Jump to content

Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 13

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2020

Never tried to update a protected page before, so :

Change:


The same year, when the referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union resulted in 51.9% of voters being in favor of Brexit, Markle expressed her disappointment on Instagram and posted a placard saying: "If EU leave me now, you take away the biggest part of me."[73]

To :

The same year, when the referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union resulted in 51.9% of voters being in favor of leaving the EU, Markle posted a placard on Instagram that said : "If EU leave me now, you take away the biggest part of me."[73]

Because :

The guardian reference above does not back up the current statement. It states "Shortly after the Brexit vote, she used the same platform to post an image of a placard at an anti-Bexit campaign which read: “If EU leave me now, you take away the biggest part of me.”" Saying she expressed disappointment is editorialising. Also it uses a loaded colloquial term "Brexit" which the guardian use as a political "weapon" the options in the EU Referendum where Remain a member of the European Union Leave the European Union There were two campaigns, Leave and Remain. Xeissan (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Brexit is a general term used and linked in very many different Wikipedia articles. I don't see that it's necessarily a "political weapon used by The Guardian." Also not sure why the vote percentage is needed in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Martinevans123.Cinadon36 15:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Meghan Markle

She was born in 1977 Carolyn1959 (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Not according to the two seemingly excellent sources used at the beginning of the Early life section of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

European Settlers

Her European ancestry is proven: Irish and German. Also the family name gives the ethic German part away, Märkle/Merkle is a archetypal Swabian family name. Seems like mentioning her explicit European ethnic heritage still is a Wikipedia problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:DF30:6F00:E8DF:E7C5:DF04:A3E (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It's in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Regardless, etc"

From the "Titles etc" section, I removed as not in source this sentence "Regardless, as a British prince and princess, Harry and Meghan are entitled to keep their styles.". That was reverted with a summary that it is in the cited sources. Sorry, don't see it there. The sentence has been rewritten now and says that they will "retain" the HRH. Does anyone see that in the cited sources? I do not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will retain, but not use royal titles, analyst says, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Will Keep Their Titles - But they won't be "royal highnesses" anymore, etc. 86.186.37.225 (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: the cited Guardian source says: "Though Harry and Meghan still technically retain their HRH styles, they have agreed they will not use them" (my emphasis). -- DeFacto (talk). 08:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
But "not stripped of" and "retain" are not really the same thing. A Wikipedian interpretation? And appropriate as such? We should quote the Queen without anybody else's POV. If a "royalty expert" quotyd in press is important enoughfor us here to alter what the Palace wrote, that "expert" should be named. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is not the first example of such an ambiguous announcement - see the discussion over the Earl of Wessex's children. We should probably leave their current styles unchanged for the time being and hope that the crown will issue something more precise. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Meghan" instead of "Markle"

The current article refers to her as "Markle", but her current name is "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex".

Compare to the article [Diana, Princes of Wales] which refers to her as "Diana", and not "Spencer".

I think this is a holdover from the article before her marriage into the royal family. Sarke (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarke, this is very deliberately done. When the sentence is referring to a pre-Duchess period, Markle is used. Following her marriage, she is referred to as the Duchess. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
As indicated by the following sources (here and here), Harry and Meghan are losing their royal titles. This article should be reverted to "Meghan Markle" shouldn't it? --Redbaron86 (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

No, far from automatic, she remains Duchess of Sussex, and could only be deprived of this title by Act of Parliament. PatGallacher (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Logically her new style would be "Her Grace The Duchess of Sussex", though whether she will use that style remains to be seen. I would recommend keeping a close eye on The London Gazette for the next few weeks for more clarity on the situation. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Her title may be the Duchess of Sussex, but her name ought to be Megan Mountbatten-Windsor. 2601:181:4600:A8C0:3C34:7FCB:1478:7435 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Before her marriage, she is refereed to as Markle. After her marriage, she is the Duchess or Meghan. This setup works just fine. CookieMonster755✉ 19:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Royal

The title section need updating as she has lost her highness title and with the declaration of the queen that they can no longer use the royal in thier trademark...... Sntelmo (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

As stated by Buckingham Palace, and already covered in the article, she is still indeed a royal highness. They will not use that style socially. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
She is not a princess, she is a duchess. Princess is a hereditary title not given. For example Diana became a Princess as she was already a Lady in her own right so she therefore gets a promotion. As Meghan had no hereditary title she is only able to use those provided by the Queen which would be Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel. Stop confusing the Americans into believing she is a Princess!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.215.34.181 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The article says very clearly (emphasis added): "Upon her marriage to Prince Harry, Meghan Markle became a princess of the United Kingdom entitled to the style of Royal Highness, as well as Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel..." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
It is not helpful to trade your opinion, here. Bring sources. According to sources, she is among other things, Princess Henry, who is for legal and customary purposes a princess of the United Kingdom (see also, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge).[1]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The duchess is a Princess of the United Kingdom as documented on Archie Harrison Mountbatten Windsor’s (her son with Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex) birth certificate. Domojones1985 (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2020

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.

No consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is no clear consensus, and it does not appear that additional time for discussion is yielding any greater clarity. Both titles are valid and supported by strong policy arguments, so WP:TITLECHANGES is also a consideration. It is possible, given recent changes to the status of the subject, that a clearer WP:COMMONNAME picture may emerge in another six months or a year, and this question can always be revisited after an appropriate period of time. BD2412 T 04:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle – It is evident that Meghan Markle remains her WP:COMMONNAME.

