heritage. My opinion may be biased, but one of the first things that I was interested to learn about Markle after the announcement of her engagement was that whether she had any royal ties or not, and it seems that some users have found information on her ancestry noteworthy. I suggest that we should keep that section. Keivan.f^Talk 03:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  Please help me understand this, Keivan.f. Markle is to become royal by marriage, not by birth, is she not? So what does her heritage have to do with that? And do you support covering the heritage in detail in a separate section or within the Early life section? Why? Surtsicna (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  Keivan.f makes his reasons for his decision very clear in his above response to you Surtsicna - please re-read them and LISTEN to your fellow editors! Attached is family tree as published by the UK Times on December 3rd, 2017 - only days before Surtsicna decided that the Markle family tree was of no interest to Wikipedia readers - the information being dismissed by this editor as "irrelevant" to Markle's own family too! https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meghan-markles-jonesboro-roots-q2pkszld.q The UK Daily Telegraph also has done a feature article by Hannah Furness (18 November 2017) - complete with family tree of the paternal side of Markle's family. Wikipedians will never see it or read about it - also decided by Surtsicna Srbernadette (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  First of all, I just want to make it clear that we are not arguing over something here; this is supposed to be a constructive discussion, so please calm down and respect the users that have different opinions. Surtsicna, you're right. She's not royal by birth, but she's the first person of mixed race to marry into the British royal family, thus information on her family background and ancestry could be interesting. I usually prefer the ancestry section to be separated from other sections, but as she's not a royal figure yet, I think we should follow the most appropriate form for non-royals and include it as a sub-section within the "Early life". Keivan.f^Talk 03:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  I would certainly support including details of her background and ancestry as a person of mixed race. The fact that she is a descendant of American slavery is far more interesting - and I would say, encyclopedic - than her more remote (and in some cases unproven) links to English nobility. The notable thing about her ancestry is that she is a commoner of mixed race marrying the grandson of the Queen; that should absolutely be included in this article. - Eron^Talk 04:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed. As discussed in considerable earnest on this talk page, I have constructed a factually correct and a very concise sub-section dealing with Markle's confirmed maternal and paternal ancestry. I have eliminated all doubtful ancestral references. I sincerely hope this pleases everyone.Srbernadette (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support User:Surtsicna - Please explain why a "commoner", Sophie, Countess of Wessex and the other royal wives including commoner Camilla are deemed suitable for their own Ancestry sections on their pages.

You say NO to presenting any of the detailed ancestry for "half-caste" Markle on her page. You are aware - as we all are - that Markle's noble and notable ancestors have been very well-publicised and authentically researched in major newspapers around the world. I simply do not understand your logic. Even for Wikipedia! Srbernadette (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Owing to the considerable and earnest discussion on this Talk page, I have constructed a factually correct and a concise sub-section dealing with Markle's confirmed maternal and paternal ancestry. I have eliminated all doubtful ancestral references. I hope this pleases everyone. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I have merged the Ancestry section and the Early life section as is usual. I have also cut down on the excessive number of citations and details. Nothing substantial has been removed, yet everything fits nicely. I have restored the precise definition of Markle's genealogical relationship to Harry (since we are all Harry's distant cousins but we are not all his 17th cousins) but if you ask me, it is of no value. In fact, replacing "17th cousin" with "distant cousin" seems to have been done precisely with the aim of masking how trivial the info is. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sutsicna for your help. The cousinship reference is clearly in the citation so we should keep that in the paragraph. Markle is also a direct descendant of Rev. Stephen Bachiler - there are USA newspapers that have presented feature stories on her descent from him. When I have time - I would like to add that in too. The editor Kievanf and many of us would prefer the separate ancestry section and this will be happening after Markle is wed, as you have indicated. Please don't change your mind! Thanks again and I'm really glad that we can accomplish something reasonable. 203.132.68.1 (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to make a point with my most recent edits that we do not need to mention AT ALL the "unlikely" genealogy reports that were widely published - i.e. the Bowes-Lyon family cousinship or the Lord Hussey Stuff. PLEASE let's adhere to the "New England Geneaology" (Gary Boyd Roberts) PROVEN research. Please!Srbernadette (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

