Jump to content

Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Re. Meghan Markle’s university education

Can the Wiki editors add to Meghan’s profile the category of “Education,” which it has for most celebrity profiles? She has a four-year university degree from the renowned Northwestern University. Her double B.A. makes Meghan as well, if not better, educated than Prince Harry. The Wiki profile only focuses on her birthplace, marital status, and career as an actress. Thank you! MattieWilson (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment to point out that a double major is not the same as a double BA. Dekimasuよ! 21:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Nationality/ethnicity categories

I have a few questions: should we add [[Category:British people of ### descent]] and/or [[Category:English people of ### descent]], because she is a British citizen? Also, should "African-American" categories be in the mix? (e.g. [[Category:African American actresses]]) I know Markle explicitly identifies as a biracial person of African-American ancestry; does anyone know if she considers herself "black" or "African-American" as well? Thanks, – Julia (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Since when is she a British citizen? Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
According to the article, and sources cited there, she has started the process to become a British citizen, but it will not be complete for several years. Do you have any sources theist say otherwise, Julia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
No, I was misinformed, and shouldn't have asked. Sorry to waste your time.
Anyways, what about the second part of my question? In this Elle piece, which is cited in the article, she doesn't really embrace or shun either identity, but rather identifies more with being biracial. However, many people who, like Meghan, are half African-American and perhaps don't "look" black (as she talks about in the article) are almost always categorized as "African-American" on here (e.g. Kris Humphries, Jennifer Beals, Halsey (singer), Jessica Szohr, Rashida Jones, Maya Rudolph, etc.), whether or not their personal racial identity is mentioned in the article. The recognition of her as African-American or not is important, I think. – Julia (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
And all these articles are poorly categorised, because none of them have a reliable source about the person's ethnicity - only that of their parents. But having a black ancestor doesn't necessarily make you black and having a white ancestor doesn't necessarily make you white. StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Black and white? We are talking African American, not black and white, at least not in the way you mean. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Nor should we be imposing American racial perspectives on someone on their way to becoming British. "African-American-British" is an ugly construct. And most British people are unlikely to describe her as African-American HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support adding category "African American actresses". DocumentError (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "African American" anything. Has she ever claimed to be African or African American? She has only claimed to be American, of bi-racial heritage, neither black nor white. There is a time at which we stop identifying with the place of origin of our migrant ancestors and only identify with where they came to. --Scott Davis Talk 06:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
...something along the lines of who’s more racist: Brits or Americans? Pretty much WP:NOTFORUM. It’s there if anyone’s interested. DeCausa (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And remember she is becoming British. The Brits don't generally play the XXXXX-American game. That's pretty much purely an American thing, needed because of the country's (mostly past) racism towards blacks in particular. She will not become "African-American-British". HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No, that is just not true. 'African American' arose because of the practice of referring to 'German American', 'Irish American', 'Italian American' etc., etc. etc. And really, to claim that Black British is not a thing is just too much. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure 'African American' arose because people decided firstly that they didn't like "nigger", then that they weren't too keen on "black". And I didn't mention "Black British". (Nor is it at all common.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
No, and there is no need for you to gratuitously throw around racial slurs -- it's plain you do not know the history of African Americans. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I was not throwing around racial slurs. I was explaining an etymology. I am quite well informed on the history of what Americans currently seem to prefer to call African-Americans. Please read WP:NPA. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
But that is not the etymology, at all, of African American -- in no way are they etymologically connected, so yes it was gratuitous, and it betrays a lack of knowledge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
You're right. I was sloppy in my language. But part of the reason Americans now use the term "African-American" simply IS that "nigger" became unacceptable in that country. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that contention nowhere in the literature and it does not make sense, African-Americans were not choosing between a slur and something else, they/we just were not. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
"Nigger" has always been a slur.While "Negro" and "colored" have enjoyed varying levels of cultural acceptability over the years,there has never been a time when "nigger" was not intended as a denigration as opposed to being an accepted designation.12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, that's only a US view. See And Then There Were None, a novel by Agatha Christie, hardly the world's biggest racist. It was published in the UK as Ten Little Niggers. There are many other examples. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48 (above and below), you keep talking about Americans being hung up on race. Are we acting like British people are never racist? Did you not see or hear about the British racism toward Markle and her mother? Clearly, a number of people in Britain view Markle as black. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
One can find racism in every country, if one looks hard enough, but in some places it's far more obvious, and practised by a far higher proportion of the population. It's big enough in the USA to require politically correct changes to language from time to time. I don't think that's the case in the UK. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the United States is more racist than the United Kingdom (although slavery has left the United States with a lot of racially-charged baggage), and I don't think people have to look hard to find racism, but all of that is another debate. I see how the first is related to this one, but still. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Britain is dealing with its monoculturalism [1] Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

We should draw a WP:NOTAFORUM line in the above and below discussion, this is not the place for a discussion of Americans or America, and while it makes some sense to discuss "African-American", here, it needs to be tied to Meghan Markle, who we know does not view "African-American" as anything close to a slur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Black British is a thing, but it wouldn't usually include mixed-race people. As detailed in Classification_of_ethnicity_in_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnicity_categories, there are separate categories for "White and Black Caribbean", "White and Black African" and "Any other Mixed / Multiple ethnic background, please describe". I suppose Meghan Markle would fall into the last category as her mother is neither Caribbean nor African.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Come-on now, she says her mother is African American. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I never said that her mother is not African American. Her father is Caucasian and her mother is African American, so she can neither be labeled as Caucasian nor African American. She's a mix of those two races. Keivan.fTalk 22:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
African American is regularly a mix, so being African American does not preclude a mix. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It rather looks like African American is a label to create "us and them" (from either side) rather than just Americans. I have never understood why it seems so important to Americans to maintain that divide. This woman is "of <X> descent" for a number of values of "<X>", but nobody has come up with a reliable quote that she (not her mother) claims to be African American. --Scott Davis Talk 22:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
You're telling me that you are really hung-up on race, but the ________-Americans are ethnicities, so no wonder you don't understand it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source that she identifies with and accepted as a member of the African American ethnicity? The source we currently have for "heritage" says that she refused to choose either white or black ethnicity in 7th grade, and still refused as of 2015. I'm not hung up on race, but casual racism. --Scott Davis Talk 02:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Accepted as a member? That question makes no sense, there is no membership committee. She is proud of of her background. But you now seem to be accusing her of casual racism because she says her mother is African-American, and she is her daughter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
My (neither UK nor US) understanding of ethnicity is that for a person to be categorised in an ethnic group, they would need both a) to identify themselves as a member of that group and b) to be recognised and accepted as a member of that ethnic group by the majority of other members. The Elle article includes her calling her mother black, but she explicitly says she is neither black nor white.