  1. She has a notable career in her own right as Meghan Markle.
  2. Reliable sources have continued to widely refer to her as Meghan Markle (often she and her husband are referred to in this way: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle[2]).
  3. She and her husband have clearly indicated an intention to step back from being "senior" royals and also to markedly reduce their use of titles and styles for both themselves and their son.
  4. The move to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" was contentious in the first place and based on an assumption that reliable sources would eventually start referring to her as such; however few sources refer to her using the current title "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex".
  5. Wallis Simpson, who married a king and not someone just 6th in line, and who had no notable career in her own right as "Wallis Simpson", is still titled Wallis Simpson and not Wallis, Duchess of Windsor.
  6. And finally, some editors would argue that the current title of the article that treats her as an appendage to her husband, is quite anti-modern and reflects outdated values, particularly for someone with their own career and who is commonly known under her original name in reliable sources. (Note, per RM guidelines RMs are not expected to be "neutral" but to make a case for moving the article). --Tataral (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Honestly, by mentioning Grace Kelly you are not making any points here. She was an Academy Award winning actress who married a relatively small princely family in Europe. Her case is no way similar to Meghan's. Keivan.fTalk 01:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Grace Kelly married a sovereign monarch, her fairy tale wedding was regarded as the wedding of the decade and her children became mega celebrities, one of whom himself a sovereign. Prince Harry is just one of many minor royals and their wedding one of countless weddings of junior (and senior) European royals in the past few years, certainly not the wedding of the decade; their child doesn't even hold a title and Harry and Meghan have indicated that their intention is that he will live a relatively private life. In terms of his prominence and place in the line of succession Harry is the equivalent of Prince Michael of Kent, who had roughly the same place in the line of succession when he was younger and who is now #48 and who will possibly be somewhere in the #60s range by the end of his life. Even Prince Michael's children have higher titles/styles than Harry's and Meghan's child. Of the two, Grace Kelly's husband was far more prominent. Prominence isn't just based on the size of the country; Europe has relatively few ruling monarchs left, so even the monarchs of the smaller states get much attention in the media, as Monaco is a good example of. A ruling monarch will always outrank by far someone who is 6th or 48th in line to a throne. --Tataral (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I never even mentioned the size of the country, in fact the size of the country doesn't matter at all. However, it is obviously clear that the Monégasque princely family is not as complicated as the British royal family in terms of size and laws. By the way, Archie's current status has nothing to do with Meghan's status. I cannot really see what you are arguing for here, but if you're really concerned about his status I should probably remind you that he's a grandson of the Prince of Wales and thus he'll be a grandson of the future British monarch, a status that none of the children of the other princes and princesses (including Prince Michael's children) will ever have. His case will be similar to that of James, Viscount Severn. Not to mention that he currently is an heir to the Dukedom of Sussex as well. His father, Harry, already precedes the Queen's children in the order of precedence. Just like Princess Anne and Prince Edward, who are not considered minor royals due to their status as children of the sovereign, Harry is not a minor royal either, at least not in the way that Princess Eugenie or Prince Michael of Kent are, because he's the son of the heir to the throne. What does all this mean for Meghan? It means that as the daughter-in-law of the Prince of Wales who is set to become the next monarch, her status is similar to that of the Duchess of Cambridge not Princess Michael of Kent. Keivan.fTalk 01:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Seen from an international (as opposed to domestic UK) perspective, someone who is now 6th in line to a throne, and likely to become perhaps 50th in line in old age, and who has virtually zero chance of inheriting the throne, is a minor royal. Major royals, seen from the perspective of an international encyclopedia, are primarily ruling monarchs and people who are likely to actually inherit the throne. Would we regard the Dutch equivalent of Harry (Count Claus-Casimir of Orange-Nassau) or perhaps the Belgian equivalent (Prince Amedeo of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este) as major royals? Absolutely not. Markle's status is absolutely not similar to someone married to a future king; in a few decades Middleton is expected to be queen, married to a ruling monarch, while Markle is expected to be married to someone who is 20th, 30th, 50th in line to the throne and who perhaps "manages his own consultancy business and undertakes various commercial work around the world". Also, being the grandchild of a monarch or prince of Wales appears to have become less important in the UK over time, and while such royal descendants were in the past automatically awarded grandiose titles and styles, nowadays they tend to have lesser (e.g. viscount), if any, titles and styles, and lead more private lives. --Tataral (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
          • Yes, you're right; by the time of his death Harry could be 20th or 30th in line to the throne. But, are we concerned with what is going to happen in the future or are we considering their current status for making our final decision here? Even if he gets pushed down the line, he'll still have a status similar to that of Princess Anne, Prince Edward, Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands, or Princess Astrid of Belgium (not Count Claus-Casimir of Orange-Nassau or Prince Amedeo of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este who are way minor in terms of importance compared to Harry). And, yes, you are right. The royal families are mostly getting slimmed down, but a slimmed down version of the family would consist of the monarch and his children and as far as I remember that's what Charles had in mind for the royal family. It's true that Meghan will never be a queen, unlike Catherine, yet she is as prominent and "senior" as Sophie, Countess of Wessex, a daughter-in-law of the Queen who is not set to become a queen consort either. Keivan.fTalk 05:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
            • Count Claus-Casimir and Prince Amedeo are both 6th in line to their respective countries' thrones, just like Harry. Yes, Meghan would in principle be the equivalent of Sophie, Countess of Wessex when/if her father-in-law ascends the throne (which might not happen after all), but in practice less so if she lives in, say, Canada, and has fewer official responsibilities and ties to the royal house. The countess is not really a major royal seen from an international perspective; France, Germany, Italy are literally full of people who have the same title as her, and who aren't famous at all. The main issue, though, is that she belongs to a junior family branch with no chance of inheriting the throne, and in less than a handful of generations her descendants will be like those people who are 90th or 100th in line today. Over time Sophie, Countess of Wessex and her children will become increasingly obscure, just like Prince Michael of Kent and his children and grandchildren – and just like Prince Harry and his descendants. --Tataral (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
              • Claus and Amedeo's position in the line of succession does not make them equivalents of Harry. It's the person's lineage (who his parents are) and what he actually does that make him prominent. Yes, Harry is sixth in line to the throne but those people do not receive 1% of the coverage that he and his wife receive by the media. Neither will their future wives. Sophie is a countess, who is set to become the Duchess of Edinburgh, once her husband gets the dukedom after his father's death. However, the thing that makes her different from the other countesses across the Europe is that she's a British princess by law. Even if her descendants get pushed down the line of succession that does not affect her position as the daughter-in-law of a monarch; neither it did for her predecessors Princess Alice and Princess Marina who were arguably more notable and popular with the media at the time compared to their own sister-in-law Princess Mary who was a princess by blood, despite the fact that their children were never meant to be crowned king/queen. Keivan.fTalk 01:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. She calls herself the Duchess of Sussex on their own website, and seemingly has no intention to change this, though they will no longer actively use the style "Royal Highness". Opera hat (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – this should never have been moved in the first place. Sources have never stopped calling her Meghan Markle – this remains the WP:COMMONNAME. – bradv🍁 16:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support WP:COMMONNAME Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mostly, per WP:AT's unproductive caveat. No one is going to have any difficulty finding this article with the present title. I opposed the change years ago but we made it, and with BLP's I think we should not try to impose re-shifting names on a person in-the-news, where there can be more than one article title candidate, and the person has not indicated a desire for the former name. There is no evidence that she currently goes by her acting name, let alone, her birth-family name, the evidence is to the contrary, she does not. And of course her sister-in-law is also regularly and commonly referred to in sources as Middleton, but we have that article at Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge so there's consistency. As between making a statement about sexism in the monarchy and sexism in making women go by their father's name, or making a statement for letting the woman at issue have present agency and determination, I choose the later. If she someday indicates a preference using Mountbatten-Windsor or Markle or something else, we can then re-visit. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Adding, with respect to WP:COMMONNAME, the policy clearly recognizes that there may be more than one common name. Here "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is fairly common.[3] Moreover WP:COMMONAME rejects inaccurate names, no matter how much used in sources, and "Meghan Markle" is inaccurate because it is no longer her name. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose For various reasons:
  1. How is Meghan Markle her common name? At this point, almost every website and news outlet refers to her as either the Duchess of Sussex or Duchess Meghan. The fact that they also use Meghan Markle occasionally or alternatively in their headlines means nothing in terms of choosing a title for this article. The Duchess of Cambridge is also occasionally referred to as Kate Middleton. Looking at it from a policy-based point of view, the Duchess of Sussex is now a commonly recognizable name too, which is what the whole WP:COMMONNAME is concerned with.
  2. Stepping back from being "senior" members of the royal family doesn't mean that she ceases to be the Duchess of Sussex. It's important to remember that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie along with some of the Queen's cousins are also minor royals but that doesn't mean they have been kicked out of the firm. All of them are still officially considered British princes and princesses by law.