203.132.68.1, if you have reliable sources to prove the claim that Markle is a descendant of Stephen Bachiler, then please feel free to add it as soon as possible. Per your suggestion, Srbernadette, I removed those sources that contained false information. I said it in my edit summary and I repeat it again here: we are not a news agency, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's why if something's wrong, it shouldn't be added to the article at all. It's not our duty to explain to a reader why an article published by Daily Telegraph contains false info (with the exception of special cases), we just have to present facts that are supported by reliable (preferably secondary) sources. Keivan.f^Talk 02:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

And precisely because we are not a news agency, we do not need to report everything that's out there. We need to judge what's encyclopedic and what's not. The statement that Harry and Meghan are distant cousins is superfluous; we are all distant cousins, as you said. We do not describe Diana as Charles's distant cousin, nor Catherine as William's. What's the point of it? Surtsicna (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think changing the structure of that sentence might help. I'll try to change it myself. Keivan.f^Talk 04:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The closest recorded genealogical distance between a couple is relevant. The Duchess of Cambridge's relationships to the Duke of Cambridge are not in her article because there is an entire other article including them: Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge Satyadasa (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's relevant when the couple are first or second cousins or so. It's absolutely trivial when they are 17th cousins. Besides, the source said nothing about it being "the closest recorded genealogical distance". It's one of the things that were entirely made up by whoever inserted the content into the article. Surtsicna (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support If we do not have an Ancestry section for Meghan Markle, we should not have it for the tens of thousands of other biographies of born royals (along with others--presidents, actors, etc.) who have ancestry sections. Not one is more notable than the other. Genealogical information has been considered encyclopedic for as long as there have been encyclopedias. There are relevant discussions elsewhere on Wikipedia, and there should be a consensus formed among editors far more widespread than those who have been editing this particular article. The section has, nevertheless, already been merged with Early life by Surtsicna, who claims there is a consensus. I certainly do not see that consensus here--and it needs to be wider. Satyadasa (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Meghan Markle is not a "born royal". (She is not royal at all.) Also, other crap exists; it doesn't mean we ought to replicate it. If we are to take other articles as examples, we should choose not the "tens of thousands" (grossly exaggerated) mediocre or poor biographies but the few dozens of featured articles. For example, the featured article Angelina Jolie covers her heritage but does not have a separate Ancestry section and does not name her ancestors (such as Zacharie Cloutier). That is because such ancestors had no impact on the subject's life, and the subject gave them no prominence. That is also the case here. The section you restored contained several claims which could not be verified, as is often the case with such trivia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