I was not accusing the Duchess of Sussex with casual racism, I was observing that people seeking to apply the one drop rule to tag people as African-American whether they self-identify that way or not is casual racism. As far as I am concerned, her ethnicity is "American", her nationality is now British, and her citizenship will be UK when the paperwork and processes catch up. --Scott Davis Talk 13:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
So, you are hung-up on your own racism. You just can't comprehend that it's possible to be African-American and . . . , apparently because you insist it is a 'race' and that you just have to be that 'race'. But both of your assumptions are just wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: For those who don't know and/or are interested, this has been discussed before: Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 1#biracial, Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 2#African American categories, Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 3#Afro American and Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 4#Identifies Bi-Racial She is NOT African American. I'll just repeat what I previously stated, "One can choose how they identify, but we usually don't use 'race'/ethnicity categories like that. I don't see that she denies her African ancestry. She's not choosing to be mixed 'race'; she is mixed 'race.' But as made clear in the African Americans article, African Americans are a deeply mixed group. I was simply wondering why she is not included in the African American categories when she is already in the 'American people of African descent' category. Perhaps editors feel that 'American people of African descent' is enough to cover her African heritage (and are trying to keep in mind that she is biracial), but African American categories can be helpful categorization on Wikipedia even when one is already covered by an 'African descent' category. I don't feel strongly about this issue; I simply wanted to ask about it. [...] Being of mixed race does not negate that she is African American, any more than it negates Mariah Carey being African American." And, yes, we had a debate about how to categorize Carey in that regard; see Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 13#RfC: Are "African American" categories supported by sources and policy?. Especially see Snow Rise's comment on that. With regard to Markle, I also noted, "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) 03:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Sensible. It's not an 'or' dichotomy, it's an 'and' commonality, and there is no reason why it cannot be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Even though some editors supported inclusion on the basis of her father's ethnicity alone, the Mariah Carey RfC was resolved by looking at (a) how she is identified in reliable sources, and that (b) she self identified as African-American in a video. That would be the only way to categorise Markle as African-American, and I think in her situation we don't have either. StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
She does say, "And as a biracial woman . . . both sides of a culture I define as my own . . ." Again, it's not an "or" thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Sloppy use of language here, mixing up "race" and "ethnicity", as if they always mean the same thing to everyone, is not helpful. Americans tend to think they know what "race" means. Other countries tend to avoid the word, and hardly ever use it. The UK is well down that path. Our article on race says "race is not an inherent physical or biological quality". Megan is heading towards becoming a citizen of the UK. Once she does, "African-American" would be a silly label. "African-American-British" (or "....-UKian?) would be ridiculous. Editors need to drop the American obsession with "race", whatever that word means, and join the British habit of largely ignoring people's ancestry. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48, I'm not confusing "race" and ethnicity. As is indicated by me repeatedly putting "race" in scare quotes, I don't believe in race, and have stated so on my talk page and at the Race (human categorization) talk page. I keep stating "race/ethnicity," however, because they are commonly used interchangeably/conflated and this discussion is about both. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm glad I live in a country where our census is interested in neither race nor ethnicity, only self declared ancestry. HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
From Meghan: "While my mixed heritage may have created a grey area surrounding my self-identification, keeping me with a foot on both sides of the fence, I have come to embrace that."[2]
From a professor who studies biracial identity that I think is relevant: "I can’t speak for all biracial people. And I’m not saying that Meghan Markle and Barack Obama and other celebrities should be removed from the black community and added to the biracial community; racial identity is not and should not be a zero-sum game. It is clear that everyone needs positive representation, especially racial and ethnic minorities and women. But the either/or system that so much of our society uses simply doesn’t work when a biracially identified person is involved."[3]
Adding "African-American" doesn't take away from her biracial identity, IMO, though I do think a reliable source would be good before adding it. – Julia (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

((edit conflict) Thanks - I'll go and look at the RfC) There has been at least one comment above that African American is an ethnicity and not a racial designation. If this is so, then presumably the race(s) that Meghan is in (she has clearly identified herself as "bi-racial") are independent if not irrelevant to the ethnicity she identifies with. It is not clear to me whether she draws a distinction between race and ethnicity. It is clear that "of African ancestry" is broader than is normally accepted in the USA as "African American", which the Wikipedia article associates with black people and historic slavery (despite Barack Obama being counted as African American). The article Race and ethnicity in the United States appears to treat African American as a racial designation independent of ethnicity. I see no reason to include her article in any "African" or "black" categories without also putting it in the corresponding "European" or "white" category. In general, her ethnicity appears to be American and the five "of X descent" categories can stay, but could either be rolled up to two (European and African) or spread to a wider set of specific countries instead of a continent from her mother and four countries from her father. --Scott Davis Talk 04:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reference 24." Waldie, Paul (November 28, 2017). "Prince Harry, Meghan Markle's wedding not expected to bring economic boost for U.K." The Globe and Mail. Retrieved December 21, 2017." has a dead link. I think the reference should be left as text with the link removed.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthordare (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Truthordare: We should absolutely not remove it. Please read WP:DEADLINK, we should attempt to repair a dead link. If you have removed dead links anywhere else please restore them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: I did not realise it could be repaired; I assumed the page had been deleted on the host site but perhaps it is still online somewhere. I was advocating the reference be retained as it could be consulted in a library if not available online.truthordare (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Dead links degrade the reading experience so is keeping Dead Links a good policy? Does the article actually exist? truthordare (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Violation of privacy