  3. Wallis Simpson's case was entirely different from Meghan. She married a "king", but was never accepted in the family. She was also never granted the style of royal highness, unlike Meghan. Meghan can in fact be compared to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, another divorcee who has been fully accepted in the family.
  4. And finally, using the title Duchess of Sussex doesn't reflect outdated values. It means that she has the same rank as her husband. Just like the way a queen enjoys the same rank as a king, or the way a first lady is compared to a president. Keivan.fTalk 01:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
And see also 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. Opera hat (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The Duchess of Cambridge is also simply called Kate Middleton by most people, and the Duchess of Cornwall is called Camilla Parker Bowles. I don't understand what everyone's problem is when it comes to Meghan though. Her stepping back from royal duties has literally no effect on her title and status; neither it did for the Duke of Edinburgh who has been retired since 2017. Keivan.fTalk 01:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Meghan Markle has made a public declaration that she will or has stopped using title (though, albeit retaining it), while the Duke of Edinburgh did not. Chetsford (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
False with respect to 'Duchess of Sussex', it was announced they would no longer publicly use HRH and that they would instead go by just Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, Alanscottwalker is right. They will not use the HRH style in their professional life and instead will simply be known as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex when doing business. Please, at least, go over Megxit to get the correct information. Keivan.fTalk 01:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:INDEPENDENT RS, Meghan Markle disagrees that she "will simply be known as ... Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" [4]. We should consider independent RS superior to press releases from Clarence House or circular referencing back to WP itself. Chetsford (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
We didn't ask you to consider the article about Megxit on WP a reliable source for this article, yet the information over there is sourced and you can always look at the sources to obtain the info that you like to see. Unfortunately, the link that you have provided above is broken. Not to mention that Insider would be such an unreliable source, in my opinion, for sensitive matters like this. Also there’s no such thing as Meghan disagreeing with certain stuff. Everything has been finalized and the agreement has been reached. On an article published by The Guardian, it is clearly stated that "Harry and Meghan still technically retain their HRH styles, they have agreed they will not use them. They have not been stripped of them, unlike Harry’s mother Diana, Princess of Wales following her divorce. ... They will continue to use their titles of duke and duchess, and henceforth will be styled Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex." Keivan.fTalk 01:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The Insider, owned and published by Axel Springer SE, is a perfectly reliable source for celebrity news. We wouldn't use it to cite an article on climate change or elections, of course, but reporting on musicians, Instagram influencers, the royal family, etc. is within its resources and capability. The Guardian article is speculative. It makes an assertion of something it contends will occur but that has not yet come to pass. The Insider article observes a fact that has occurred. Chetsford (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay then, let's just assume that the website is reliable; which I also think it is, based on what you said. The problem, however, is that the article that you're pointing out to is in no way related to the current situation. A guy goes in to have a private meeting with Meghan, and he's expected to spend some time with her working on a project. She humbly asks him to call her Meghan to make him feel more comfortable. First of all, this has nothing to do with her legal status and title. Secondly, if you have read books about Diana or gone through articles about Kate, you have probably noticed that they also sometimes had simply asked people to call them by their first names and put formality aside. That doesn't mean they wanted to be officially stripped of their titles. The Guardian article is an analysis of the announcements made by the officials. In fact, that's how a secondary source should be. Keivan.fTalk 08:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
"...they also sometimes had simply asked people to call them by their first names and put formality aside. That doesn't mean they wanted to be officially stripped of their titles." We're trying to decide what this Wikipedia article should be named. We're not making a decision to strip Meghan of her titles. Only the Queen and/or Arbcom can officially strip someone of a royal title. Chetsford (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
We have to choose a title for this article with regard to both her official status and the commonality of names/titles that she uses. Sources like that don’t clarify anything specific, as I just mentioned above. Keivan.fTalk 16:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • And how many instances of Markle? Harry and Meghan are their common names, just as first names are commonly used for all British royals. They clearly have to be disambiguated somehow, and their title rather than their former surname is the common way of doing that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Maybe that one source is not the best. If a page is headlined "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle" it's hardly surprising we're just going to see "Meghan" under that. And of course "Harry and Meghan" is often treated as a unit in the press. But if you have some kind a clearer evidence to show, about what's used most by "the respectable British media", I'm sure we'd all appreciate it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I think someone clarified it above. We have to look at the sources that have been published after their 2018 wedding. Apparently the usage of the word Duchess of Sussex by the press has increased; but they still use "Meghan Markle" interchangeably, just like the way they use "Kate Middleton", "Camilla Parker Bowles", or "Sarah Ferguson". Keivan.fTalk 14:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • ...just like the way they use "Kate Middleton", "Camilla Parker Bowles", or "Sarah Ferguson". I wouldn't object if we renamed all of those, as well. I couldn't even recall Camilla or Sarah's titles just now until I entered their names into the search bar and got redirected. Chetsford (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Then perhaps, instead of restricting your focus on the British royal family, you should go ahead and start a broad request that covers all women who have married into royalty, and ask for their articles to be titled by their maiden/previous names. Then maybe you can win the whole community’s support. It is undeniable that sources (to be specific ‘the media’) use these women’s maiden/previous names in their publishings, yet that doesn’t mean that their current names or titles are uncommon. You couldn’t remember Kate or Camilla’s titles but I could. And I’m sure many other people do remember them as well. Keivan.fTalk 16:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "you should go ahead and start a broad request that covers all women who have married into royalty, and ask for their articles to be titled by their maiden/previous names" - I get the sense you don't understand WP:COMMONNAME. Chetsford (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I fully understand it. What I don't understand is you going in favor of reverting this page's title back to her maiden name while we know that her royal title is 'also' a common term to refer to her as well. This whole thing is pointless. Keivan.fTalk 22:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: It's her common name. Sources within the article refer to her by this name, even after her marriage. --Hazhk (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose She and the prince have not been divorced. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Gap9551 (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Some people seem to use WP:COMMONNAME to override all the other policies, without remembering that "Duchess of Sussex" is also a common term to refer to her. As a reminder, WP:NCROY, which sets out the rules for naming royalty, also applies to this page, which in many cases is not necessarily in line WP:COMMONNAME. Keivan.fTalk 15:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:COMMONNAME is an English Wikipedia policy. WP:NCROY, a relatively obscure page that is part of the realm of nobility cruft, is not an English Wikipedia policy. Often people who focus exclusively on niche areas insist that we general interest editors must follow some obscure convention they have informally established among themselves; this is often seen in articles on sports and royalty/nobility cruft. But WP:COMMONNAME, as a policy, takes precedence over any such obscure page, as seen in other articles such as Grace Kelly, Wallis Simpson and many other articles. Meghan Markle, Grace Kelly are different because they have a large general readership, while articles on obscure people who have an article merely by virtue of holding the title of "baron" (an actual example; some years ago someone wrote articles on everyone in the UK who held some minor title) or some obscure royal title don't really have many readers. WP:NCROY applies primarily to them, but not to really famous people like Markle who have a different common name, because that is when an overriding policy such as WP:COMMONNAME becomes relevant. --Tataral (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Even if we just ignore WP:NCROY and put our focus only on WP:COMMONNAME, we can still find valid arguments to keep this page at its current title. I think I listed a bunch above and other users mentioned a few of their own as well. I think at this point we should just wait and see where the discussion will go. Keivan.fTalk 22:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not a name she's still using and her primary notability is from her position in the Royal Family - her acting career is not on the scale of Grace Kelly who, like Wallis Simpson, is now a historic figure. The recent announcement that the Sussexes are pulling out of Firm duties has not changed their names even if some bits of the media still keep referring to her by an out of date name. There is no good reason to single her out compared to other Royal brides who are similarly referred to by their pre marriage names. Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and consistency with articles such as Wallis Simpson and Grace Kelly. Meghan has decided to step back from royal duties and stopped using her styles, therefore I think it would be appropriate for the article title to match the life event and since published sources use the name Meghan Markle. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • As a reminder, she had not stopped using her styles and she has not ceased to be a royal. She's still HRH The Duchess of Sussex and will remain so, unless she gets divorced from Prince Harry. When doing business, however, they will not use the HRH style and will instead be known simply as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. And published sources also occasionally refer to the Duchess of Cambridge and the Duchess of Cornwall as Kate Middleton and Camilla Parker Bowles respectively. However, if you still think Meghan Markle is the common name, then so be it :) Keivan.fTalk 22:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as "Duchess of Sussex" is still a title she is using and has legal right to use. No press has indicated that they will no longer be "Sussexes" and no royal and noble honours have been taken from them. Sarah, Duchess of York, who actually had her Royal Highness status removed, is still "Sarah, Duchess of York" on wiki. I fear that this comes as a part of the Megxit movement to see The Duke & Duchess as non-royals, when they still very much are. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia article titles are not about "legal rights," but about common names in reliable sources. Her common name in reliable sources is Meghan Markle. She is an American citizen (as I understand it she only holds American citizenship), soon to be a resident of Canada, and I strongly doubt that her legal name is "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" because no titles are recognised in the United States and because you wouldn't be able to register a non-standard name like that. Legally speaking she doesn't hold any title in the (only) country that she is a citizen of, and is a citizen just like everyone else. --Tataral (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Your argument appears to be under the mis-impression that there is only one common name for people. That is false.[5] This exercise of now rushing to change names, a name over which there is and can be no confusion whatsoever is an entirely unneeded waste of time and effort, and it is hard to understand what could possibly be the reason for such a useless focus on this woman's name. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - As per WP:COMMONNAME. --John B123 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I agree with others above that it should not have been moved in the first place. Just because she has the right to use a particular title does not mean it is what she is most commonly known by in reliable sources. She could also legally choose to style herself "Meghan, Countess of Dumbarton" or "Meghan, Baroness Kilkeel", but I don't see anyone offering up those names for consideration. CThomas3 (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment are we suggesting a change to other royal women who were successful and notable in their own right, under a different name, prior to their marriage? What about Princess Salwa Aga Khan, Queen Letizia of Spain, Charlene, Princess of Monaco, and Marina, Princess of Naples (as a model, journalist, swimmer, and skier)? I understand the concept, but are we going to make the move just because she was known, and continues to be referred to in the media, as the name she used as an actress prior to marrying into the British royal family? Then why did we change the names of these other women? Or even Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, who is more often-than-not, at least in American media, referred to as "Kate Middleton" still? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't know why you bring up these people but fail to mention Grace Kelly and Wallis Simpson. There is WP precedent for both options. Is Charlene still widely known under her original name, and referred to as such in the media? (I had to look it up because I couldn't even remember the name.) --Tataral (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I brought up these instead of Simpson and Kelly firstly because these two have already been mentioned in the above conversation and secondly, because they are both deceased. The woman we are talking about, and the women I mentioned, are very much alive at the moment. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Per WP:CONSORTS, the Wikipedia precedent is the opposite of what you argue for: Wikipedia's guideline says living people consistency is the naming convention for these articles, so supports 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex' like the other living women, but for historical persons like Grace and Wallis it says there is no consistency. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
        • The "Consorts of sovereigns" section has absolutely no relevance for Meghan, who isn't married to any sovereign. It doesn't apply to the tens of thousands of women who happen to be married to some lesser royals or nobles, or someone who is 6th or 50th in line to a throne. A sovereign is a sovereign. Only the queen is a sovereign in the UK. --Tataral (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: As it now stands it's 17–9 in favour of Meghan Markle. We should also take into consideration that the move to the current title was contentious in the first place, and that the article was titled Meghan Markle for about 85% of its history, so it's the more established article title in the first place. --Tataral (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Votes don’t mean anything on their own. I have seen various discussions that garnered many support votes but did not get moved due to lack of strong arguments. Thus far you have shown that Meghan Markle is in fact a common name of hers but have not been able to show that the Duchess of Sussex is not. The article’s history plays no role in this discussion as names change and the current title is consistent with the titles of similar articles. Keivan.fTalk 17:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that one user is 'tentatively' supporting this move as he was not sure about his decision. Keivan.fTalk 18:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I have seen many strong arguments for Meghan Markle, the long-established title, but not any convincing arguments for Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, the new, contentious title (the odd comparisons to current or future queens are particularly weak arguments). The consensus is clearly for Meghan Markle. It's not really my responsibility to dig up statistics relating to "Duchess of Sussex", but since you asked: A Google Books search returns 842 results for "Meghan Markle" and only 188 for "Duchess of Sussex" (and a good portion of those are not even referring to her but just mentioning the title in a historical context referring to other people), and just 21(!) for the current title of this article, "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", clearly demonstrating what her common name is. In other words, Meghan Markle is more than 40 times more common in Google Books than the current (new, contentious) title of this article. --Tataral (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Well, on this specific issue I don’t agree with you. All I have seen from half of the people who are trying to support this move is a simple comment: "per WP:COMMONNAME". This doesn’t make Meghan Markle her common and it’s definitely not the name that she uses at this moment. And since you brought up statistics, I should probably remind you that she was known as Meghan Markle for almost ten years and has been the Duchess of Sussex since less than two years ago. Obviously you get more results for Meghan Markle at this point. But what should be taken into consideration is this: Has the sources started to refer to her as the Duchess of Sussex following her marriage? Yes, and they will probably continue to do so unless she gets divorced. And after a few years those numbers that you mentioned we’ll become closer. That’s what happened with the Duchess of Cambridge and the Countess of Wessex too. Keivan.fTalk 15:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
      • (e/c)This plainly irrelevant count is only gaming where one tries to force a woman to go by the name you insist she must bear. Wikipedia policy cares that Markle is not her present name, whether a crowd wants to force this woman to bear her father's surname or not. Policy recognizes that people change names, and discredits and discounts sources before the change. Meghan Duchess of Sussex is undoubtedly common since she chose to become Duchess of Sussex.[6] As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's purpose is to not perpetuate misinformation and inaccuracies, especially about living people. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: She's not divorced. She's still part of the family, just not using the HRH, still gets to keep the title. So, leave it alone. It's only that the haters are just quick in wanting to change this. Mirrorthesoul (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Ironically, though, the current title of the article implies that she is divorced. The formula Name, Duchess of Place indicates a former wife of a duke. Surtsicna (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
As per whom or what? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Per custom. See Debrett's. Hence "Sarah, Duchess of York" and "HRH The Duchess of Cambridge" in the Lord Chamberlain's Diamond Jubilee Guidelines. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I think here we do not necessarily care about official or formal ways of address, otherwise all the articles about similar women or men should have been titled "HRH The Duke/Prince of X". As to why this title is better, the answer is simple. It's a combination of her first name, which is commonly used and makes her recognizable, and her official title. This format was adapted for almost all the articles about royal figures, at least the recent ones. Keivan.fTalk 20:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I am merely noting the irony in supporting the divorcee format on the grounds that the subject is not divorced. The fact that we do not care about official or formal ways of address speaks in favour of both Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Meghan Markle as article titles. Neither is formal and neither reflects her marital status. It is time for fresh arguments. Surtsicna (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Again this discussion has ended up being What do the tabloids call her? (Markle) vs What does the Court Circular call her? (Duchess of Sussex)—but almost no consideration has been given to What does she call herself?. I had thought that, for living people, Wikipedia gave some authority to statements from the subject themselves when deciding what their name should be. See for example Talk:CCH Pounder#Requested move 20 February 2018, when the article was moved following a Twitter post from the actor, despite Wikipedia's standard house style being to put full stops and spaces between initials; and Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request, when the closer rejected arguments of "this is the WP:COMMONNAME" in favour of "this is another name by which the subject is also commonly known" and "Wikipedia should respect what an article subject says their own name is". To quote User:Alanscottwalker in what seems to me the most sensible post of the discussion so far: There is no evidence that she currently goes by her acting name, let alone her birth-family name; the evidence is to the contrary: she does not. No-one today would deny that a married woman has the right to choose whether to take her husband's name or to continue to use her maiden name. Why are people arguing that Wikipedia should ignore this woman's choice? Opera hat (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    I think User:Alanscottwalker's most sensible contribution to this discussion was here. It respectfully acknowledges Harry and Meghan's own choice. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    MOS:IDENTITY says we should go with the most common name in recent usage, even if it conflicts with the subject's own choice, unless there's no clear common name. The Pounder case was about styling rather than the actual name, and Manning's case had the additional issue of gender identity at its root, so neither is comparable. In any case, I haven't seen any evidence of what Meghan uses in private, so we have no idea, and can't base decisions on speculation.