We have tried to find published evidence of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie both sharing common ancestors - e.g. Madeleine Ernard and her carpenter husband Zacharie Cloutier (1617-1708) - but there is none. On the other hand, the Washington Post, New York Times and other major global media outlets have published the proven SHARED ancestry between Markle and Prince Harry. The couple's common ancestor - Sir Philip Wentworth and his wife - were the great grandparents of Jane Seymour, wife of Henry VIII. This fact will remain relevant to both Harry's ancestry and Markle's. That is why the major global papers, television networks and historians will continue to refer to this information. Please accept this. Cheers 101.182.160.40 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me, are you using the royal we to refer to yourself? Anyway, who ever mentioned Brad Pitt? And how do you know who the acting couple's common ancestors are if you found nothing about it? Now, your claim that "Washington Post, New York Times and other major global media outlets" wrote about Philip Wentworth and Mary Clifford's connection to Harry and Markle, if that is indeed what you are saying, is demonstratively false. Your reference is a chart, not a major global media outlet, that does not even emphasize Wentworth and Clifford but merely lists them among 140 other people. I am not sure whether to call undue weight or synthesis! Surtsicna (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Surtsicna - Edit War!!! Relax, we will all sort this out - I've informed Wikipedia help desk and other interested editors. Maybe the refs should also include the major news outlets - the New York Times and Washington Post, however, the status of Gary Boyd Roberts could be considered suffice. Let's see what the other editors say. No need to rush here. Over the next few weeks and months this ancestry will continue to be reported - even Markle's black ancestry (which might come as a bit of a surprise to you, as you once tried - on this page - to supress any references to both her black and white ancestry!) It could well be that - in time - we refer to the couple's direct descent from Sir Philip Wentworth alongside the reference to Christopher Hussey (died 1686). We will all work it out - collaboratively!! Cheers and stay COOL!!! Srbernadette (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The Prince's fiancee is entitled to every respect, both for her own career and her own biography, and Wikipedia readers should be given any properly sourced informative text about that. But of the reasoning for and against in this discussion to date, against has the better of the argument. Unless properly proven by reliable genealogy, the remoter claimed or supposed ancestry is no better than gossipy trivia, adding nothing usefully informative for readers who expect better from Wikipedia articles connected with succession to the British throne, such as this one. In due course, we may expect the confirmed ancestry to be better known and published. In the meantime, leave it out. Qexigator (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support The proven ancestry by Gary Boyd Roberts is rightfully on the page in the "Early life" section. The proven ancestry information has been there of some days so please leave it there. 203.132.68.1 (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think you should be commenting while logged out after commenting while logged in and vice versa. Surtsicna (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as framed I see no reason for a seperate section, nor to include info beyond the normal account of her immediate ancestors, and if thoroughly RS'd (or disclaimed as 'possible') any distant notable relatives. This has nothing to do with her being US, mixed-race or any other consideration. I equally fail to see the point of 'family trees' on other minor spouses of royals. A case can be made that born members of royalty or titled aristocracy hold their 'position' exclusively because of lineage, therefore charting it is relevant. Why we would think it relevant here, I don't see. GorBlimey! Strewth! I'm probably a descendant of Charlemagne and Edward III! Who can I find to tell about it? Pincrete (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: perhaps the issues raised here about ancestry (Edward III & Charlemagne) should be brought up at a higher-level forum, as this issues are not limited to a royal-to-be. Just where will we draw the line? That William Lyon Mackenzie King was a grandson of William Lyon Mackenzie is obviously something the King article cannot leave out—but at how many generations does this information become meaningless? Justin Trudeau's article traces back to his great-great-great-great-great grandparents—is this too many generations? Especially as how it brings in his non-Euro heritage? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support if very reliably (per WP:BLP) sourced. This is normal info to include in bios, within reason, and as someone noted above, royal families are "all about ancestry", so this is even more pertinent in this kind of case. For bios in general, whether people "should" care about ancestry and ethnical background or not is a Wikipedia-irrelevant question; the fact is that they do, and the encyclopedia is incomplete if we delete or avoid including such information when reliably sourced. Furthermore, by RfC at WP:VPPOL about two years ago, we removed this information from infoboxes, with the express understanding that we were doing so because it would be covered in sufficient detail and context and sourcing in the main article body.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion of the RfC

• Royal families are indeed all about ancestry, since ancestry makes them royal. Ancestry does not make Markle royal, however. In other words, not only is Meghan Markle's future status as royal not "all about ancestry", it is not about ancestry at all. So that argument goes down the drain, apparently, since nobody repeating it has yet attempted to refute this point of mine. I agree with you, of course, that ancestry should be covered "within reason". But what do you mean by that,  SMcCandlish? Is the current coverage in the Early life section reasonable? Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  Her offspring will be royal, though, which makes the information relevant. It's also clearly relevant for various "stark raving obvious" socio-political reasons to do with race and class in Britain, with British history toward people of color, with British immigration and integration policy, with the changing nature of what a "royal family" is in the contemporary era, and all that other stuff. I.e., the refutations of the point you're relying on – hair-splitting about your personal conception of what kind of ancestry "matters" – is all pretty hard to miss and probably didn't need to be spelled out. It's clearly not WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia (though excessive detail could become so, especially if goes back too far in time).

