This is an archive of past discussions about Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@DigitialNomad:A person says a lot of things and people say a lot of things about them, you said. One doesn't compare him/herself to Nelson Mandela, a hero who spent many years of his life in prison. If any other member of the royal family including Catherine, Princess of Wales had said something like that they would be butchered in the media and people would have made sure that it found its way to her article. Not interested in adding, this page needs to be cut in half or by the time Meghan is 90 years old, this page will have 500k words. That is WP:CRYSTAL. Meghan, like any of us could drop dead this very instant. And the page will be constantly trimmed if she reaches an advanced age. So we cannot remove information based on your speculative assumptions about what is going to happen. That being said, if you want the part on The Cut interview to be trimmed down, it is entirely possible. Keivan.fTalk20:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
But she didn’t compare herself to Mandela, the article says that someone else did it. Also, it sounds like you are editorializing, by presenting evidence of people who were there and couldn’t have possible told her that. Like, you have no idea, you are just putting different pieces together. What are you trying to say by claiming she compared herself to Mandela when she didn’t, even according to your article? Like what is the point of that entire section? And if this was added to Kate Middletons page I would oppose it. It just doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. DigitialNomad (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
She compared her wedding to Mandela's release from prison, saying that people rejoiced in the streets in the same way. Twist it as much as you want, her words are there. And I'm not editorializing anything. She made the claim that she was told this by a cast member. The cast came out and said it never happened. It's as simple as that. And it's not me putting different pieces together because that would be WP:OR. It's the secondary sources who followed up on the story, none of which are tabloids. Keivan.fTalk20:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
see below the exact quote from the Cut article. Can you explain to me how she is comparing herself to Mandela? She is talking about someone else. Again, why this particular story? What made you pick this one? Did you read the article and then decided that you didn’t like that someone said that to her, so you looked for articles that tried to say that she was lying about someone telling her that? This cold all be easy, the entire thing doesn’t belong here.
” A cast member from South Africa pulled her aside. “He looked at me, and he’s just like light. He said, ‘I just need you to know: When you married into this family, we rejoiced in the streets the same we did when Mandela was freed from prison.’ ” DigitialNomad (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
She made this 'claim' about a South African cast member, and the two South African members of the cast and crew came out and said none of them told her anything like this, which means that 1) she either made it up, 2) or she misremembered the whole thing. And Mandela's grandson criticized her for reciting this incident without any regard to whether it was even true or not. Keivan.fTalk20:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The South African 'cast member' was not there. He could not even remember even if he tried to since he was not physically there. And the article states that it was the "cast member", not the composer, or anybody else. So no, at best, she misremembered. Keivan.fTalk23:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Cast member in a theater is anyone who works there, how do you know there wasn’t a runner, a asst costume designer or production asst who is South African? You seem really upset over this and offended. Is this personal to you?
Please do not make assumptions about my mood. And, again, she did not face criticism because she was necessarily misremembering or lying. She also faced criticism for recounting it. That is what Mandela's son criticized her for. And this whole argument is unnecessary. The paragraph has been removed; the language has been neutralized. There's no need to keep rehashing this. Keivan.fTalk14:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I have now moved that piece out of the section that discusses her court cases because it was misplaced. The section on "Public image and style" already mentioned The Cut interview so its aftermath could also be added there. I cut out some of the unnecessary quotes as well. Keivan.fTalk20:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
celebrities are on cover stories regularly. How often will we add it to their wiki? I really don’t understand what is going on here. It’s so confusing. DigitialNomad (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Celebrities and royalty are not the same thing. Especially the British royal family that traditionally serve as state figures. Keivan.fTalk20:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: I do have to ask though. Is that the general stance we should take on unsubstantiated claims of this nature that call into question the subject's credibility? Yes, it was a cover story, and she has not perjured herself in court, but that doesn't alter the fact that it does not look good. So, should we omit similar passages from other pages? Keivan.fTalk21:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The way I approach article writing is to ask questions like "does a reader looking up Meghan want to know every silly thing she said that was picked up by the papers?" and "will anyone remember