Jump to content

Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Requested move 19 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: that an out-of-process move was performed by the founder. The page was moved by an editor using special rights during a move discussion and while the page was under move-protection. However, most of the arguments and comments below fail to help in determining the best article title. Some are plain votes without any argument presented. Some are based on process and do not address the issue of the article title itself. Some claim that the current article title is the "correct", "legal" or "official" name, despite clear refutation of such an opinion. Both sides use the same argument of consistency (one side comparing to Grace Kelly and Wallis Simpson and the other side comparing to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and others) and so that argument is weak. The best argument is one of common name, and evidence has been provided that the common name at the time of moving was (and for the moment seems to remain) "Meghan Markle". However, even though the logic of the arguments below favors the common name, Meghan Markle, we are faced with the fact that the page was moved by a user with special powers. Any attempt to undo the move by anyone other than the founder is likely to result in more disturbance and potential accusations of wheel-warring. I therefore feel that I am unable to reverse a decision of the founder even though (1) the arguments for the move to Meghan Markle are in my opinion the more powerful, and (2) that the original move to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex was performed outwith the normal processes of Wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle – I do not have a firm view on this issue, but I think it is going to take a formal move request to settle this. I realise that it would be in keeping with most royal brides to move her immediately to her new title. However, unlike most royal brides she already had a significant profile, I have been slightly surprised at the way sections of the media are still referring to "Kate Middleton" so it's likely that the same thing will happen to Meghan, and we do have a precedent for leaving an actress who married into royalty at her maiden name, i.e. Grace Kelly. PatGallacher (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, of course. According to the talk page consensus reached in the month preceding the marriage, this article should not have been moved without a discussion. It is very disappointing to see that strong consensus ignored without any explanation, without even an edit summary. A discussion should be held for a move from Meghan Markle (the title for the past 11 years) to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, not the other way around. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
While it's true that there wasn't a consensus for the name change, she is now Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, therefore shouldn't the page be changed? EncodedRainbow (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
So? Since when is consensus trashed and thrown into the bin under the excuse of "she is now..."? I don't recognize this brazen nonsense. What is even the point of debating moves if the result is ignored completely and instantaneously? --Loginnigol 18:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The subject was notable by Wiki standards for a decade before becoming associated with the royal family. She built a career under the name Meghan Markle. There is absolutely no indication that she will become better known as the Duchess of Sussex than as Meghan Markle, as required by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Self-published name changes for a move to be warranted. In fact, past precedent indicates that she will remain best known as Meghan Markle. The move was premature not only because the subject had not become commonly known as the Duchess of Sussex, but also because it was performed before she even became Duchess of Sussex. Surtsicna (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The career she built as Meghan Markle has ended and future reference should reflect changed realities.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
News in U.S. said the Queen dubbed her "Duchess of Sussex" before the wedding occurred, as part of formalities. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
That's a misinterpretation.Her husband-to-be was named Duke,and it was explained that therefore marriage to him would make her Duchess.12.144.5.2 (talk)
By the same logic, though, we wouldn't have renamed the article for the Duke of Cambridge and kept it at Prince William of Wales, given that he was notable by Wiki standards for almost three decades before gaining that title. In reality, the reason why we change it is because we have enough reason to expect the new name to become the most well-known. In the Duchess of Sussex's case, I find the issue is that her maiden name might remain most popular in the U.S., but I expect (and I don't think it is unreasonable to do so) her new title will be how she is referred to in the U.K. and likely the rest of Europe from now on. Given that her new residence is indeed in England, and her future work will be based there, it seems appropriate for this article to be named as it is now. --EU (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
This is no different to, say, the renaming of Jorge Bergoglio to Pope Francis. Yes, Bergoglio (like Markle) had some notability before his new role. At the time, Bergoglio was of course the common name over the (never before heard) Pope Francis. But keeping the article title at Bergoglio? No, editors used their common sense and moved the article. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Sources used Pope Francis instantly; not the case here, even years from now sources (like with kate middleton) are likely going to heavily use Meghan Markle Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Not true at all. The vast majority of reliable sources call the Duchess of Cambridge by her correct name. As an example, see the BBC page for the birth of Prince Louis: not a single mention of 'Middleton'. (Edit: Perhaps, though, there might be a difference betwen British and American sources. It's definitely not something a decent British source would mess up. Maybe Americans are more ignorant of titles (understandably) and therefore more likely to be using an old, superseded name.) 87.210.99.206 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