  Let's look at the oppose comments in detail, starting with yours: "What I oppose is dedicating four paragraphs to it and bringing up random people from the Middle Ages." So, we don't do either, and problem solved. Markbassett doesn't want to see WP:UNDUE dwelling on a single 17th c. figure. So, we don't do that, problem solved – oh, except that was no actual problem, it was just a theoretical concern, since Mark says "the above replies that say support were *not* advocating for that either". Next is Qexigator, who's not actually opposing if you read their rationale: "Wikipedia readers should be given any properly sourced informative text about ... [Markle's] own biography"; this is followed by a personal assessment of pro and con arguments as if Qexigator is the closer of the discussion, but Qexigator is not and is a commenter; this ends with a demand for reliable sources, which all of us also expect to see and which policy requires; thus, no actual oppose rationale is provided, meanwhile this commenter is explicit that the info should be included if/when well-sourced. Finally, Pincrete objects to the framing of the question of the RfC (a procedural matter, not about the substance of the article); they are opposed to devoting an entire section to the material (so, don't include an entire section on it, problem solved – assuming consensus agreed, which it might not); Pincrete also seems to object to "old history" material about her background; this editor also opposes genealogical tree charts for people not born into a hereditary aristocracy; so, don't include that stuff, problem solved. In the end, there is no substantive opposition to including basic ethnic/racial/cultural/whatever-label-you-like background information in this person's bio, if properly sourced.

  PS: If we were to conclude that it's improper to mention pre-modern notable ancestors, then we have quite literally thousands of other articles to clean up, since inclusion of such possibly-trivial details is a common practice (I would actually support that cleanup, and go further – e.g., it is of no encyclopedic relevance at all that Bruce McCandless I's great-grand uncle (or whatever) was Henry Hudson Kitson, who died almost a century before McCandless did, and had no relevance to the latter's notability).
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Her royal offspring, if any (she is not even married yet), will probably have their own biographies, where their ancestry will be mentioned. We should not expect readers from all over the world to be familiar with the "stark raving obvious socio-political reasons to do with race and class in Britain, with British history toward people of color, with British immigration and integration policy", etc. If there are reliable sources that mention her ancestry in the context of any of that, we should spell that out in the article, not expect people to deduce it from the names of apparently random people.
The present wording is the result of a long discussion, compromises, rewordings, and cuttings. We did at one point bring up a lot of random people. We did have undue focus on a 17th century individual. We did have genealogical charts. In conclusion, it seems we all agree that the present coverage of the subject's ancestry is reasonable and useful. But this RfC is not about whether ancestry or ethnicity should be mentioned at all. It is about whether there should be a separate section dedicated to it, as indicated by the section title and the RfC question. There is no substantial opposition to the inclusion of the information, but there is a substantial opposition to the development of an entire section about it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meghan Markle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171127194818/http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/britain-fazed-mixed-race-fiance-prince-harry-51410958 to http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/britain-fazed-mixed-race-fiance-prince-harry-51410958

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018

"Descent from King Edward III of England is conjecture. It should not be included in the article as a fact." 90.240.233.94 (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2018 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty6811 (talk • contribs) 16:03, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

Proposed additional section

Obviously, this is just a proposal. My feelings won't be hurt by either an outright rejection of the entire section or, if accepted, by revisions.--Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all the third reference would not be accepted as per WP:DAILYMAIL. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. That's true, I forgot about the DM ban. I'm sure we can find another reference for that, however. It's been widely written about. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

One possibility for an alternative source to DM (reference 3) is the interview with Larry Willmore itself: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/kk58nn/the-nightly-show-with-larry-wilmore-panel---is-donald-trump-unstoppable- but that's not the only one, by any means. What do we have here? Is People.com (magazine) acceptable? http://people.com/politics/ivanka-trump-congratulates-prince-harry-meghan-markle-engagement/ --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You need a citation for every statement. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of the current way the political commentary is worded. Sounds too peacock-y. I would also propose it be renamed simply to "Politics". CookieMonster755✉ 16:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate Geekyroyalaficionado posting this on the talk page first. I agree with the other comments so far. Some of the words and phrases used make this veer into unencyclopedic territory, such as "unabashedly vocal" "clear that she is firmly on the left wing of the political spectrum" and "force of her political alignment." I also think this leans to heavily on building an argument about her political believes rather than just describing them. We also need reliable sources for everything and at least half of this is not sourced. I think a paragraph about her political beliefs could be appropriate, but this needs refinement. Knope7 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Political commentary