this story in five, ten, or twenty years?". Yes, there are reliable sources, but those sources are journalists who don't ask themselves such question; they ask themselves what will sell papers or fill column inches. The papers are the same width every morning; the rolling news channels still run 24 hours a day, regardless of whether there's any real news or not. So in quiet times, they print whatever they can make a story out of. So yes, I generally exclude media storms that didn't have a lasting effect. If it had some effect on UK-South Africa relations, as one example, then I would probably include it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?21:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Those are valid points. I'll see what replies I get from the Wikiproject participants (I'm setting up the discussion now), and if they are all in line with your view then we can simply discard this part. Best. Keivan.fTalk21:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. And remember that it doesn’t matter if something makes someone look good or not as you mentioned above. I’m not asking you to add good things, I wish I could show examples of positive things that don’t belong on the page too. But it’s harder, because I don’t see many stories on Meghan’s page that go “this and that talking head said Meghan is being bullied” “this person said we should all have compassion wigh Meghan” or even a few polls that reflect the complete opposite outcome to the once posted here, I would never add it to the page, because i don’t think it belongs on Wikipedia. It’s not my job to advertise articles with polls on here. Especially since it’s not an elected official or even a working member of the royal family etc. if I saw that, on here, I’d ask for it to be removed too. The biggest issue is that there is too much. DigitialNomad (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Of course. I always try to listen to what the community consensus is. That is why I react when an editor single handedly tries to remove information. In other words, it's nothing personal against you. Nevertheless, your edits resulted in lengthy discussions which is good. The community will now decide whether The Cut interview is worthy of inclusion or not, and hopefully a blueprint will emerge for future reference. Keivan.fTalk22:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Your only contributions thus far have been to articles on Meghan and her kids. Which calls into question your objectivity. Keivan.fTalk15:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Keivan,
Yes. My account is quite new, leaving room for further contributions towards my own areas of expertise and interests. That's usually how it starts.
My comments towards the subject at hand however are quite neutral whereas your observations about my contributions, again are not.
Going back to the vote, no I do not believe it should be added.
My opinion would remain the same of the other pages of BLP. Hoever, it ident,event by skimming the edits and talk ,pages that conversation around what's appropriate for this page seems to be unique in this r and the same conversation is not had to this extent on otherseard. Cibrian209 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Mitchell and DigitalNomad, it should be excluded as unencyclopedic. And because the article is bloated, we should trim more. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Three users argued here that the content was not undue but the language needed to change. That is against three users here you advocated for its complete removal. That is hardly a consensus. Nevertheless, I removed the whole paragraph and reduced it to one sentence with a neutral language that doesn't make it seem we are accusing the subject of anything. Keivan.fTalk14:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Who argued that? Sorry I didn’t see that. All I see on the page is that the exact same things is still there and it’s simply not encyclopedic. Basically, you are trying to convey that Meghan said same thing, and someone else was upset that she recounted something someone said to her? Why does this belong on Wikipedia. Below is what you have still included. Can you explain again why you think this belongs here? So anytime Meghan says something, if someone doesn’t like it, it goes on Wikipedia?
“
”the cover story for the 2022 Fall Fashion issue of The Cut. In the interview, Meghan recalled being told at the premiere of The Lion King in London by a South African cast member that following her marriage to Harry, people in South Africa "rejoiced in the streets the same we did when Mandela was freed from prison". Meghan was criticized by Mandela's grandson Mandla Mandela for the comments. John Kani, the only South African cast member of The Lion King, stated that he did not recall meeting Meghan,and Lebo M., the film's South African composer who was at the London premiere, revealed that he could not remember discussing Mandela with her. DigitialNomad (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
So anytime Meghan says something, if someone doesn’t like it, it goes on Wikipedia? No, only if reliable sources report on it AND the community decides it's worthy of inclusion.
Who argued that? Sorry I didn’t see that. Then let me help you. User:Iazyges stated: I think in general, and especially in her case, such should be included. However sympathetic I might be to her for other matters, Wikipedia should not run interference and hide actions that she knowingly chose. User:Cibrian209 stated I don't have a problem with a brief mention of the incident either. I think it's reasonable after reading the rationale. User:DeCausa stated: There's nothing wrong with a brief mention of the incident (first question) but the lengthy 'he said/she said' is unencyclopedic.