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, :MOS:IDENTITY doesn't exactly say what your first sentence says. MOS says when there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources and if it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. Doubtless it "is unclear which is most used", but, is there enough evidence that she wants to be commonly called Meghan Markle? Moriori (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • MOS Identity certainly supports Duchess of Sussex. We know in recent and present time, she does not use Markle for her present name since she chose to become Duchess of Sussex, but she has consistently over that time used Duchess of Sussex in everything, never Markle. (I don't know why you would speculate about what goes on in private, because if you did know it would not be private - but there is no reason and no licence to imagine.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Instead of simply voting, go over the discussion above. Yes, that is her common name, but is not the only common name by which she is known, especially at this point. Casting a vote doesn't help with taking the discussion forward; this is a controversial move request that needs strong arguments, and simply writing per WP:COMMONNAME is not one of them. We have numerous other policies and guidelines when it comes to naming an article, a dozens of which are mentioned above. Keivan.fTalk 19:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • We do, but sometimes these guidelines recommend incompatible results, and editors need to pick the best option. COMMONNAME is the most important guideline for most article title questions IMO, especially when it's such a strong case that Markle is still the COMMONNAME in media / reliable sources, so even if other guidelines say otherwise, COMMONNAME can well "win" anyway. (The one guideline that might be able to hold its own vs. COMMONNAME for me is MOS:IDENTITY / ABOUTSELF, but so far, I believe there's only been speculation that maybe the subject herself goes by "Duchess of Sussex." Considering that she's stepping back from royal duties, seems unlikely, but would need some "proof" regardless.) SnowFire (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • It's been "officially" announced that she'll keep her title even after she and her husband step back, and to me that sounds like a "proof" that they don't want to let go of their titles, otherwise they would have made it known. That itself creates a very strong argument against COMMONNAME and in favor of MOS:IDENTITY / ABOUTSELF, because it's clear that both of them still self-identify as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Speaking of the media, yes, she is occasionally referred to as Meghan Markle, but she is also referred to as Duchess Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex; and since she's been a royal for less than a year obviously you would get more results for Meghan Markle at this point because old news and articles that date before 2018 also pop up. Reliable sources such as famous national newspapers in Britain call her by her title or simply by her first name and official governmental agencies and institutions refer to her as HRH The Duchess of Sussex, and will continue to do so as she's not been stripped of her title. As another user mentioned above, the current title is fine; it's a common name of hers and makes her easily identifiable. I don't know why this discussion started in the first place. Keivan.fTalk 03:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The very point of this discussion is that Ms. Markle already had notability prior to becoming a royal so her previous common name counts. What is yet to be decided is her current and future name. The British press seems to be all over the place with what to call her since they ocassionally use a different name for her at different times. What is certain is that outside the United Kingdom, the worldwide view that is, is that she is simply known as Meghan Markle. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope. First of all we cannot be sure about how she or even other members of the royal family are called in other countries. What concerns us are the English sources, not Russian or Arabic ones, and the majority of these English sources are published in the UK, Canada, Australia and the US, the first three of which are countries where she's considered a member of the royal family. As I mentioned above in official documents she is referred to as the Duchess of Sussex and in her own published works after her marriage she has used her royal title so far. And she's right to do so. She's married to a member of the House of Windsor and on the other hand is totally estranged from her father and paternal family with whom she doesn't want to be associated anymore. What you are suggesting is simply against MOS:IDENTITY. Keivan.fTalk 21:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whether Markle keeps her title or not is irrelevant to ABOUTSELF, IMO. There are thousands of people with Wikipedia articles who "officially" have some title and haven't renounced it, but simply never use the title in their life/business/press, which is an ABOUTSELF argument to ignore the title as the subject themself does. What would fit the bill for ABOUTSELF - suppose the subject were to write a book, or release a song, or the like. What's the name on the front cover? If it says "by the Duchess of Sussex", that's a strong argument for the current title. If it is identified as by Meghan Markle, then that's a strong argument to restore the original title.
Also, the Google News results above are recent, and still filled with tons of Meghan Markle, so this isn't an issue of old sources. SnowFire (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
She has published multiple times since becoming duchess, as Duchess of Sussex, and not just on her social media, in a book[7] and in a magazine [8], never Markle, which she did do before she became duchess. And Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is commonname eg.[9] [10] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker made a good point that answers the question that you raised. You were wondering if she actually has publications under her new title. Well, it turns out she does and a bunch of them are already listed at the very end of her Wikipedia article which you are very welcome to look at. In regards to the Google results, I can also observe a clear increase in the usage of her new title after her wedding. Websites such as the Guardian and the Telegraph, and news agencies such as BBC list the articles about her under the tag "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". That alone shows that this is a common name of hers. Keivan.fTalk 21:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Have you got a source for those assertions? As estalished in previous discussions on this the US does recognise royal & noble titles from other countries (most obviously with ambassadors) and there is no ban on US citizens holding them (the restriction everyone goes on about is a requirement for serving federal officials to secure Congressional approval before accepting; which is so narrowly drawn as to be a safeguard against bribery). And the US has a common law tradition on names with people entitled to use what name they like so long as it is not for fraudulent purposes and to change their name on marriage without needing to go through some little jobsworth. In these discussions I've yet to see anyone who makes assertions her "legal name" is still Meghan Markle put forward anything that shows she would need to go through a formal process. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Also her legal name remains "Meghan Markle" since the country of her birth and her citizenship does not recognize royal titles. Given the US does recognise changes of name on marriage, surely her "legal" name even if this were true (which it obviously isn't) would be Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Not so surely. The US and the UK allow people to change their last name upon marriage but do not require them to do so. There is no indication she has adopted her second husband's last name; and as far as I can tell, she did not adopt her first husband's last name either. But I do not think that should not matter here anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The unsourced claim about legal American name is preposterous, American law does not force her to go by Markle. In America, a person can legally be named Queen, or King, or Duchess, etc.
We do know what her legal name and surname are: "Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex", whose maiden surname was Markle.[11]. A common contraction would be "[Rachel] Meghan |,|[Her Royal Highness The] Duchess of Sussex", which also happens to comply with WP:COMMONAME and WP:BLP in accuracy, as well as use by others (including in America[12]), and complies with name changes policy and guideline. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
That is not an official American document. What a foreign country calls her is not really the point if we are going down this particular legalistic road. Not that I would advocate that, because "official" names are not what we go by as far as Wikipedia article titles are concerned. Also, I seriously doubt her "official" name even within the UK (a country she is not a citizen of) is "Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex" because that syntax with the style (manner of address) in between the given names and title is pretty non-standard and contradicts other British "official" sources; also which part is the last name here?
Also, an American citizen can have e.g. Duke as a given name, but we're not talking about her given names being "Her", or "Royal", or "Highness", are we? --Tataral (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It does not matter that that's not an American document, there is no reason in the world it would be. The only arguments being legalistic are the bizarre unsubstantiated claims about American law (as if Americans don't have free speech about their names; in America, Queen, or King or Duchess can be any part of a name, it's not limited to given name by law, and can be included anywhere in a name one chooses). It is a legal document and it says what her name and surname are. Whether that is her official name also does not matter, in the least. That you want to quibble with the legal document over what it says is neither here nor there, it says what it says, whether you like it or not. There is also no reason to try to imagine what is the name and what is the surname -- in either or both, name and/or surname, it is plainly written there in the legal document. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
1) Not really a particularly relevant legal document. 2) It doesn't matter anyway, Wikipedia articles titles are not based on legal documents, particularly not foreign legal documents of dubious precision. 3) Are you saying "Her" and "Highness" are her last names/family names, rather than her given names, then, since you insist (oddly) on comparing them to Americans with given names (not titles) such as Duke or family names (not titles) such as King? (seriously, nobody thought Martin Luther King used king as a title, he just had the family name King – not the same). --Tataral (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Talk about irrelevant, nowhere in Wikipedia policy or guideline is there a "foreign" documents rule. The widely published document says what her legal name and surname are, not me, and Wikipedia holds the BBC as a reliable source all around the world. Wikipedia also recognizes that people are free to change names in article titling policy. The argument that because she is an American citizen she can't change her name is entirely unsourced, it must be taken you have no reliable sources on such American law. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