Meghan Markle has been unabashedly vocal about both political and social issues. A proud feminist, she has also made it clear that she is firmly on the left wing of the political spectrum when it comes to gender identity issues; specifically, she openly and enthusiastically supported Emma Watson's HeForShe campaign. While she has not made known her views on economic or foreign policy issues, she has used strong language regarding the character and personality of US President Donald Trump, calling him misogynistic and divisive. She also said she was glad she happened to live in Canada (at the time, as regular cast member on Suits) and that she might just stay in Canada if Trump were elected President. Moreover, Markle has never shied away from partisan identity. In 2016, she joined actor Liam Neeson and her Suits costar Sarah Rafferty at a Hillary Clinton campaign fundraiser in Midtown Manhattan. Markle is not different from Prince Harry or his brother, the Duke of Cambridge, in being known to favor a socially liberal platform. What makes her unique from any other person in the royal family is the force of her partisan alignment. In the past, royalty tried to be diplomatically neutral and certainly never would have called out any politician by name. Even Prince Harry, openly very fond of both Barack and Michelle Obama, is careful to not make statements of judgement on even a public figure's character. Even if Markle goes forward in a diplomatic way, as befitting a member of the royal family, her past statements are in the public domain forever.

References

Recent edits

Regarding these edits, these deserve to be reverted if nothing else only on the basis of the unnecessary personal commentary, editorializing, and content not present in the sources: e.g., been known to be somewhat, as yet unproven. Other than that, I don't have a strong opinion on the WP:DUEWEIGHT of including content regarding her political views and the remainder of the related discussion above. GMG^talk 15:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy with the addition of 'She has used strong language regarding the character and personality of US President Donald Trump, calling him misogynistic and divisive.' as this can be found in the citations provided, but I agree that the rest of the suggested addition is uncited. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Murkiness on where raised.

It’s confirmed that Meghan Markle attend schools in Hollywood but it’s murky where she grew up. There are some accounts of her parents residing in Woodland Hills during their marriage. After their divorce, it’s unclear what happened. Does anyone know? Queensgrl (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Doria Ragland’s background

Why nothing on Ms. Ragland except that she descended from slaves in Georgia? Most African Americans are multigenerationally admixed and this is likely the case for Ms. Ragland. It would be interesting to know more. I’d love to see Henry Louis Gates explore Ms. Markle’s mom’s side some more. I’ll be he finds some interesting stuff. Queensgrl (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

by your logic the article on Ms. Markle also include a complete ancestral listing, maternal and paternal, and complete maternal and paternal lines of mater and pater as well? Why stop there? Should we trace ancestry all the way to Adam and Eve? Be sure to cite your sources! Have fun!

Meghan Markle place of residence incorrect

Meghan Markle has never lived at Kensington Palace. She is not allowed access there by Royal Family unless escorted. Her place of residence is Soho Farmhouse, London BettyBoop23456 (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

We need a citation for every statement. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

the only citation for that is a rampant online conspiracy theory, mostly tumblr based!

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2018

Change 'Meghan Markle is an American actress and humanitarian' to 'Meghan Markle is an American actress'. 81.154.45.214 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Why? ~ GB fan 16:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Please get consensus for this change before requesting it. Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2018

Please change: The press began to report the relationship in October 2016.[61] to Camilla Tominey, royal editor of the Sunday Express, first broke the news of the couple's relationship on October 30, 2016 and include the proper link to the original story: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/726701/prince-harry-meghan-markle-suits-actress-girlfriend-royal-family-relationship-secret-lover

Please change this to more accurately reflect the original source of the story and provide Wikipedia readers with the original story - which isn't even currently linked to Meghan Markle's page. 2A02:C7F:141D:5600:E520:32E7:71E8:4E89 (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to link to the original story and the current citation supports the article content. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Diary