Your comment is misleading. This part is not even in the article anymore: Meghan was criticized by Mandela's grandson Mandla Mandela for the comments. John Kani, the only South African cast member of The Lion King, stated that he did not recall meeting Meghan,and Lebo M., the film's South African composer who was at the London premiere, revealed that he could not remember discussing Mandela with her.Keivan.fTalk15:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
there is so much more that is encyclopedic. Both any page related to Harry and Meghan’s pages is basically just an update on whatever the British press deemes news worthy. It’s detailed and explains every concept in great detail, you don’t even need to purchase biographical or read the news about them. Their pages are enough. Is there some comprehensive audit that can be done on the pages. I’ve reached my limit with these pages, too many are content with treating their pages differently. DigitialNomad (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
That is so untrue, as if only British sources have been cited in any of those articles. And what is your problem with the British press anyway? I thought you were against tabloids; Or are broadsheet newspapers now unacceptable as well? Setting the issue of credibility aside, because it's essentially a non-issue, we come to the issue of page length. The length of this page is fine compared to some other people her age, and the page has to be detailed. These are high-profile people. Have you ever taken look at other pages such as Taylor Swift since you seem to be comparing different pages to each other constantly? Keivan.fTalk15:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Taylor swifts page is filled with things she has done, half of the pages you are primary moderator on, are filled with things other people have done or said about that person. DigitialNomad (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not a moderator. I'm a contributor. And I do contribute to all pages on Wikipedia. I have never contributed in a significant way to the article on Taylor Swift. And yes, biographies do cover in detail people's activities. If you have a problem with how all articles are being written in general you should discuss it with community at large. But don't make it sound that it's only Meghan's page that covers her life events in detail. That is simply not true. And I firmly believe that no one would support reducing this page or any other bio page to a couple of paragraphs that provide no insight or details about the person in question. Keivan.fTalk15:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Inconsistency
So the ridiculous allegations made on mostly Twitter about her having used a surrogate should stay because they make her look like the victim she is not but anything that makes her paid bot service Christopher Bouzy look bad has to go? 174.115.15.87 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
There is more inconsistency now; Samantha Markle's case was not entirely dismissed with prejudice and she has 14 days to amend her complaint. 184.147.14.9 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Correct only Princesses born into the Royal Family can be styled that way. She is NOT "Meghan Markle Princess of the United Kingdom" or "Meghan Princess of the United" Kingdom. She has never used a Princess title, technically she could use "Princess Henry of Wales"which is her husband's title. She should NEVER be FASHIONED "Meghan Princess of the United Kingdom" on wiki in this way she is not a blood Royal or even married to the heir apparent. There is no precedent or way she can be correctly fashioned in that way. Giest24 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Considering the fact that there are multiple versions of the event, I think we should avoid mentioning it, unless a formal investigation with definite results takes place. Keivan.fTalk22:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. There are too many differing opinions as to the accurate details of this event and adding it to the article will just cause confusion or discontent. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Please, add where she grew up: View Park–Windsor Hills in the most wealthy black enclave anywhere in the United States.
Source: Sir Trevor Phillips − "Meghan Had To Learn To Be Black!" Sir Trevor Phillips On Racism In The UK: Meghan Markle 'had to learn how to be black on the job' after marrying Prince Harry but 'made a bit of a mess of it'. Sir Trevor Phillips said she 'never regarded herself particularly as black' before joining the Royal Family, which he said was 'understandable' due to her privileged upbringing. 'She grew up in Los Angeles in the most wealthy black enclave anywhere in the United States - Park View, Windsor Hills... she went to a private Roman Catholic school and in a sense race was never really a part of her background.' 93.211.212.109 (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I wish to revert to the updated complete title of Meghan Markle's title on the first line of the article.
According the the Royal website and source of her titles, the complete title is not just Duchess of Sussex. Meghan holds the titles The Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel.
While the titles "Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel" maybe be in the article further down the page, so is "The Duchess of Sussex".