So are we going to start changing articles to Kate Middleton, Sarah Ferguson, Sophie Rhys-Jones. Why stop there? How about - Prince Andrew, Prince Harry, Prince William. Heck, let's start dropping all royal titles. It's a republicans' dream. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Republican dreams are fine (although, of course, no Wikipedian should be imposing them). What's not fine for an encyclopedia is inaccuracy, especially in this encyclopedia, for living people. But disregarding or disrespecting (B)LP choices is not required by our policies, rather they call for such regard and respect, which also leads to the present accurate title (Meghan, Duchess of Sussex), which also complies with the consistency aim highlighted. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Her title is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and that is how she is still referred to in royal correspondence. It only makes sense to keep her name as it is - If someone is made a life peer, for instance, they would have their name changed to 'John Appleseed, Baron Appleseed'; the same applies here. 86.130.230.220 (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid your reasoning isn't really relevant to how we determine article titles, because we don't automatically and necessarily use "official" names and/or titles, and "royal correspondence" is not accorded any preferential treatment or special authority on this project. In this case, that kind of legalese isn't even relevant to her own country (the U.S., the only country she is a citizen of), where no such titles exist. --Tataral (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I don’t understand why everyone is so concerned with her legal status in the US. Yes, she is a US citizen but she’s married to a UK citizen and started the process for acquiring UK citizenship after her wedding. Not to mention that she lives in Canada right now, a commonwealth country in which Elizabeth is the queen. Also, remember that for determining the main titles for articles about Queen Maxima and Crown Princess Mary (and dozens of other royals), we didn’t look at their legal status in their country of birth, but rather in the country they had been married in. Keivan.fTalk 15:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Her legal name is no longer Merkel, as seen on her son's birth certificate,[1]. She obviously prefers Duchess of Sussex, no where on her personal website is her maiden name found.[2] Duchess of Sussex and her maiden name are used interchangeably enough that both satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, thus it should remain the her legal name and the one which she prefers. WildComet (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • She ceased to be an actress when she entered the royal family, and even when she was an actress she was not as famous or known as other actors-turned-royals like Grace Kelly. Right now she doesn’t have a profession in which she could possibly use her maiden name. And I even doubt she would, since she’s totally estranged from her paternal family. As for the future, she and her husband are expected to use their titles even when they are doing business, but they’ll refrain from using the HRH prefix. The current title is the closest that we can get to the professional name she has chosen, which is also close to her legal name and status. Keivan.fTalk 02:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I accept that her common name will be different in different circles. People in the US are more likely to favour "Markle" than people in the UK (who generally hadn't heard of her before she married into the Royal family). My clear view is that her common name (for now) is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Example jamacfarlane (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2020 (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.