Meghan Markle#Engagement to Prince Harry reads like a diary Markle wrote in third person. Do we really need to mention every time she appeared in public? She is about to do a lot of that. Surtsicna (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've taken out some stuff. Surtsicna (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Those visits (to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) are part of her introduction to the UK. As a member of the royal family once she is married, her engagements will be circulated in the Court Circular. However, in the meantime, these engagements are introductory and not officially counted, because non-royals are not in the Court Circular. You may trivialize the "third-person diary," but those visits are specifically tied to the engagement and to her introduction to the UK. We don't have to record each appearance she undertakes as a royal, but I think those appearances with the royal family as a fiancé are worth noting. Furthermore, some people put a lot of effort into that data. Perhaps you could respect that. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not remove the mentions of those visits. I just took out excessive detail, especially info about various events and charities. People's desire to contribute is commendable but not all data belongs to this specific article. Please do not take it personally. Surtsicna (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna. Not too much detail is needed about each of her visits. All of the royals, including the Queen and the Duchess of Cambridge, carry out hundreds of engagements throughout the year. Not all of them need to be mentioned though. Keivan.f^Talk 06:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, and I apologize for being overly sensitive. I will have to agree to disagree, but allow the majority to win, so to speak. I think details of those particular engagements are warranted, as they are part of the regional introduction of Ms. Markle. But, as I said, I defer to the majority and apologize for being rude, if I was.--Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"Humanitarian"

I just have to ask, what is a "humanitarian" exactly? I think 'actress', or perhaps 'actor' is quite sufficient to accurately describe Meghan's profession! Varnebank (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ancestors

It can't be proven she is related to Robert I. She is related however to the Bruces family if they are correct. That from info in the House of Bruce. One more thing , holy water only exists in the movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:C100:C44:8D0C:528B:F7FD:297A (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I always find the ancestry sections amusing, very possibly in this case added to give more weight to her 'royal' credentials. The simple fact is that if Meghan Markle is related to Robert I, then in the same way, so are countless millions upon millions of us. Guess what? I'm related to Charlemagne, and if you or your ancestors hail from Europe, then you are too - https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.14.125 (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

Education/Alma Mater information on the right hand info box was deleted. I suggest restoring and including her education in the info box. Junkerscrown (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: From what I can gather we don't include this information in infoboxes (I'm simply going by the fact alma mater isn't on other articles (Prince Harry, Prince Charles and Elizabeth II). –Davey2010^Talk 12:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

36?

If she was born in August 1981, she has to be 37 now. LDanielHolm (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you just deny math? LDanielHolm (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No one denied math. on 17 May 2018 she is 36. She will turn 37 on 4 August 2018. It seems like you do not understand how to determine age. ~ GB fan 14:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You can see her age calculated here. ~ GB fan 16:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you are absolutely right. I have no idea how I came to this conclusion. I must have been very tired when I looked at this last time. Mea culpa. LDanielHolm (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

Name change to 'Meghan' and title 'Duchess of Sussex' added below her name. 2A02:C7F:7E34:FB00:6D6B:BCBA:D5D6:4F3C (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

At this time, that is not her title. See next section. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Changing Name

We might as well change it until it goes through. We can keep the article change name box on the topic while it is going through the change name process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabermoose (talk • contribs) 13:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Name change

Interesting discussion going on here. I hope those opposing the name change on the basis of Meghan having her own identity before this marriage realize they are crying more than the bereaved. The argument about her having a career before this marriage does not hold because on her own she left her fate and that supposed career to enter a marriage that comes with a lot of traditional trappings. Meghan as a college educated woman knew what she was getting into when she took all those decisions. I hope people recognize that the beauty of the royal family is that people in this family continue to live with long abondoned traditions that anchor the sanity of this world. Duah, A. K. (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Duah, A. K.: If you wish to vote on this matter, please do it above in the appropriate section, so that your vote and comment will be taken into consideration. Keivan.f^Talk 14:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

The intro sentence is bad. It should read:

Rachel Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex (born August 4, 1981) commonly called Meghan Markle and styled Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is an American former actress and a member of the British royal family.

-- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Request denied while a move request is open, see above. MilborneOne (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The intro sentence has little to do with the title move request of the article. In any case, this requested sentence contains both options. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Seems to be a question with a wide range of answers (see below). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This proposal would only make sense if the first "Markle" were deleted.12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Minor detail

point duplicated and expanded in section below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Instead or saying "August 4, 1981" it should be without the comma between "August 4 and 1981, like on the other royal pages. I understand that this is a very ,very picky request, but it’s really annoying me.Hannek01 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Do you mean 4 August 1981, Hannek01? Because August 4 1981 is not a valid style, according to MOS:DATES. The D M Y style, although I personally prefer it, is normally a British and European date format, not used on primarily US topics (except military topics). The use of M D, Y indicates that this is, or at least was, a primarily US topic. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Someone should change it then to the correct one. And the comma thing. And yes I mean 4 August 1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannek01 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC) See MOS:RETAIN. Her article has been stable for years using American spellings and mdy date formats. I'm thinking things are fine the way they are.Canuck89 (Talk to me) 23:22, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

Previous marriage to Trevor Engelson

This entry doesn't mention Markle's previous marriage to American film producer, Trevor Engleson. It should be included in an article about the Duchess as it represents a significant change in British protocol, as referred to in this article in Town & Country Magazine. Roy Scherer (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see her previous marriage is already mentioned. as for "significant change" you may need to explain that as I cant see any significant change. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I need to read more closely. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Scherer (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You do your cause no favours by offering that particular tabloid source in support. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Title of Duchess of Sussex

Support "Meghan Markle" or recommend the title heading "Duchess of Sussex".

"Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" implies that she is divorced from the Duke, as is "Sarah, Duchess of York" or "Diana, Princess of Wales" for that matter. This is established usage in the British peerage and should be respected. The reasoning is that there is only one actual Duchess of Sussex at any time and inserting the Christian name leaves room for another lady to be simply "the Duchess of Sussex". On the same basis, this usage is also favoured by some widows of peers who prefer not to be known as the Dowager Lady X or Duchess of Y. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.83.129.124 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Are we going to change Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge & other such articles, as well? GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you look at this section where I clearly explained why this article cannot be titled "Duchess of Sussex". Keivan.f^Talk 17:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The website of the British royal family, on her biographical page begins with "The Duchess of Sussex, born Meghan Markle . . ."

(https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex). Maybe "The Duchess of Sussex (née Meghan Markle)" would be a good title for this article.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

She doesn't hold British Citzienship yet, so it should use her American name, and not all this anti-American bias in the article naming -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting there's "anti-American bias" is remarkably extreme nonsense. But, for an American comparative, how about we look at the fact Donald Trump's page was immediately reformatted to fit that of a President, ignoring his long previous career. 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:108:ECBB:3535:421E (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wallis Simpson and Grace Kelly reside at their American names. This article is using a WP:RECENTISM name. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to restrict ourselves solely to the former Ms. Markle's American name, then wouldn't titles such as "Duchess" and "Princess" have to go away as well? After all, the U.S. Constitution prohibits our government from bestowing any of these sorts of titles. I suppose that if in the unlikely event that the Duke and Duchess were to decide to move to the U.S., renounce their status as British subjects and take only all-American names and honorifics, he would become "Mr. Harry Mountbatten-Windsor" and she, in turn, "Ms. Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor."

If we're going to use "Royal Highness" and "Duchess" a title and style belonging to the United Kingdom, we really ought to use these in the way they're used in the United Kingdom. There the lady is known as "H.R.H. the Duchess of Sussex" (Please see the British Royal Family's own website, under the Duchess' own page.) And if we want to include the lady's forename, I suggest we refer to her as "H.R.H. the Duchess of Sussex (née Meghan Markle).Yseult-Ivain (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Official title

I have not read every word on this page but I have read many of its incorrect statements about her title. https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle-announcement-titles - dated 19 May - says:

"The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

"Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex."