It is you who had to start this discussion since it's been only you who has opposed adding those information so far. First of all, what mis-cite are you talking about? I've already gone through the sources, and I couldn't find out what you meant. The other pictures that were allegedly introduced against the Duchess of Cambridge could be subject to speculation, but the fact that Kensington Palace has already reacted to those topless photos and that her face has been clearly seen in a video makes that a legitimate claim, and these stuff (i.e. scandals) are normally covered by Wikipedia articles. Other examples include Harry, Diana, Catherine, William, Sophie, and hundreds of other famous people. So give me a solid reason that why I would not add those info back. Keivan.fTalk 03:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No. That is not how it works. See, WP:BLP and WP:BRD, you must take it to the talk page. In addition, I have been thanked for my removal by another editor. You mis-cited Wonder Wall a celebrity gossip cite. This tabloid speculation is not allowed in BLPs and it is WP:UNDUE. You are just repeating disputed rumors in tabloid fashion about 'racy pictures', pictures which are the subject of only speculation in tabloid sources --'I/They think it looks like her', is speculation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Alanscottwalker about this being UNDUE. All female celebrities are tracked by paparazzi in the hope of getting topless photos. This is standard tabloid fare and far from being worthy of a mention in an encyclopedia. If there were a court case with sufficient media coverage then that would be worth noting. Most of the sources say alleged anyway. And just because other stuff exists doesn't make it right. Thanks for pointing out these other bits of trivia I'll have a look and see if they are as non encyclopedic as this one and edit accordingly. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Although I would personally not be in support of such a move at this juncture, there is a consensus in favor of the move, and a reasonable policy-based argument in WP:NAMECHANGES. If the article subject had married a non-royal, her name might well now be "Megan Windsor". bd2412 T 03:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Meghan Markle → Meghan, Duchess of Sussex – This name in line with the article naming conventions, and it is consistent with articles for royality of similar situation, such as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Anne, Princess Royal. The last recent move result IMO there is no clear consensus. I believe we have one more vote so as to generate more input and have a clearer consensus. B dash (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 16:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Procedural comment. The previous move request is at Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 6#Requested move 19 May 2018. The move review mentioned is at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 May#Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (closed). Dekimasuよ! 20:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there is. None of the other women developed notoriety or a successful film career. If Jennifer Aniston married the Earl of Wherever, she might become Jennifer, Countess of Wherever, but people will still be looking for Jennifer Aniston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.3.48.224 (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
...and more Americans watched the Royal wedding on TV than every watched the series she starred in, according to the ratings.--Scott Davis Talk 07:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Not a comparable hypothetical. A super high profile established actress marrying a relatively obscure peer is a very different case. Suits is no Friends and Harry no minor Earl, hence Meghan's profile today dwarfs her acting days. And Camilla was pretty notorious in the 1990s. Here's a couple of recent cases of women with established public profiles having their articles moved after marriage with no-one batting an eyelid. [4] [5] Timrollpickering 07:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A Google search is coming up as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" in its main results box on the top right hand box, so it makes sense for us to be consistent. The Sun is calling her "The Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle", but that's tabloid junk. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, since nobody has felt strongly enough to try to change WP:NCROY to make it "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex". --Scott Davis Talk 10:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support only as proposed. She was at best marginally notable as an actress and model, her most prominent and well-known role being non-leading, and she is reported to have retired from that career in favour of royal life. A much earlier version of this article on the basis of her acting career at the time was deleted in 2006. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per recent discussion and consensus. In short, this is her common name; if she becomes overwhelmingly known as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" by, say Christmas, then fair enough. But not yet. DBD 14:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. Wikipedia:Move review#Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (closed) was closed 14 days ago. Setting aside that NCROY is not absolute and explicitly defers to COMMONNAME, WP:REHASHing this discussion until the preferred result is achieved is tendentious, inappropriate, and wastes editors' valuable time and resources. "One more vote" (it's not a vote, by the way) is not a good reason to reopen this so soon. James (talk/contribs) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose until there is evidence that the proposed title is in line with policy. In this move proposal (and in the arguments), I see no indication that the situation has changed since the last move request. Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Despite the fact that a similar discussion ended a few weeks ago, this is still a valid topic of discussion since it points to a very real problem with this article. The title of the article should change per WP:NAMECHANGES - "Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." The argument for maintaining the title “Meghan Markle” has rested on WP:COMMONNAME. Does that mean that the Wikipedia decides what that common name is, since I see plenty of sources that point to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex"? If we turn to standard policy of WP:RS: 1. Her official website states clearly that she is no longer Meghan Markle, the actress. She is now “The Duchess of Sussex,”[6], a name change that happened after marriage, which is a known phenomenon. 2. There are plenty of WP:RS to support the change. Just a few include:[7][8][9][10][11]. 3. With regard to "The Duchess of Sussex," v. "Duchess of Sussex," I would point to a similar article: Sophie, Countess of Wessex as a model - the wife of Prince Edward (the younger brother of Prince Charles). I’m perplexed as to what more is needed to change this article to match the others. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The first source you cite is titled Meghan Markle, so what are you referring to? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean her official website that states she was born "Meghan Markle" but is now the Duchess of Sussex and no longer Meghan Markle? -Classicfilms (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I see, you mean [12] - it is also titled, "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, once again champions the great British high street." -Classicfilms (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment As it has been brought up, if one searches for "Meghan Markle", or for "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", after her wedding, there is no question that "Meghan Markle" is still used in the overwhelming number of English Language RS and thus common name -- indeed, such searches also appear to show Meghan Markle is the recognizable, natural, precise, and concise form for finding the subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that "Meghan Markle" is still used by the media. But so is "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex." I just did a Google Search on "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" and received over 25 million results. Here is the search: [13] -Classicfilms (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
What that search pulls-up is overwhelmingly "Meghan Markle" in every category from news to books, so you are reinforcing Meghan Markle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a look at the first page of the Google Search for "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex," shows both, with more uses of "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" than Meghan Markle. These are subjective approaches to an issue which really is about a name change after a wedding. You may disagree with me, and that is of course your right, but I am reinforcing nothing. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Just look at the first page? That makes no sense per COMMONNAME, but even on the first page there are more Meghan Markle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Still no evidence of change in usage per Alanscottwalker’s above post - and certainly no evidence put forward by proposer. DeCausa (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as sources will be increasingly calling her 'Duchess of Sussex'. We've got Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, after all & there's still sources using Catherine Middleton or Kate Middleton. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCROY. The opponents cannot possibly argue that Meghan Markle is her only common name now, as a search in the Google gives the title "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" as the main title for her profile. The official websites and documents and the news agencies already refer to her as the Duchess of Sussex, thus I don't understand what type of document or source should be provided here to make the opponents understand that it is totally fine to have her page moved to the appropriate title, just like the other British princesses. Keivan.fTalk 17:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose her original name continues to be what she is referred to as frequently. Unless the marital name is shown to overtake it on a long-term basis I feel it should remain with the original name. CallyMc (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per all of the above as well as per NAMECHANGES etc- She's now referred to as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex so It makes sense for us to follow suit. –Davey2010Talk 23:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NAMECHANGES which has much more pressure than common name – sources are referring to her as the Duchess of Sussex. Kate Middleton was moved to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, when she married. It also should be done here. Let's not single this article. CookieMonster755✉ 01:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support now notable as a royal not a Suits actress. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't find the arguments for very convincing, they also seem to be WP:Other stuff exists. Should Kate Middleton's article be moved back to "Kate Middleton" too? Probably, but that is to be discussed on that article, not here. Two wrongs don't make a right. Claíomh Solais (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The name of this article should be "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" so to keep up the contingency with other articles of royal spouses, and also it is now the name used to address her in royal engagements. KaTipunan (talk) 3:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I missed the first discussion (although Jimbo's rationale for moving has to be one of the worst admin excuses of all time!), but the Duchess is far better known worldwide as being the Duchess when compared to the subject of this AfD. As an example of how these things pan out, I don't think anyone has called the Duchess of York "Fergie" for many years. Mind you, when I tried to crack a joke about the Grand old Duke of York running off with a redhead after he marched 10,000 men up to the top of the hill (as one of the games in It's a Royal Knockout), half the office were too young to know what I was talking about. Bah. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and speedily close per WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:GAMING. You can't just beat the community over the head until everyone passes out and you get what you want.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
How can you justify speedily closing a discussion I only saw yesterday for the first time? At least specify why it meets WP:COMMONNAME - as the policy says, "when there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close per SMcCandlish and James Allison. The last move discussion was opened just three weeks ago, just a day after the previous one closed. Repeatedly making attempts to move the page in such a short time is very disruptive. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support clearly the common sense name, it matches the style used in other articles and drops the name Markle which both the Duchess and the press dont use anymore. Media is calling her both Meghan and the Duchess of Sussex so it seems sensible to drop the Markle bit. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCROY. Only minor notability as an actor in comparison to the royal marriage. --Martilito (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • That argument (and many others in this discussion) were rejected in the closure of the last move request and in the closure review of that same move request, which was only weeks ago. This move request is, of course, going down the same route as the one last month. Surtsicna (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
      • And what is your argument exactly? One month ago, she was technically Meghan Markle, and sources referred to her as such. Now she's a royal duchess who gets mentioned by her title in various online sources. One cannot simply argue that the current title is her common name and close the whole discussion. Keivan.fTalk 21:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
        • She still is Meghan Markle. That is what she is known as. There is also 0 evidence that her last name is no longer Markle (not that it matters). Do various online sources that mention her as Duchess of Sussex outnumber those that mention her as Meghan Markle? If you believe they do, please present some evidence. That is how this is supposed to work. Surtsicna (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
...and the Duchess of Cambridge, is still called by many media Catherine Middleton and/or Kate Middleton. Heck, I never heard of Meghan, 'until' she got engaged. Why was there no outrage, when Catherine's article was moved to its current title? Why is the Sussex couple being singled out? GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's a proof if that's what you want. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-44535917 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-44358587 Mirrorthesoul (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment For some odd reason, it has been mentioned that this article was deleted in 2006. That is an odd factoid because this current article was created in 2007 [20] and has been here ever since - so yes, RS were writing about her and she was "notable" for Wikipedia some 10 years ago -- even this very day, RS around the world use "Meghan Markle" when writing about her, as that's what she became known as. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Please can someone close this. Per comments above, you can't just keep reopening discussions endlessly. We decided through RM and MRV to keep Meghan Markle as the name and let the dust settle. That needs to happen.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Let the RM run its course. Otherwise, shutting down will only cause more problems. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Leave it open. Once it's closed, we can have a move moratorium. CookieMonster755✉ 20:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
If you shut this down, you will just cause more chaos, as I'm sure many users will start to complain about it. Let's wait for the results and then we can have a move moratorium for a period of 6 months. Keivan.fTalk 21:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, you can indeed ignore the move discussion that took place just two weeks ago and just open a new one. Surtsicna (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Once again as I've said in the previous. 1) She's not a Markle anymore, she's a royal. Stop comparing her with Wallis. 2) She's legally married to Prince Harry, everyone needs to respect that. 3) Ignore what the media is calling her and respect the title she's been given since the marriage, which is The Duchess of Sussex. If anyone has a problem should take it up with Kensington Palace. Mirrorthesoul (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Yawn. Another argument that was rejected just two weeks ago by both the closing admin and the move review admins. Respect this, respect that, blah blah. How about we respect Wikipedia policies instead? This is turning into an exact replica of the previous discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Double yawn. Why single out this one bio article. We don't have Kate Middleton or Sarah Ferguson. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yet we do have Wallis Simpson, Grace Kelly, Sophie Winkleman, and numerous others. This one isn't singled out. Repeating worn out arguments is neither fun nor helpful. Surtsicna (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
By all means, open up an Rfc on those. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
No, thanks. I am fine with those titles. I just needed to correct you: this article is not "singled out". Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
We shall have to disagree on this article's title, then. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Surtsicna, who are you comparing Meghan to? Grace Kelly was already a famous American actress when she married the Prince of Monaco, and her career as an actress (which earned her an Academy Award) overshadowed her life as the princess of a small country. Sophie Winkleman is also an actress, and unlike Meghan, she hasn't been married to a high ranking member of the royal family. She's the daughter-in-law of a lesser known prince, and she is probably more famous than her noble husband. Wallis was also an American divorcee who was never officially a member of the royal family and was never treated as such. Meghan falls in the same category as Diana, Camilla, Sarah, Sophie, and Catherine. To be honest I didn't even know that she existed before her relationship to Harry became known. So, yes, this page is being singled out for no clear reason. Keivan.fTalk 01:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not comparing her to anyone. This is a topic on its own. It should be treated on its own. If you can prove that Meghan Markle is no longer best known as Meghan Markle, please do so. Saying that you did not know about her before her relationship is, pardon me, a bullshit argument, which is why it was rejected along with other bullshit arguments by the closing administrator and the move reviewers. Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: Wow, extremely rude. You absolutely have no respect, do you? And sure, lets actually bring up the option to change those pages as well. I think it would be fair. :/ Mirrorthesoul (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that I wan't trying to compare Meghan to anyone. Instead, I was responding to your statements which said that this page is not singled out, while in fact it is. By the way, it's OK to disagree with everyone else, but we are all free to have our own opinions, and keeping this page at its current title because it's - according to some of you - her common name is absolutely nonsense. Keivan.fTalk 00:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: Agreed. Mirrorthesoul (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mirrorthesoul: You are the last person here entitled to accuse me of being rude, having literally commanded everyone how to feel and act regarding this matter. Therefore I should think that Keivan.f's note that "we are all free to have our own opinions" is directed at you. And no, I have absolutely no respect of the kind that you would want me to have, which is an utter deference to the British monarchy. Such deference does not help Wikipedia one bit. There are plenty of royalty forums and blogs where it can be exercised. Surtsicna (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article needs to be in line with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. We were confused when we saw that the new Duchess of Sussex maybe did NOT have a title. Almost ALL media articles refer to her using her new title at least once in their article. 110.147.205.88 (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom David G (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – this is standard practice on Wikipedia. If this page is kept in ordd current name, then we have a LOT of moving to do. Corky 00:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Her name isn't 'Markle'. Has anyone bothered to consult style guides on this matter? See The Guardians, for example. It says '"Princess Kate" or "Princess Meghan" are wrong, as is the use of the women’s former surnames of Middleton and Markle'. Of course, we're not in the business of determining what is right and wrong here, but Wikipedia styling has always followed the lead of common usage in reliable sources. She's become the Duchess of Sussex, and that's what she should be called. I understand the hand-wringing over the proposed styling vis-a-vis implications about being divorced, but this is the best possible compromise. No American or republican distaste for noble titles and styles can remove the legal reality of her having become, by choice, the Duchess of Sussex...in place of the former 'Meghan Markle'. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
What name does it say on her passport? I doubt it says the "Duchess of Blahdiblah". Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't say the "Duchess of Blahdiblah", it probably says "Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex", similar to Catherine who has been mentioned as "Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge" in the birth certificates of her children. 1 Keivan.fTalk 21:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
We have no idea what her passport says, or whether she has updated it or not. American passports do not include noble or other titles/styles. This is irrelevant, though. Even if some editor stole her passport and found out what was written in it, that would not be useful here. We follow reliable secondary sources...we do not analyse primary sources and come to independent conclusions (WP:OR). RGloucester — ☎ 21:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course we have no idea what her passport says, and that was an irrelevant question in the first place. By the way, I wasn't talking about her American passport, but the British one that she already has or probably will receive in the future, and the British do include royal/noble titles in their official documents. Anyway, we better end this here as it would probably be considered off topic. Keivan.fTalk 22:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Grace Kelly was already a BIG TIME famous American actress when she married the Prince of Monaco, and her career as an actress (which earned her an Academy Award) overshadowed her life as the princess of a small country. Sophie Winkleman is also currently a WORKING actress, and unlike Meghan, she isn't married to Prince Harry, a high ranking/senior member of the royal family. Meghan's official biographers have stated that she will be working as a royal - and no longer be working as an actress. Sophie Winkleman is the daughter-in-law of a lesser known prince, and she is probably more famous than her noble husband. Wallis was also an American divorcee who was never officially a member of the royal family and was never treated as such. Wallis was never a working royal. Meghan CLEARLY falls in the same category as Diana, Camilla, Sarah, Sophie, and Catherine. This should be simple to understand. 175.33.198.186 (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the renaming. Over the past few weeks, the media used her official title "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" more often than her original name "Meghan Markle". This covered the main reason for not moving the article in the previous discussion. --202.155.194.40 (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)— 202.155.194.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • This again. You obviously read or took part in the previous discussion, yet you keep repeating nonsense that was dispelled by several users multiple times in the course of that discussion. "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is not her official title. It never has been and, if everything goes well, it never will be. "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is essentially a Wikipedia invention, neither the official nor the most common name. And the official title argument was also rejected as not being grounded in Wikipedia policy (per Wikipedia:Official names). Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I see on this page no good reason not to follow the usual convention, and a number of good reasons to make the change proposed, given the Redirect and the clear statements in the article's two opening sentences and in the infobox. Her notability is no longer as a former relatively minor actress, but in the public eye as her husband's wife and a member of the royal family promoting good causes. Now and for the future, like the Duchess of Cambridge, for the purposes of this bio article, any notability she had before is subsumed in her new status as Duchess. Qexigator (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Is her common name, we do so for her sister-in-law Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and whatever she was notable for in the past has been superseded by her marriage, as the obsessive press coverage post-wedding makes clear. And I haven't read a single good argument for keeping the article here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as per nom, WP:NCROY, WP:NAMECHANGES, the fact that she is refered to in Palace sources as the Duchess of Sussex and the 12M sources that now refer to the Duchess of Sussex. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. This is the "common name" for British royality. --219.78.191.247 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)— 219.78.191.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. Absolutely no reason why she should be different from any other princess by marriage. That's what she's called now. That's how the media refer to her. That's the name she uses. She is no longer Meghan Markle; she is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as per nom, WP:NCROY, WP:NAMECHANGES. – Flix11 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support her Royal Title is a legal property and confers a right to be so addressed; the present-day custom in Britain is to refer to titled people as they expressly prefer OR are entitled to be named. So, the default correct referral in the absence of a request, is to the Title. Disambiguation pages for "Meghan" and for "Duchess of Sussex" should clear up any confusion about whom is meant and a search on "Meghan Markle" would redirect to the "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" page.truthordare (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - Her name is now the Duchess of Sussex. Michelle Obama's page does not use her maiden name Robinson, and likewise the Duchess's page should not use "Markle". jamacfarlane (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Duchess of Sussex is her title not her name, and Duke of Sussex is not her newly married husband's name, which is Henry as christened and in letters patent, who, as from the the year of his birth, was and continues to be known, by his family and others, by the diminutive "Harry". Qexigator (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Titles ARE part of the name of the subject in normal British usage. In all British legal documents, these two will be referred to by their title, and not by their family name. See, for instance, the guidelines for the including titles in British passports, where it states 'Titles of nobility are part of a person's name and identity'. Her name is indeed, HRH The Duchess of Sussex, though, of course, her name is also Rachel Meghan, and indeed, her name is also Meghan. RGloucester — ☎ 15:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather have that than a questionably elected leader who slags off Muslims, Mexicans, Canadians, blacks, women, the poor, indeed just about anybody, and cosies up to tinpot dictators with one of the worst human rights abuse records on the planet. More to the point, Meghan is a duchess indefinitely, Trump's reign will be [expletive deleted] over in a decade's time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note (addressed both to IP:31.22.203.37 & Ritchie333) WP:BLP applies fully to talk pages as well as article pages. Also, WP:NOTAFORUM must be observed. This is not the place for your personal opinions regarding either the British royals or President Trump and the line on WP:BLP is close to being crossed in regards to Trump. Safiel (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