That analogy has some problems. First of all, Jorge Bergoglio was known as Bishop Bergoglio, not Jorge, before he became the Pope and, once he became the Pope, he assumed his new title as Pope Francis. Bergoglio's move from Bishop to Pope is a linear move in a single institution, unlike Meghan Markle, who had an established media presence as an actress before wedding Prince Harry, just as Grace Kelly did before becoming the Princess of Monaco. Indeed, her status as an actress is what permitted her to come into contact with Prince Harry and marry him, so her past as an actress can't be ignored. In short, going from a recognized actress to a member of the British aristocracy is not the same linear progression as going from priest to Bishop and then from Bishop to Pope. Quite different. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Minor actress not known by many to having a senior position in the British Royal Family in a wedding watched by billions? It's very linear in terms of significance. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't accept that any spouse is ever just a side-note in their partner's life. And here we have a woman who's given up her home, her career, her proximity to long-time family and friends, and takes on together with her new husband an entirely new career - as official representatives of the head of an intergovernmental organization of 53 member nations to those same nations. (My head is spinning just thinking about the changes this woman has been going through, and still has yet to face.)Yseult-Ivain (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Procedural close pending the revert request at RMTR. James (talk/contribs) 12:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Strong support for both procedural and substantive reasons. Virtually all of the oppose votes claim the WP:OFFICIALNAME fallacy. The WP:COMMONNAME in the vast majority of independent, reliable sources was and remains Markle at this point. Any WP:NCROY argument must be rejected as well, as a local naming convention cannot override WP:UCRN policy. In addition, I strongly condemn Jimbo Wales' initial move of this page. Established consensus above was strongly in favor of keeping the page at Markle. Given that consensus, and the controversy of his move of Kate Middleton, Wales should clearly have known that a move request was his only acceptable option, per WP:RMCM. Furthermore, Wales flagrantly abused his administrative powers to unilaterally move a move-protected page, and admitted below that he did so for "fun". To the closer: please note that WP:RMCI#Determining consensus explicitly applies here, and the last stable title was "Meghan Markle". Therefore, a no consensus result requires a move back to the Markle title. James (talk/contribs) 15:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is exactly what I wanted to avoid when I started the discussion last month: the article would be moved to a new title without discussion or explanation, there would be a request to move it back (which is not how WP:BRD works), and then editors would flood in to point out that "Meghan, Duchess of X" is her current name, all the while ignoring the Wikipedia:Common names policy and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Self-published name changes. This policy and this guideline specifically deny that the article title should be based on the individual's current name. But of course, this, much like the previous consensus not to move the article without a discussion, means nothing when mere voting prevails. Surtsicna (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for consistency, and due to the fact that she'll be known by that title for the remainder of her life. I wouldn't compare Grace Kelly to Meghan, as Kelly's career as a Hollywood actress completely overshadowed her life as a princess, while in Meghan's case she received more attention following her engagement and subsequent marriage. Keivan.fTalk 12:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm an American born after Grace quit acting and married Prince Rainier, and I heard of her as "Princess Grace" before I ever heard she had been an actress as Grace Kelly.LE (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: rules are needed, but sometimes exceptions have to be made, and it would be absurd and curmudgeonly to go on using the name of an actress after she has become a royal duchess. We can review this again after the divorce. Moonraker (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: it’s her name now. WoodyWerm (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The WP:Common names policy and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Self-published name changes guideline deny that titles of biographies must be based on the subject's current name. In fact, they advise against using the current name when the previous name is the most recognizable one. Surtsicna (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Although I understand that reverting a discussion result is upsetting, please note that the policy about self-published name change cannot apply, since the new name has been given by an external source; and an official one. Moreover, reverting back to the old name would be another violation of consensus, since this discussion shows that the new name prevails among expressed opinions (and in any case there is no consensus). 79.40.177.136 (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's now her new name, and a name she'll be called and referred to from now on. Kidsoljah (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: She's the Duchess of Sussex now.[1] 82.18.67.217 (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)— 82.18.67.