References

  1. ^ Schoffmann, Katharina (2019-05-17). "Five things we spotted on Archie's birth certificate". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
  2. ^ "The Official Website of The Duke & Duchess of Sussex". The Official Website of The Duke & Duchess of Sussex. Retrieved 2020-03-22.

Patronages

Is she still patron of London's National Theatre, the Association of Commonwealth Universities, Smart Works, and Mayhew or does this need to be in past tense now? I am talking about Meghan Markle#Charity work section. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is what I could quickly find:[13] [14][15] [16] Looks like they are unchanged for now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Archeway" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Archeway. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 21#Archeway until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Title of the article

As there has been previous discussion of this article's title and a previous move, which was very controversial and resulted in a number of follow-on discussions, please follow the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. DrKay (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2020 (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.

This article should be moved back to Meghan Markle. It's by far her WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody calls her "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex." Wallis Simpson who was married to a far more senior and prominent royal (a king rather than someone who is just 6th in line) is still titled Wallis Simpson, even though Wallis Simpson didn't have an independent, successful career as an actress under her own name. --Tataral (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Edward was no longer king when they married? She is also known by many as the Duchess of Windsor? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I was opposed to renaming in the first place. As somebody with a notable career in her own right, it seemed a little bit of a throwback to the patriarchal society for us to be using a name which is ultimately derived from a title that her husband holds. Sort of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), but with the greater prestige being called "duchess". Given that much of the media have continued calling her Meghan Markle, and she and Harry are now distancing themselves from the royal family, I think there could be a case for a move back. Obviously it would require a fresh RM discussion though.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree the British Royal family is "a little bit of a throwback to the patriarchal society" lol. But now the couple can't use the word "Royal", the case is stronger for a re-review. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support changing to either Meghan (born Rachel Meghan Markle) or Meghan Markle or Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor like I did the last time we did this. According to this [17], her preferred name appears to be just Meghan, a la Cher. Also, under her new arrangement, she's pledged never to use her territorial title in public engagements or on social media properties so while this is still somewhat WP:CRYSTALBALL, we are on the edge of a likely future in which "Duchess of Sussex" is never used to refer to her. Chetsford (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • She never said that "she's pledged never to use her territorial title in public engagements or on social media properties". The couple simply will not use their HRH style in their professional life. They'll continue to remain the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and will be referred to as such. They will not use the Sussex Royal brand name though, as they will not be taking engagements full time after March 2020 as members of the "royal" family. Keivan.fTalk 05:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't consider tabloid reports reliable sources, neither does anyone else. According to whom she has made this request? If such request was ever made, it would have been 'officially' announced and reported by credible sources. At this point, it has been announced and reported that they will not use the HRH style while doing business and will simply be known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. 1. Keivan.fTalk 03:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I think she's commonly referred to as Meghan Markle. And the couple don't even reside in the UK anymore, and didn't stay for long, no longer plan to carry out royal duties and have said they will stop using HRH. My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be retained.
However, my interpretation of Wikipedia policy is that it should remain. WP:NAMECHANGES relies on what RS calls her. The tabloids call her Meghan Markle, but the more reliable sources like The Guardian and the news part of CNN tend to opt for "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". Until they change what they call her, I guess WP shouldn't either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I support this change. The title has been removed Bpb101 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Bpb101, it wasn't removed, they simply promised not to use the brand / "HRH". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2020 (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.

Lede

Is she really a former actress now that she is narrating a Disneynature movie? (credited as Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex). cookie monster (2020) 755 22:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

She's narrating a document. That would make her a narrator not an actress. We have to wait and see what she will do in the future. Keivan.fTalk 00:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thank you Keivan.f cookie monster (2020) 755 00:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Narration is a type of voice acting, which in turn is a form of acting. Someone who still does voice acting is not a former actor or actress. It seems clear that we should describe Markle as an actress, without using the word former, since it's at best dubious and since it doesn't really add much information anyway. --Tataral (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
David Attenborough is a narrator. No-one would describe him as an actor. DrKay (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If that's ALL Meghan did was Narrate, like David Attenborough, but she has "acted" if you can call it that. Morgan Freeman does a large volume of narration and there is nobody who would dare NOT refer to him as an actor. Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.134.87.226 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

That merely makes Freeman a narrator and actor. Just like Meghan is a narrator and former actress. DrKay (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Tataral - she is an actress and won't stop being an actress until she formally gives up acting. Narration when done by an actor/actress is different from narration of a documentary by a subject expert. Deb (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I too agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Doing voice overs is acting. See - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_acting

She's therefore an actress HardeeHar (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Altered before public marriage announcement?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/07/28/meghans-wikipedia-entry-altered-days-relationship-prince-harry/

Reportedly, weeks before her date with Harry became public in October, 2017, someone edit this article and made her an humanitarian activist. Anything back than that we should take heed as Finding Freedom releases? --2603:9000:A511:9E76:C9E0:302E:81D7:EB12 (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this cover her recent move to Montecito?

Dirt.com (part of Penske Media Corporation) has the story here but I have no idea how to fit that information into this article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Please correct the statement that Meghan is a Princess. She has not been given this title by HRH the Queen. Meghan is a Duchess but not a Princess. The reference provided does not confirm what is written. Please check your sources. 148.64.2.78 (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

She is a distant cousin of Mookie Betts

Mookie Betts is an MVP. This relationship is important and should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbisbee4 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The relationship is too distant. I think it is too trivial to mention here. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Improper use of Meghan Markle's title

In the very opening sentence of this page, the subject is described as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex." That formulation is used SOLELY for the divorced ex-wives of Dukes. She should be referred to simply as The Duchess of Sussex, without reference to her first or last names. Luini599 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

hi! this is a conversation that’s taken place a dozen times; wikipedia doesn’t operate on court protocol, and therefore she’s referred to by her first name, then her title. Bettydaisies (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

privacy and media: "herseay?"

@User:Sampajanna Hi! I wanted to constructively discuss the revert on my edit? It's a factual report from her legal team that's relevant to the section. It was submitted in direct reply to the Mail requesting to use the book for its case. I'm not sure how it constitutes as rumors or speculation. Thanks!

To unsigned commenter (above) : You can research this stuff yourself by firstly clicking on 'herseay' (your spelling). Otherwise, as indicated previously, the Court will determine the next step in January 2021. That is, whether the case will be heard summarily (by a judge only) or by a jury sometime from August 2021 onwards. In the meantime, please try to be patient as any argument or "factual report" released to the media by either legal team is subject to change. Wikipedia is not a daily or hourly news outlet. Also, remember that her legal team gained nine months more to prepare their legal case. [1] It's still early days, and a confidential out-of-court settlement could be reached anytime anyway. Sampajanna (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://au.news.yahoo.com/meghan-markle-court-battle-mail-on-sunday-mailonline-115540683.html

Controversy

Why is there no mention of any of the controversy surrounding Ms. Markle?