It is not redundant for either case considering these are her complete titles. I am not creating a new paragraph about the same thing just adding to a title already listed. Is there a reason other than that not to have the titles listed after her Duchess of Sussex title? It seems to be only a formatting disagreement. Giest24 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think her titles should be given special treatment actually, not at all, it is just the way titles are usually written. For example by decree of Queen Elizabeth said under the official announcement of titles on the Royal website Harry is to be addressed:"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 technically her first name is not included so she would be just "The Duchess of Sussex" now especially since the HRH has been set aside. Her rank is only bestowed to her through her husband's titles. So her complete written title is just "The Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel" when it is in written form, not "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" She does not hold the titles in her own right. The name Meghan should be eliminated if it is being cited in written form. It is a technicality I know but by no means are the other titles written as subsidiary it is all 1 title really so I suppose it could be written "The Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel" or just "The Duchess of Sussex" for brevity. For example "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall" is now addressed as "Her Majesty The Queen" not "Camellia, Queen consort". So if the issue is for brevity sake as you referred to in "Manual of style/Lead section# Fist sentence" Perhaps Her wikipage title should be shortened to "The Duchess of Sussex" instead of "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex". In which case I think putting the complete titles underneath her name makes more sense than ever it really isn't that long it is only 6 words. If people are putting incorrect forms of address for members of nobility on wiki then no wonder people are trying to correct because it would indeed be incorrect for people who are married into the Royal Family to assume a title that is not theirs in their own right and thus trying to improve the wiki page. Giest24 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
You are right: the correct name is Duchess of Sussex. By convention, the first name is only included in the case of divorced women. It would make more sense to use her common name, Meghan Markle, as the article title. The article could then begin, "(The) Duchess of Sussex (born Rachel Meghan Markle) is an American former actress and wife of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, the younger son of King Charles III of the United Kingdom."
Remove this line: “ Meghan became a princess of the United Kingdom upon her marriage to Prince Harry, entitled to the style of Royal Highness” from the “Titles, styles and arms” section.
Why? Because she’s not entitled to call herself “Princess Meghan”.
Not done: This information is covered directly underneath, in the very next paragraph. Additionally, while it is true that she does not currently use that title, at the time of her marriage, she was entitled to that style; this is what the article is referring to. BelowTheSun (T•C) 22:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Meh, I don't like the 2022 image. The people in the background are very distracting. Theeveralst's image (and the image that was used in the article up until a few days ago) is much better, even if it's a few years older. Aoi (青い) (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The section that states that the arch bishop of Canterbury did a private garden ceremony have been refuted by the arch bishop. This needs to be corrected. Laurendkta (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a mentioning of the estrangement to her own family, but not to the estrangement with the Royal Family, for which there are ample reliable sources. Including her refusal to visit them while Harry did, and her refusal to attend the coronation of her father in law and her refusal to let her children meet either of the families.
95.96.130.127 (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This monogram is incorrect because there has not been an official update. It should remain as it was prior to the death of QEII. If you are going to allow the change of Meghan and Harry's, you need to allow the change of William's and Catherine's. 170.85.9.75 (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Grammar
In the section Meghan, Duchess of Sussex#Bullying allegations and Oprah interview of the article it states Her representatives denied her awareness of the accusations against Mohammed bin Salman and said The Times were being used by Buckingham Palace for "a smear campaign" against her. In British English, that would be The Times was being used by Buckingham Palace..... The article states to use American English, is this correct for grammar in that style? I am probably wrong (again), it's just it does not sound right, to me anyway. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree on that, but is "The Times were" correct grammatical English in America, as opposed to "The Times Was". If two papers were named, then it would be The Times and The Daily Telegraph were, but as The Times is functioning as a singular, then it would be normal to say "was". The joy of all things (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Name
It is my understanding that the surname “Markle” no longer exists. Upon her marriage she became Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Accordingly, references to “Markle” - with the exception of her birth name - should all be changed to reflect her current name. 23.118.46.55 (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
The style guide says to refer to people by their names as they were at the time. So she should be referred to as Markle for events before her latest marriage. Incidentally, she is still entitled to use her maiden name.
Her husband's surname, should he choose to use one, would be Mountbatten-Windsor, not Windsor. But as he has so far chosen not to use it, it cannot be applied to his wife.
The best solution is to follow commonname and change the title of the article back to Meghan Markle, the name by which she is commonly known.