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support: Just like the title of the article on Mohammed Emwazi is Jihadi John, the name he is more commonly referred to, the title of the article on the Duchess of Sussex should be Meghan Markle, the name she is more commonly referred to. IvanCrives (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I made the move primarily because I made the similar move of Kate Middleton to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. It was fun to do so, and in similar circumstances in the future, I hope to do it again. If we can't have a bit of fun in Wikipedia without a lot of hand wringing, we're going in the wrong direction. Now, as to some of the particular arguments for moving it back, I will leave that to everyone else but note that there already appears to be strong consensus to oppose moving it back. I think there are good reasons for that consensus, and not very many good reasons to move it back. One thing I would point to is the question "what is the most notable thing about this person?" and look at the Google search and news trends for her: [2]. As compared to today, she was a virtual unknown before she got engaged to Prince Harry. As Keivan.f said up above, this is not really comparable to the case of Grace Kelly, a legendary actress who married into a minor royal family. WP:COMMONNAMEis an important policy, and yet it should not be assumed that we have to wait until the majority of sources shift, and nor do we usually wait for that. And it is not the most important policy in Wikipedia in any case - in general for articles relating to the peerage, we use the formal title even in (most) cases where the peer is more known otherwise. See, for example, List of elected hereditary peers under the House of Lords Act 1999. Indeed, check out most (but not all) life peers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I hope you do not mean to say that it was fun to override weeks of discussion on the article talk page without any explanation. This is both disappointing and embarrassing to me as a Wikipedia editor. Why bother discussing anything when an administrator can do what he or she pleases? And why have policies and guidelines when comments contradicting those policies and guidelines without any explanation ("it's her name now") are called "good reasons" and "strong consensus"? Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Lighten up, Francis.50.111.48.95 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
No way did Jimbo "override weeks of discussion on the article talk page". If there had been consensus back then for retaining the Meghan Markle name, or if the current discussion showed such a consensus, I would have had no problem asking for and getting a revert of Jimbo (for technical reasons there are special steps needed to make a move over a redirect), and if past behavior is any indicator Jimbo would have been fine with this. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
It is as clear as daylight to anyone who read that discussion that the consensus was to retain the article at Meghan Markle. Even those in favor of moving the article agreed that it should only be done following a proper move discussion. Pretending that there was no such consensus is downright dishonest. Surtsicna (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Noting first that a large portion of the above !votes are WP:OFFICIALNAME arguments unsupported by policy or guideline, and thus a strong closer would or may find a no consensus from this (and thus a move back). I barely find her being referred to duchess of sussex (except in articles specifically about what her new title is), sources still exclusively using Meghan Markle, and she has been referred to that for years, making it not certain or perhaps even likely that she will be called the the duchess of sussex (considering kate middleton). Per WP:NAMECHANGES we wait for the sources to change first. Meghan Markle is still per the WP:CRITERIA, vastly more recognizeable, most importantly, and also natural, and concise. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The procedure should have been followed; consensus, then discussion before the change. This is exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia currently - armies of authoritarian self-appointed guardians of this or that subject, article or genre, make changes without consultation, then build walls to defend their position, zealously patrolling the battlements, squashing any hint of dissent within micro-seconds of edits. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open and collaborative effort. While this particular issue may not have attracted quite that level of controversy or acrimony, it is in the same spirit. Bennycat (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support She is notable before marrying into the royal family.--118.107.129.1 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)— 118.107.129.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Question Why is she, or would she be Meghan . . ., instead of Rachel, Duchess of Sussex? Does anyone know? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Because that's her common name. The official website of the British monarchy referred to her as Meghan Markle before her marriage, and she took her marriage vows using that name. She has never been known as Rachel, not even during her career as an actress. Keivan.fTalk 15:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is now her official title, so we should go with that. Having said that, I checked out Grace Kelly and see she is still known by us as Grace Kelly rather than Pricess Grace of Monaco, which of course was her title for many years. This is Paul (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (I think - I believe the title should be Meghan, Duchess of Sussex). Responding to "Why not Rachel?" - because the wedding service called her Meghan every time it used a short form of her name. Yes, I expect that like a number of other royal wives, the popular media (more often television than print) will use the name she had immediately before her wedding. However, I think even then, it will usually acknowledge her title/current name as well. WP:COMMONNAME --Scott Davis Talk 15:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the current name is violation of Wikipedia policy. It violates WP:COMMONNAME. Her common name is still "Meghan Markle" and will remain so for a while. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is wrong under that standard. However, a compromise can be made using Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex. At any rate, this should follow WP:BRD since it is clearly a bold move so should be instantly reverted. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Incorrect statement, royalty does not have surnames and if she were to take one it would be "Wales" (the common name taken by William and Harry based on their father's title). Thus, "Markle" is not her name and would never be included in such a title, anyway. 109.148.98.191 (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Your statement is incorrect. She isn't a British Citizen, she's an American Citizen, and she hasn't filed for a legal namechange in the United States. Her name is still that which it was, and not the creation of May 2018. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Name change#United States implies that's not necessary:
          As of 2009, 46 states allow a person legally to change names by usage alone, with no paperwork, but a court order may be required for many institutions (such as banks or government institutions) to officially accept the change.[1] Although the states (except Louisiana) follow common law, there are differences in acceptable requirements; usually a court order is the most efficient way to change names (which would be applied for in a state court), except at marriage, which has become a universally accepted reason for a name change. (My emphasis)
          Have things changed in recent years, is she from an exceptional state or is the formal process like a deed poll in the UK that's just to help ease the process of change with other organisations/satisfy little jobsworths/take fees from the unaware? Timrollpickering 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: although this move did override a previous agreement, I think User:Jimbo Wales is right to argue that she is considerably more notable now as the wife of Prince Harry than she was as a television actress. Opera hat (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


  • Comment statements about "legal name" are wrong. She is not a British Citizen. She's still American, and her U.S. passport does not and will never say "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Her title is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex or at best the Duchess of Sussex. She will never be called Meghan Markle again. To change it back would be distortion of facts.BabbaQ (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If she has received or chosen a new name, that's good enough for me. We shouldn't be in the business of highjacking someone's personal identity. Isingness (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
And yet hijacking someone's identity seems to be exactly what's been done here. The article title was changed before the marriage itself, and I've not seen anything here on what she herself might choose: mostly commentators dictating what she must now be called. Is it too much to wait to see what she chooses to use? Bradypusedinae (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's her official title now. We've all seen how quickly articles are changed to reflect elections in the US. I don't see how this is any different. Sedriskell (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • No, it's not her official title now, Sedriskell. Her official title now is "The Duchess of Sussex". "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" will be her official title in case she divorces Harry.
  • Support - For the same reason as for Grace Kelly. It is kind of cool to see her with her new name, but the most recognizable name she ever went by should stay, with redirections for things like Duchess Megean or whatever else would be used to look her up at this point.jbl1975 (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - WP:COMMONNAME and the high-handed overriding of previous consensus mean I strongly support keeping the page at Meghan Markle until consensus confirms a change, possibly as common use is observed to shift. For arguments about this being a "real" name now: I don't believe the Queen has the authority to change the name of any US citizen, even if she might award titles; and once we're into archaic British tradition then isn't it “Duchess Henry of Sussex”, as with Princess Michael of Kent ? Bradypusedinae (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
A rude and unnecessarily racist comment. For your final point, no, it is not 'Duchess of Henry of Sussex': Princess Michael is a completely different case. Perhaps you would know this if you treated it with a little more respect. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
No intention to be racist: the British tradition I was brought up in had that the correct form of address is to refer to a married woman by her husband's given names; to do so was a mark of respect for her marriage, and to use instead a given first name or initials indicated that she is a widow. It's now largely gone; but I still use this to address my own older female relatives, as they were the ones who taught me. Other countries may have similar or different traditions, but this article is specifically about a British title. Princess Michael of Kent is the most notable example of this tradition that I could locate for reference on Wikipedia; another would be Lady Randolph Churchill. Wikipedia on UK titles reports the convention of using a peeress's given name only should they become divorced, as with Sarah, Duchess of York who did not use that style during her marriage. Bradypusedinae (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Princess Michael of Kent is similar to Mrs Michael Kent, because Mr and Prince are not titles of peerage. --Killuminator (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Just like with the AfD for the Duchess mother Doria Ragland those who are "for deletion" or in this case revert of the name seem to mix "I don't like it" into the mix. Anyway, I see that a consensus for returning to Meghan Markle is far away.BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Noting that the stable title is Meghan Markle so no consensus would result a move back Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Her correct style is HRH The Duchess of Sussex and so she should appear. In the words of The Transvision Vamp, she's the only one. There is nothing whatsoever to discuss. Live with it. Let us all wish them health and happiness and hope fervently that there should be no change in the style of either of them while they live.