This !vote is in contradiction with the 5th characteristic of title criteria: Consistency. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, WP:SPNC seems applicable here, particularly the example given there of Cat Stevens, whose article remains there, as he's best known by that name, even though he has gone by Yusuf Islam for 40 years. Chuck (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:NAMECHANGES is also applicable. An example would be Muhammad Ali who was born and initially known as Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr., but later became known by his Arabic name. Keivan.fTalk 16:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
No. She has not and would hopefully never change her name to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", the style of a divorced duchess, which is why her royal website never uses "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" (although, the royal website does use, "Meghan Markle"). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I know what her official name is, and I've already mentioned this issue. Yes, she's not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" legally, but neither are Catherine and Camilla "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" and "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall". I don't know what you or some other people are suggesting here, that we should follow the royal protocol and have her page moved to "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex"? And if such formalities really matter to you, then you might also consider that technically and legally she's not "Meghan Markle" either. The reason that the names and titles get combined is due to the fact that numerous Duchesses of Sussex may be among her future in-laws, should she ever have a son and assuming that he might continue the line. We have had numerous Duchesses of Cornwall for example, and an article specifically exists for that title (Duchess of Cornwall) and having another article titled "The Duchess of Cornwall" just makes the readers more confused. Keivan.fTalk 18:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
No. It's very odd that you mix-up your rationales. That is your claimed "consistency" argument in which you ignore the royal wives/american actresses/divorcees and even Jane Seymour, Queen of England (and also ignore every other naming criteria in contravention of policy). In no way does that argument support, "WP:NAMECHANGES" because the predicate fact does not exist: she has NOT changed her name to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" - and it is plain false to claim, otherwise. On the other hand, Common Name policy is just fine with "Meghan Markle" because it is what is common in RS, and being 'known as' something is hardly original -- you just want to choose another 'known as' name, that is not Common Name, that is not concise, etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Duchess of Sussex (July 2018)[21]. Consistent with the article name for her husband's brother's wife, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Qexigator (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
No need to repeat again your blinkered "consistency" argument in which you ignore multiple Wikipedia articles, and multiple title criteria - it just shows you don't know what is being discussed, here. Moreover, you have shown nothing with your cite to The Guardian because that shows nothing of Common Name, which depends on survey of all RS, nor does that cite show that she has changed her name to the style of a divorced duchess, which is what this move proposes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Eventually (if not after this RM) the article will be moved to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, in line with the other current members of the British royal family. TBH, the resistance to it 'here', comes across as being somewhat pointy in nature. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Pointing to the future in your 'predictions' is useless here, and is the only thing that approaches pointy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Be stubborn all you (and a few others) want. Eventually, the article title will be (now or six months later) changed. I only hope you & some of the others will be able to accept that & learn to like it. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
How silly, when every post you just wrote is your stubbornness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not mixing anything up. I never said that the suggested title is her legal name, or that 'she' has changed her name to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". What I meant is that she is the current holder of that title and per WP:CONSISTENCY this page needs to get moved. The example you gave above is really odd by the way. Jane Seymour was a queen consort, and almost all of the articles about the queens have their maiden names as the main title of their respective pages (i.e. Alexandra of Denmark and Mary of Teck). WP:NCROY explains why those articles are titled as such and why this article needs to be moved. The only argument left for the opponents is WP:COMMONNAME, and you guys constantly use it to overrule other policies. Keivan.fTalk 22:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
But you are mixing up Name Changes and Consistency. As you concede, she has not changed her name to the proposed title, you are left with Consistency, but what you started out with, above, is Name Changes. You then go on to concede that there are multiple ways these article titles are configured, using Common Name. The reason Jane Seymour is the title of her article is that is her Common Name. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The wording of NAMECHANGES is significant: "...If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." This acknowledges that a change-of-name event normally lowers the bar on bean counting compliance with the "common name" criterion. Still, some here seem to construe "routine" to mean "prevalent", whereas I think the context indicates "often" is applicable. That is, no one referred to Meghan Markle as "Duchess of Sussex" prior to her wedding day, but she is often referred to as such subsequently, even if not yet prevalently. Moreover that seems to be the standard we have applied in like cases, since we did not delay moving the articles of Camilla Parker Bowles, Kate Middleton or Sophie Rhys-Jones, respectively, until "Duchess of Cornwall", "Duchess of Sussex" and "Countess of Wessex" became "prevalent" usage, and -- given the added benefit it would bring of "consistency", also a legitimate criterion for article naming -- I've heard no persuasive reason to treat Meghan differently. The contention that Meghan's article should follow the pattern of Lord Frederick Windsor's wife, Sophie Winkleman, rather than of, e.g. Sophie, Countess of Wessex, is unpersuasive because 1. Meghan has discontinued her active career as an actor, and 2. has become a core member of the British Royal Family, whereas those facts are not true of Winkleman. Nor does COMMONNAME call for us to re-name our articles on Camilla, Catherine, Sophie or Meghan to conform to the "undivorced peeress" format that is traditional at the Court of St. James's: English Wikipedia writes about royal families -- not for them. FactStraight (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
No, there is no legitimate reason for you to take Name Changes out of context: "If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names". Expressly linking to WP:COMMONNAME. Name Changes explicitly does not discard the Common Name standard, so your claim is just not true. As for your re-tread of Consistency arguments, that's again mixing it up with Name Changes. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and also, because, there's no evidence her name is "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" but - as others have pointed out - she is "Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex" [22], [23]. We should not invent names for people or introduce intentional misspellings to their names. Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - what the hell, this is still going? Per WP:COMMONNAME; the point that "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is incorrect anyways; and other points made in and the result of the previous move request and review, which are still valid. ansh666 04:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