Incidentally, "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is incorrect. The wife's first name should be included only if she is divorced. In fact she refers to herself as the Duchess of Sussex. She could also call herself Princess Harry, but chooses not to do so. TFD (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Historically, noble families often don't have surnames. They have Houses. So Meghan's current surname is: 'no name', House of Windsor. She can carry titles after her name. She can use either of the three at will, Duchess of Sussex being one of them. But the Dumbarton and Kilkeel titles are also valid. The name "Windsor" is the closest thing to a surname she has. So if you must refer to her with a surname, it's Meghan Windsor.
Only if her husband assumes a surname, would she be entitled to use it. Incidentally, I believe the surname would be Mountbatten-Windsor. Of course she still retains the right to use her maiden name of Markle. Note that she has courtesy titles that are feminine versions of her husband's substantive titles. She does not choose which titles her husband uses and therefore probably can only use the princess or duchess titles. TFD (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
It is worth noting that she is not a British citizen and article I, section 9, clause 8 of the US constitution states: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States”. 31.124.83.119 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cibrian209: Either we are not looking at the same source or we are interpreting things differently. The source states: The card was posted on Twitter on Monday by the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust, a royal charity that touts Harry and Meghan as its president and vice president, respectively. It goes on to add that it was released without permission and after PA media picked this image up for use, they found that it was not representative of the original card. In response, the trust (with which Harry and Meghan were clearly associated) stated that it was an authorised image shared with permission, but the photo was killed anyway. The fact that they didn't take it off their Twitter account makes zero difference; social media is full of altered images. You are more than welcome to share a source which clarifies this was not the case; otherwise revert the changes. Keivan.fTalk11:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It does not say PA found anything, it says they were told but does not say who told them, and its not even clear if they are referring to the same copy/version of the photo. And there is no evidence of who supposedly altered it and we can't suggest anyone. Your claim of altered images on a Twitter feed is a likely BLP violation, you have no evidence that's what's on a twitter feed is altered. And your claim of "killed anyway" is not supported either, because the timing in the source suggests the retraction occurred before the Trust said anything. It is also undue minutia in any event, the source suggests no reason why it matters that one press group did not carry a photo anyone in the world (with an internet connection) can see a version of. (Nor is there any reason to use figurative newspeak from turn-off the presses in an encyclopedia article, 'kill' is sensationalist in this context.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It does not matter who notified them. They were notified of an alteration that did not meet their standards and killed the photo as a result (which by the way is a figure of speech; killing a photo is not the same as killing a person!). There is no evidence that the photo was restored on their database after the trust made a statement. With regards to photos on Twitter; first of all, what BLP violation are you talking about? Cause if you think there are no altered photos on social media you're awfully wrong. And the online version of the photo was problematic enough for other newspapers to raise questions about it. Keivan.fTalk16:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It matters because you are misrepresenting the matter and trying to make claims about people that are not supported. They don't say anything about their standards. Nor does it matter to anyone but you that "the photo was not restored to their database after the trust made a statement" indeed, as far as can be told that is entirely meaningless. Under BLP, you don't get to imply actions were taken by living people on Twitter or otherwise. (As for "kill", I already told you what it is, and there is no reason to use such jargon here in the pedia article.). Your latest source just goes to show what a nonsense addition this is to this article, as any dispute appears to be with the photographer. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
What claims?? 1) The photo is uploaded by the trust on Twitter 2) The PA media kills the photo (or erases it since you're so sensitive about it) because of its alterations 3) The trust makes the statement saying that the photo was authorized. What part of this exactly is a "claim"? It's what the source says. And there is no evidence of restoration by PA Media. You're more than welcome to provide it if it exists. The dispute between the photographer and the press is an entirely different matter, but goes on to show that the online versions were problematic anyway. Keivan.fTalk16:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The claims are that 1) alterations were made 2) you are attempting to attribute the alterations to someone or something. The first is unproven (and also contains another unproven claim, that there is more than one version: at least, the one said to be the so called original sent in the mail, and the one on the trust site, and perhaps a third that PA makes claims about) and the second we cannot do, at all per BLP. (And you made a bunch of others in the above posts which have already been pointed out to you.) Moreover, it's all nonsense, three steps removed from the subject of this article. (As for 'kills' as I think I made clear it was your use in the encyclopedia article that is problematic.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
you are attempting to attribute the alterations to someone or something. No. I never said the trust (with which Meghan and Harry were associated) had necessarily altered the image maliciously. That does not change the fact that they published an altered version of the card per the source, and later issued a statement on the matter. The dispute between the photographer and the papers regarding other hypothetical versions is not necessarily related to the issue involving the trust, but shows that the photo itself was a topic of interest.