So "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" may well become her accepted Wikipedia page name but not because it is her correct title. Robin Patterson (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be something? If the title of the Wikipedia entry about Shakespeare's "Macbeth" were "The Scottish Play" which is not the correct title, but is sometimes referred to in that way by actors? Or if the Wikipedia page on the element "Tin" were "Stannum," because the latter is an old alchemist's term for tin, and some people still call it that. Or if the page about "The United States of America" were titled "Stateside" because our own G.I.s have often referred to the country in that way. Well, all of those would be quite something. I do hope the editors of Wikipedia are able to see their way clear to use correct titles most of the time . . . and to aim for all of the time.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

I would like the title to be changed from 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" to "Rachel, Duchess of Sussex" or "Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Jamesplimmy (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to use common names for article titles. These are not commonly-used names. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is an unused name. "Meghan Markle" was the common name. How did we get to an unsourced, unused name? This is idiocy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:91F9:5350:7D03:285E (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It's only Wikipedia. So it's well-thought-out idiocy, that's been argued over for days, with comparisons to Hitler and Donald Trump thrown in, that may well change. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Achives moved to new name, archiver updated

Jimbo neglected to move the archives when he moved the page, so I did. :) I have updated the archiver for the new page name. Safiel (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Titles before marriage

She seems to have used Ms before marriage not Miss, and I don't see any sources for her using her first husband's name whether unofficially, legally or professionally. I also don't understand the dates. Why would she call herself Mrs Engelson in 2014 when they divorced in 2013? And if they married in September 2011, why is she calling herself Mrs Engelson the previous month? DrKay (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Most importantly, why should any unsourced claims remain in this BLP? Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Date of birth change

Instead of "August 4, 1981" it should be 4 August 1981" Hannek01 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The article has no current clear direction for Brit or US English? One might assume it should be US, which would be dates with month first. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Her article has been stable for years using American spellings and mdy date formats. I'm thinking that per MOS:RETAIN, things are fine the way they are.Canuck^{89 (Converse with me)} 23:13, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

See also MOS:DATERET. Any such change would require consensus, and would not be automatic. Let's at least get done with the debate over the article title first, Hannek01. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with keeping it American style as she is, at this point, an American citizen, as she has been since birth. If she renounces her citizenship, then let's discuss then.Stereorock (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirect hatnote

this edit is clearly unecessary and inapproppiate if you know what hatnotes are for, self-reverted my revert of that due to 3rr, could someone revert it? Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparent nod?

"The conferring of the Sussex title is an apparent nod to the only other Duke of Sussex, who was known for his progressive views in the early nineteenth century including abolition of the Atlantic slave trade and removal of legal restrictions on Jews"

With all due respect, there's no actual evidence that Sussex was chosen as an "apparent nod" to anything. It was just one of the few unused royal dukedoms available. The NY Times editorial writer who wrote this is speculating, there's no evidence to back up her claim that this is why Sussex was chosen. While the information about the previous duke's views are interesting and perhaps can be included I don't think we should say it's an "apparent nod" without any actual evidence. 2607:F2C0:937D:4000:F8A0:A09E:9374:5E11 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Common Friend / Mutual Friend ?

"Personal Life Since June 2016, Markle has been in a relationship with Prince Harry,[57][58] who is sixth in line to the British throne.[59] Prince Harry and Markle met on a blind date that a common friend set up."

Instead of "common friend," could the text not read, "mutual friend" . . . ?

Yseult-Ivain (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• That seems like a better turn of phrase myself, I would support the change. Safiel (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• I have gone ahead and made the change. Safiel (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Shall we hold off on making changes to anything describing our subject's signature?

At present, the signature presented is that of a Meghan Markle. Already someone seems to be attributing it to a duchess. I think it best that we wait and see how our subject will sign her name beginning tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Of a Meghan Markle? Are you too suggesting that Meghan Markle and the Duchess of Sussex are two different persons? Comments like this, abundant on this talk page, are going to get the article in the news for Wikipedia's treatment of women. Surtsicna (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: they are using an official language style common to British English, nothing more or less. 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:108:ECBB:3535:421E (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer we left the signature out completely. I cannot see what it adds to this global encyclopaedia. Is it an American thing? HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Meghan's Name Has Just Changed On Her First Royal Title

As of 19 of May, 2018 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Has Just Confirmed That The Royal Title of Meghan Markle Is "Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.210.10 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I would be very interested to know where you read that. Because on the British Royal Family webpage, the lady is to be styled "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex." Without her given name.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

She is not Duchess of Sussex until they are married. Lyonsn (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

They are married,but "Markle" disappears from her legal name.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)