So are the terms "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" and "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall". We are not supposed to follow the royal protocol in naming these articles, otherwise the articles would have been titled as "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of X". A combination of their names and titles is sufficient and makes them more recognizable. Keivan.fTalk 16:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common name. JDDJS (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the most common name in use in reliable sources *after her marriage* remains "Meghan Markle". So per WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:OFFICIALNAME, we do not make the change. (Most commentators above invoking NAMECHANGES have in support of the move have seemingly misunderstood the wording of that page - we do not automatically rename when there's a name change, the rule is "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit". Very very clearly, reliable sources are not "routinely using the name", as very many still call her Meghan Markle). And yes, WP:NCROY might favour the proposed title, but this is one of those exceptions like Margaret Thatcher where her original name is so common that we continue to use it. Let's not forget that Markle was independently notable before she was ever connected with Harry, and rose to fame with her role in suits.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENCY. --219.76.18.73 (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose One implication of the arguments in favor of the move is that women must have some arbitrary threshold of fame prior to marriage in order for their married identity to not consume and supersede their pre-marriage identity. This standard is not applied to men, in any circumstance. Therefore the arguments in favor of the move are in favor of WP upholding/establishing systematically different standards for female subjects, irrespective of the cultural tendencies of the circumstance in question. In other words, people from Great Britain and the US, the populations relevant to the marriage of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, have customs related to naming for men and women after marriage, and there are noteworthy deviations from said custom in both places (as there are for every culture). Wikipedia must have some policy for determining whether the culturally typical name or the exceptional case should be used for the article title. This discussion relates to this policy, and the argument in support of the move establishes a criteria for the names of articles on women (degree of fame before marriage) that is not seen for articles on men. It is therefore not a case of Wikipedia following a cultural convention or its deviation (which would be reflected by those in favor of the opposition argument, namely WP:COMMONNAME would lead to it being named "Meghan Markle"), but rather establishing a policy of different treatment for men and women (i.e. if it's a woman who has been married, the degree of her fame prior to marriage determines whether WP:COMMONNAME should hold or whether WP:NCROY is more relevant, while no such "degree of fame prior to marriage" standard is applied for the naming of articles about men). Pmberkeley (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The reasoning in the above oppose comment could be better understood if some examples were given for the supposed otherness of naming criteria for males. Qexigator (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you could supply an example of the "degree of fame before marriage" being applied to a discussion of a man's name after marriage? That would be helpful. Pmberkeley (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
A similar discussion has been going on for the Prince Harry article and the article was just changed to his current name Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. WP:COMMONNAME was also used as an argument, but the article was changed. The issue lies in Consistency.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:AT. There are five criteria we must consider. "Meghan Markle" meets the recognizability, naturalness, precision, and conciseness criteria. "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" meets the consistency criterion, and is also consistent with WP:NCROY. However, WP:AT overrides WP:NCROY, especially due to WP:COMMONNAME ("prefers the name that is most commonly used").
Many editors have cited WP:NAMECHANGES to support the proposed move, but it is important to note the exact language of that policy (emphasis added): "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well..." It is not clear that sources after the royal wedding have "routinely" switched to the "Duchess of Sussex" title. Since many reliable sources continue to use "Meghan Markle" as the "established name", then "Wikipedia should continue to do so as well". Edge3 (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, many news reports used Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Her common name has changed, no longer Meghan Markle. --219.76.18.78 (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Why comment this. She marry to Prince Harry. They bought have given titles Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Its now part of her name and royals dont use surnames any more. Correct way is Meghan Windsor, but that surname is used for members of royal family that don't have peer titles. Snake bgd 11:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisting break

  • Relisting comment. As I noted at Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 6, and as a few editors suggested above in requests to speedily close this discussion, there has not been sufficient consideration here of why and whether the comments in the previous discussion, which ended in a reversion to the title Meghan Markle, are still applicable in the current discussion. Further, there has been a great deal of discussion of WP:COMMONNAME without data in support of the claim that one or the other title is the common name. Citation of individual secondary sources that make reference to one or the other title show that both are in use, but they do not show that a preponderance of reliable sources use one or the other title––that one or the other is the WP:COMMONNAME. (An example of this might include something like a Google Trends search, but hopefully participants can come up with more significant data.) The issues raised in terms of WP:NCROY are currently the same issues that were raised in the previous discussion. Since this is discussion is not a vote, please consider taking up these points substantively in subsequent comments. Dekimasuよ! 16:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that the WP:NAMECHANGES argument is now stronger than on the day of the wedding; this is why I switched to the Support position since the move review. — JFG talk 17:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for linking WP:NAMECHANGES, which I should have mentioned in my comment. In the archived discussion, I mentioned that we need to find the title that "best coincides with WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:NCROY, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLECHANGES, WP:OFFICIAL, and other policies and guidelines that we consider when choosing article titles." Again, though, new evidence of why WP:NAMECHANGES applies will be more beneficial to the discussion than overall impressions. WP:NAMECHANGES states that "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well." Some sources are using the new name, and others are continuing to use "Meghan Markle." Which are reliable sources doing more of? Dekimasuよ! 17:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to a relisting, which will give more time for debate. However, I'm somewhat confused by the argument above and am hoping you can clarify. 1. To the statement "there has not been sufficient consideration here of why and whether the comments in the previous discussion, which ended in a reversion to the title Meghan Markle, are still applicable in the current discussion," I would comment that the two discussions are different ones. The original discussion centered on (and I am quoting the closing comment here)"an out-of-process move ... performed by the founder." While the closer did not feel he could revert the article back to its original name, another user did. So, my understanding of that vote is that there was a procedural issue at stake. As this discussion followed procedure, it is a different one. (2) To the statement that this "discussion is not a vote," -I am wondering how it is different from other discussions I have participated in over the years on the Wikipedia. Usually, the numbers of support and oppose are counted and a decision is made. In looking at the discussion thus far, I see 37 editors who support the move and 12 who oppose it. Finally, to (3) WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME. One of the most important rules in this context lies in WP:RS, as the Wikipedia strives to be accurate. No one seems to be contesting that a name change took place - and as for WP:RS, we have one, the official website of the subject.