the one on the trust site, and perhaps a third that PA makes claims about I think it's pretty obvious from the source that the one published by the trust is the one PA had problems with.
three steps removed from the subject of this article I disagree. The photograph depicts the subject of this article (a high-profile figure) and was published by an organization associated with her at the time. It's not that far removed.
As for 'kills' Well, it is a technical term. I have no strong feelings about this whatsoever as long as the meaning is conveyed. Keivan.fTalk17:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
You've jumped over your first baseless assumption. The claim of alteration is a disputed and unproven matter. On top of that the claimant is tabloid, which consider the source. And there is no doubt you are trying to pin the unproven alteration on someone, with no evidence. And you just reasoned, guilt by association. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Did the trust publish a photo according to the source? Yes. Did the PA media ceased using the very same photo according to the source? Yes. Did the trust publish a statement afterwards claiming that the photo was authorized? Yes. Did the PA media began reusing the photo according to the source? No. Keep dancing around the facts. It's all there to read for anyone who has two eyes. Keivan.fTalk18:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
You're the one doing the dancing, the tabloid claim of alteration is disputed and unproven. And no, the source for the PA photo is not given. And none of those other things prove an alteration occurred to begin with. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This entry seems to be riddled with and deeply influenced by references to opinion, commentary, and editorial pieces often run in publications known for their lack of journalistic integrity (The Telegraph, The Independent, News.com.au for example). If the Daily Mail is not allowed as a source, I'm not certain how these are different. And regardless of the source, opinion and commentary should not be used as sources for a serious encyclopedic entry.
Further, these are largely used to cite rumors or allegations in such a way as to (I suspect intentionally) lend them passive credibility. Similar entries for other members of the royal family do not lend nearly as much space to the detailed discussion of rumors and allegations, nor do they delve as deeply into ultimately irrelevant details about each individual item.
For example, the section "Bullying allegations and Oprah interview" begins an entire heading and paragraph with an ultimately unconfirmed allegation made through a royal commentator from unnamed sources, when in reality the interview was chronologically announced first and the allegations were made in response to that. In a straightforward telling, should then the subheading not simply read "Oprah interview" as this is the primary and factually most important topic of the paragraph under the heading of "Media"? There is zero factual context or details provided for the interview itself, which can be easily and reputably sourced. Why is so much space given to one single poorly sourced accusation, unless the intent is to make that the primary focus of the reader's attention. Should not things like this, if they must be reported, go under a separate "Controversies" heading or similar?
Overall, this entry seems packed full of as many references to rumors and accusations as possible, however big or small, regardless of whether they are correct or not, or even cited from a reliable source. The whole page should be trimmed and edited to be a straightforward description of the facts of the subject's life. Simply including "claimed" or "alleged" or "rumored" is not enough to justify inclusion in a serious historical record.
For example: "Among unfounded conspiracy theories spread on social media, including Twitter and YouTube, were claims that Meghan had faked her pregnancies and used a surrogate mother, or, alternatively, that her children do not exist at all."(Sourced from THREE editorial opinion pieces, for unfounded conspiracy theories. Really? If we did this for every single public figure, then this website would read like a gossip blog and need ten times the server space.)
How is this relevant to the facts of her life? Does this kind of thing really belong in her encyclopedic biography? This is just one of dozens of easy examples.
I suggest the editors consider overhauling this entire entry to be truly unbiased and simpler, rather than being a clearinghouse for every editorial ever written about the subject, regardless of who or where it comes from.