Because the woke brigade control this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.252.68 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

1814LittleTrip (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

What controversy are you exactly referring to? This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid, so rumors of possible rifts and gossips like that are irrelevant unless proven. Keivan.fTalk 03:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention of how disliked MM is by the British people and the likening of her and Harry's marriage to that of the late Duke and Duchess of Windsor. This may be a factual encyclopaedia but I believe the general public liken Meghan Markle to Wallis Windsor LJ Ray Sutton Bridge (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

​ Have you been able to find any reliable secondary sources that support this statement other than tabloids? In that case, we can add it to the article. Keivan.fTalk 03:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
LJ Ray Sutton Bridge : To be fair, the British tend to have a general disdain toward Americanism (ideology). Put it down to culture clash. As for Wallis Simpson, that was 1936. Times have changed, and a few royals have divorced and remarried since. For example, Prince Charles, heir apparent to the throne. Sampajanna (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
She's joint eighth with Zara Phillips.[19] Slightly less than her husband, who's seventh and slightly more than the Countess of Wessex, who's tenth, and the Duchess of Cornwall, who's eleventh. No evidence there of special unpopularity or general disdain for Americans. What's changed is that her popularity was very high, but it's dropped by 18 points since March[20]. DrKay (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@User:DrKay : Thanks for the above information. From a sociocultural perspective, the following makes interesting reading: A Point of View: The British and their bizarre view of Americans.[1] Sampajanna (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Thats a very interesting read and analysis! In my experience, it's somewhat true; but in relation to the original question, I think perhaps the biggest controversy in relation to the article was Megxit, which already has a page of its own and is linked to this one. Perhaps if needed, a section detailing the consistency in public perception/popularity in association with their royal roles/Megxit could be added there? --Bettydaisies (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

rfc: "Finding Freedom" as a reliable source

While the publication of Finding Freedom remains relatively controversial, given its extensiveness into the lives of Meghan and Harry, would it be considered a recognized source on the couple? While I think many of the details included aren't inherently encyclopedic, I do want to inquire to see if it's recognized as a valid source, given it's status as a biography with substantive perennial source coverage and indirect cooperation from the couple themselves.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as the veracity of the biography is being disputed in court, it may be prudent to hold back until the matter is settled. Sampajanna (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Updates to the article

  1. "Harry and Meghan call for end to structural racism in the UK...Duke and Duchess of Sussex launch campaign to celebrate Black British ‘trailblazers’" [21] Is this something that should be mentioned in this article?
  2. "Duchess Meghan and Prince Harry Are the Most Tweeted-About Royals in 2020" [22] Some may say this is trivial. I believe seems to speak to their prominence and celebrity status.

I'm curious to hear what other editors think. TJMSmith (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

For the first one - I remember when this was reported, and it's important to note that I don't think (?) it's an ongoing or upcoming campaign, but rather a one-time listing in the Evening Standard of Black British activists, entrepreneurs, etc. as part of Black History Month in the UK. Perhaps it could be added under Charity work and advocacy, but again, the significance must be considered, as every little thing can't be added. The various acts of charity are often listed in the pages of the royal family/public servants, but for separate celebrities - which the Duke and Duchess would now be considered -the deeds of charity are often summarized/generalized rather than listing every single case, see Taylor Swift, for instance. For the second one, I do think it's trivial, unfortunately, it's not an official record, and isn't incredibly encyclopedic.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

CNN Heroes

The Duchess spoke in CNN Heroes and her participation was widely reported in reliable sources. I think it fits best in the celebrity philanthropy section. I added a sentence about it but it was moved and then deleted. Here are sources: [23][24][25]. I believe this article would be improved by including this. TJMSmith (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! While her appearance was widely reported, you also have to think in encyclopedic purposes. Other celebrity presenters, including Gal Gadot, Angela Bassett, Orlando Bloom, etc. participated as well, and there isn't any mention on those pages. I think this belongs in her filmography section, if anything, because it wasn't inherently part of charity work or her post-royal career moves. To my knowledge, CNN Heroes is a television special recognizing contributions of "everyday heroes", not a fundraiser or volunteer effort. --Bettydaisies (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Meghan Markle (and her British hubby) seem to make most of their appearances, surprise or otherwise, via online Zoom sessions from their own living room. Production costs would be negligible. It is common knowledge that they are trying to build a marketable or recognisable brand name for themselves. Some would argue that Meghan's British royal title, albeit it meaningless, is merely a platform to elevate personal celebrity outside the United Kingdom. Paradoxically, since stepping down as working members of the royal family, hubby wanted to get away from cameras while Meghan appears to relish being in front of them. Without doubt, it is a unique form of privacy that they crave. If their ulterior motive is "for the greater good", a standard response could well be "of who?". In short, there could be more celebrity than philanthropy going on, so instead of rushing to post the latest updates from widely reported (aka syndicated) sources, we could exercise restraint and caution by viewing content in a historical rather than topical context. Sampajanna (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Investor- Clevr Blends

Markle invested in a woman owned startup company, Clevr Blends. This was reported in reliable sources and should be incorporated in the article. Sources include: [26][27][28][29] TJMSmith (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I previously added it, but most pages put investments under separate "Other ventures" sections. We'll have to see the consensus of the editors, as it was reverted, to avoid an edit war.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This is what was deleted, "In December 2020, Meghan invested an undisclosed amount into Clevr Blends, a Santa Barbara-based startup that makes instant oat-milk lattes." The citation reads that it "makes her debut as a startup investor". This sounds like a commercial endorsement by an inexperienced investor. Stock markets being what they are, Meghan could sell her stake in the startup any day to the next higher bidder. Sampajanna (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Sampajanna: Why was this particular piece deleted? "In June 2020, they signed with the Harry Walker Agency, owned by media company Endeavor, to conduct speaking engagements on issues related to 'racial justice, gender equity, the environment and mental health'." Now if you believe there's a problem with the language and it reads like an endorsement, then perhaps you could cut off the last part. Any comments? Keivan.fTalk 05:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: Come on. @ 07:12 16 December 2020 You re-added the above stating "no one opposed it on the talk page; the last part was cut out anyway". That's not how consensus works. You only posted on talk within the preceding hour and a half. In the meantime, there's been frenetic editing. Incidentally, what has Harry Walker Agency got to do with Investor-Clevr Blends? Sampajanna (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Sampajanna: The topic is not necessarily related to Clevr Blends, yet it’s related to your actions regarding the constant deletion of material that you don’t agree with, which was briefly discussed above. And since you’re the one who reverted my edit, you’re the one who should provide a valid reason as well, because I don’t see any challenges being made by other users. Nevertheless, I’ll wait for a maximum of 1 day. That gives everyone enough time to visit the talk page. After that, that piece of information will be restored I guess. Keivan.fTalk 08:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: It is very difficult to decipher what another editor is talking about when the content is placed in an unrelated topic on a talk page. The discussion above (the one you are currently reading) [scroll up] starts off Markle invested in a woman owned startup company, Clevr Blends. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you seem to be trying to place great urgency and importance on. Please note carefully that Harry Walker Agency[2] is a speakers bureau, not a woman-owned startup concerned with instant oat milk lattes. To minimise future confusion, you may care to consider trying not to merge relevant and irrelevant topics. Sampajanna (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20857972
  2. ^ www.harrywalker.com

Speaking engagements

"In June 2020, they signed with the Harry Walker Agency, owned by media company Endeavor, to conduct speaking engagements on issues related to 'racial justice, gender equity, the environment and mental health'."

This part has been removed from the post-royal works section by a user, who hasn’t really made an argument as to why it shouldn’t be included. Nevertheless, I’m putting it up for discussion. Users and other visitors are welcome to leave their opinions here. If no challenges are made, then the sentence will be re-included in the body of the article. Keivan.fTalk 08:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: Once again, it is very difficult to decipher what another editor is talking about when the content is placed in an unrelated topic on a talk page. To minimise future confusion, you may care to consider trying not to merge relevant and irrelevant information on talk or articles. Otherwise, good to see that you have now created an appropriate separate section (Speaking engagements) Sampajanna (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex/Archive_9&oldid=1073884734"