[24] From here, a discussion of primary sources and notability will ensue. Both names come up in a Google search - sometimes in the same article. It thus seems that the primary source,[25] which has been quoted in secondary sources, reflects WP:NAMECHANGES. I'm thus not sure how WP:COMMONNAME would overrule other policies. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The number and composition of people "voting" is arbitrary, so I don't know why you would establish a numerical basis to your conclusion that support for the move is legitimate. I imagine in other discussions, consensus was reached and it corresponded with the numerical preponderance of "support" and "oppose". As per my recently added comment above, I think all in support of the move would need to confirm that they're comfortable with explicitly establishing different standards for female and male article subjects (i.e. women are subjected to a "degree of fame" test to determine whether WP:NCROY or WP:COMMONNAME is relevant, men are not subjected to this test). Furthermore, there was no documented name change (which, contrary to your statement, was in fact opposed) - styles, titles, and honors are added to a person's name when they enter the royal family. I encourage you to look at the page for Prince Philip, for example, or the section of the article on his titles and honors that explains the debate over his titles and honors. None of that changes the name of his Wikiepedia page. Pmberkeley (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
A similar discussion has been going on for the Prince Harry article and the article was just changed to his current name Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. WP:COMMONNAME was also used as an argument, but the article was changed. The issue lies in Consistency.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Note Collapsing this for ease of access to the move moratorium discussion. Safiel (talk)

Discussion: "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" or "Meghan, the The and/or the Duchess of Sussex"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per wish of discussion OP/quick consensus. Non-Admin closure. Safiel (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to do this to everyone, however, could we discuss a future move of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex to Meghan, theThe and/or the Duchess of Sussex? (edit: To clarify, I'm not actually proposing a move at this time, rather soliciting the sense of the community.) Chetsford (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I apologize profusely for this, however, I feel if we're going to rename this (for the record, I supported keeping it at Meghan Markle) we should use the correct spelling. As has been pointed out by others, as the spouse of the duke, Meghan Markle's style is actually Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex; Meghan, Duchess of Sussex would be her style following a divorce or Prince Harry's decision to pursue a polygamous marriage. Because there is a possibility of a move moratorium that will prevent further amendments for the next six months, I feel we should settle on a correct form so our readers don't have an inaccurate article that can't be corrected until 2019 . (And, yes, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is also incorrectly titled, it seems.)
While this may seem like a minor point, if we accept - as the majority seems to have - that she has actually changed her name we should spell it correctly. Omitting four-percent of the letters of her name would be like naming the George Washington article George Ashington and saying "close enough". When they invoke her title, reliable sources seemed to have recently synchronized on the style Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, including CNN [26], the Washington Post[27], the Japan Times [28], the New Zealand Herald, [29], CBS News [30], etc. Chetsford (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I personally Oppose this move to go along with similar named articles that exclude "the". But may I suggest if you're going to file an RM do it right and file it using the instructions at WP:RM TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I did a poor job of wording this; this is not actually a move proposal but more of a solicitation for discussion. I've amended the header to make it less ambiguous. My apologies. Chetsford (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Instead of hand-wringing ( 'very sorry to do this to everyone...apologize profusely' ), it would at least be more courteous, if Chetsford wished us to give this the attention s/he believed it deserved, if s/he had given citations for the assertion 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex would be her style following a divorce or Prince Harry's decision to pursue a polygamous marriage', as if a polygamous marriage were an option under the laws of the Duke's country, a preposterous proposition even in the countries of the news sources s/he has mistakenly cited. Moreover, it is clear that news sources use 'the' not to mark her marital status as the Duke's sole current wife in a monogamous marriage, but as a definite article in the particular context. In formal contexts, however, it may often be customary (or prescribed by protocol of one sort or another) to use 'The' as part of a style or title as in 'The Lord Tweedsmuir'. In any case, we have not 'misspelt' her name. Qexigator (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Instead of hand-wringing ( 'very sorry to do this to everyone...apologize profusely' ) I apologize if my apology was not well-received.
mistakenly cited - I apologize, however, I'm unclear as to what mistake you believe occurred? In any case, Debrett's 2016 addresses this in the point of a widow of a member of the peerage, which can logically be applied to a divorcée where the husband has remarried. More direct description of this is in J.P. Brooke-Little's Royal Heraldry Beasts and Badges of Britain. Both of those sources are offline so, as a workaround, I'd hesitatingly point to Royal Central [31] (hesitatingly as I don't think it's generally a good source outside of this niche topic), which describes the styling of a divorced spouse of a peer. Now, to be clear "The Duchess of Sussex" is in fact a title, but the various discussions have (I think) come to the consensus it is actually her name, so this line of discussion may be confusing in that it advances from the consensus even though consensus may not necessarily align with reality in this case, so I regret if I have imperfectly expressed myself in this discussion. I'd like to ping Willthacheerleader18 and Ransewiki who raised a similar question earlier to see if they could more elegantly iterate what I'm trying to say (or to disabuse me of this idea, if needed).
it is clear that news sources use 'the' not to mark her marital status as the Duke's sole current wife in a monogamous marriage, but as a definite article in the particular context That's not at all clear to me.
we have not 'misspelt' her name I'm unclear as to the identity of the person you're quoting here. Chetsford (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Practically all wives of peers with the style in their article title omit "The"; this matter is an issue for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) rather than bringing it up on individual pages and potentially creating yet more inconsistency. Originally articles on Royal peeresses included "The" but other peeresses did not have it and "The" was removed following this discussion 11 years ago. Maybe consensus has changed in the many years since but that is the best place to discuss it and, if the outcome is so, implement a broad consistent change. Timrollpickering 09:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Timrollpickering - thank you for the lesson in wiki-history! If there was already a discussion to proactively remove "The" from the article names of the wives of peers across the encyclopedia then I agree there's no point in correcting this individual article. Unless someone has something else they need to comment on with regard to this, I'd be fine if this discussion was hatted to keep the Talk page tidy. Chetsford (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a biography by the British royal family. We don't need the before Duchess of X or Countess of X even if they are the current Duchess/Countess/Princess. Readers will know that they are the current title holder by reading the article. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, is just fine for the title. Though Meghan, Duchess of Sussex would suggest that it is a courtesy title because of divorce in royal context, it does not hold the same context in an encyclopedia. CookieMonster755✉ 20:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

If on doubt, just check the royal families website; the website constantly refers to her as "The Duchess of Sussex". https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex HardeeHar (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex/Archive_7&oldid=1142770016"