Finally, I will note that the entry for the Princess of Wales correctly does not concern itself with the litany of rumors and tabloid commentary on the subject over her many years in the public eye, and instead takes a neutral tone as would be expected for any public figure. I will also note that the sourcing for the entry is largely from reputable sources with almost no references to tabloids or opinion/commentary of any kind. The Princess of Wales "Privacy and the media" section is markedly different in tone from this one and they really should match identically in tone, as they are the same category of public figure. 2603:8000:3B41:B00:A1EB:698B:F696:CD31 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
They are two of the world's most respected news media and I cannot take seriously any comment that begins by questioning them. While I accept that banning the Daily Mail may be questionable, it definitely is not in the same class as the other two newspapers. TFD (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
"If the Daily Mail is not allowed as a source" The "Daily Fail" is not allowed because it regularly publishes fabrications and "inaccurate scare stories". Can you point to instances of The Daily Telegraph misleading the public?Dimadick (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
They supported the obviously false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. So did the Daily Fail btw. TFD (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
i think that at the time a lot of news sources supported the weapons of mass destruction claims, as did plenty of politicians, of course..
So I don't believe that this particular story validates the claim that The Telegraph has a lack of journalistic integrity. Certainly, The Telegraph has a strong right-wing bias. But there is a difference between a newspaper's political slant and false reporting. Most English newspapers are known to have a political bias. Though, when founded, The Independent was actually sold on the basis that it would report the news independently and would not.
I therefore agree with TFD's comment above.. The Daily Telegraph, and still more The Independent, are generally well-respected for the journalistic integrity of their factual content, even though some will naturally violently disagree with the slant used as the facts are presented.
These two papers are not generally considered to be in the same category as The Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror and other British newspapers whose content is known as "tabloid journalism" and therefore by definition not necessarily to be reliable. MrsJJHH (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Please update from "Meghan lived with her father until she was 18 years old." This is FALSE.
Change to:" Meghan lived with her mother full time and would visit her father on weekends until she was 18 years old." 209.136.129.146 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I only write on an important technicality. You advise Meghan's children as Princess and Prince of Sussex. Being British you grow up with RF information and understand you do not refer to a Princes (Prince Harry) in the terms of their County of which he holds a further Royal Title of Duke of Sussex. It must be understood Meghan only has a title through her husband. Although H&Ms children are none heritage titles,meaning they cannot pass their Prince/Princess titles to their own children, importantly they are ONLY must be known as 'Prince Archie' and 'Princess Lilibet', not of Sussex as you are currently showing.Under Royal rules,by putting 'of Sussex' after Meghan's children's titles you are implying the County of Sussex is giving the children their Royal Titles. The children's titles are inherited from their father Prince Harry. As King Charles' second son as the current ruling Monarch, and as such are British (UK) national titles. A County cannot have Prince and Princess, therefore like Princess Eugeny and her sister they can ONLY be known correctly as 'Prince Archie' and 'Princess Lilbett' and you must remove 'of Sussex'reference.
British Royal Titles are very complex but having been employed for many years by the Royal family, I thought ut only right to advise you of this so you can correct this as it stands it does not make sense. If you need further information please say. Dr S. Selwyn. Drsselwyn (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
In our British prince article, it is said the the current king was known at birth as, Prince Charles of Edinburgh, so it appears that the "of Sussex", refers to the father, not the county, as in the old custom, Harry would also be known as just, "Sussex". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
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.
New Royal Title
Can someone update the biography for Meghan's new royal title, Her Royal Highness, Princess of Arochukwu, an ancient kingdom of Nigeria. Purplebrown43 (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
They are not likely to update the title itself, since it is not official. They could write about the trip or write about her Nigerian fans and what popular title they may make for her but would need several solid sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Here's an article, [3] apart from some interesting digs at the Daily Mail, it explains that she was bestowed the title "Ada Mazi", which translates as 'daughter of aristocrat', in a "naming ceremony" in which three chief's participated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry. But we'll go with what the sources say and none of them have included the translation you are suggesting here. Keivan.fTalk21:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Support@Keivan.f: I found a more credible source. This article by CNN states "The Obi of Onitsha, His Majesty Igwe Nnaemeka Alfred Ugochukwu Achebe christened Meghan “Ada Mazi,” which means “the daughter of the Igbo ancestral palace". While, the Oluwo of Iwoland, southwest, Nigeria, Oba Abdulrasheed Adewale Akanbi christened her with the Yoruba name of “Adetokunbo” which means “royalty from across the seas." -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
_(cropped).jpg)
.JPG)
Done PianoDan (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)