  • Oppose - I agree that there should have been a discussion first (and if there is no consensus it should be moved back) but this is her name now and will be used almost exclusively going forward - i.e. it is the common name as of today, 20 May. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I am seriously thinking about changing my !vote. I always thought WP:COMMONNAME applied, but that people would stop calling her Meghan Markle. But it's clear they haven't.[3][4][5][6] StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, StAnselm, they have not stopped referring to her in-laws by their premarital names either. And there is plenty of precedent for that too. Every woman who married into the family from Mary of Teck to the Norman conquest and beyond is known by her birth name. And in addition to the publications you mentioned, The Guardian and The Telegraph also do not appear determined to stop calling her Meghan Markle, even when acknowledging her new title in the same sentence ("Meghan Markle makes online debut as Duchess of Sussex") or elsewhere in the article.[7][8][9][10] Surtsicna (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Striking my !vote - I am now neutral. StAnselm (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - just an observation here as I am unsure of any precedent, but since she was born as Rachel Meghan Markle (taking her middle name as her stage name) then surely, if arguing the point of her new name, the article name should actually be named Rachel, Duchess of Sussex - otherwise, still using Meghan in the title in any form would still be following WP:COMMONNAME to an extent, no? Buttons0603 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose moving back to "Meghan Markle" as well because, firstly if anyone is looking at the official website of the royal family https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex , which has been updated, it says: The Duchess of Sussex, born Meghan Markle in the first line. It doesn't say anything about her full name. Plus, we all know that Meghan is her preferred name. So the right title should be, just like Catherine's (Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge) and Camilla's (Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall). So, please keep it as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.Mirrorthesoul (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by this: for the women, many of your example pages actually don't use the official royal styles — I expect because those routinely ignore their distinguishing personal name. For example, the article on Charlene, Princess of Monaco confirms that her official style is Her Serene Highness The Princess of Monaco. Which is not used as the page title. I'm strongly for following policy in WP:UCRN and WP:OFFICIALNAME, that editors should work with what becomes common use, and not just in the UK.
  • Strongly Oppose This is an irrelevant discussion. Her name is now Meghan, Duchess of Suffolk. Any attempt to undo the change of title of this page would be anti-British prejudice. The name, by which any member of the British Royal Family is officially known, is not a matter for discussion by editors of Wikipedia. Pftaylor61 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)— Pftaylor61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Pftaylor61, that's a very extreme view. I don't see any inherent prejudice in taking one view rather than another, if we even can't discuss such matters without opponents being called prejudiced what kind of world are we living in? You need to accept other people's good faith. Moonraker (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You are correct that everyone is entitled to take whatever view they like. Anti-British prejudice is not against the law in any country that I know of. And Paintspot is correct in pointing out my error above. As for names and titles - her title is Duchess of Sussex, and her name is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. My point is that this is an irrelevant discussion, as the matter is not subject to democratic vote. The Duchess has herself chosen to accept that title, of her own free will, which is an honorable title, according to the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. If 99% of commenters here choose to change this page back to being titled "Meghan Markle", the truth of the situation remains that her name is "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". Articles on this site are meant to reflect truth, not majority vote. If 51% of commenters here chose to believe that the Earth was flat, the administrators of Wikipedia would still be correct to reject such comments. Pftaylor61 (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTTRUTH. As has been pointed out multiple times on this page, it is not the “truth” of the situation that her official name is “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex”. That would only be true and be her name if she were to divorce Harry. Currently her official name is in its entirety HRH The Duchess of Sussex. Articles on this site don’t reflect either majority vote OR ‘truth’, but WP policy, an important one of which is WP: COMMONNAME. Where’s your evidence that the incorrect style ‘Megan, Duchess of Sussex’ is now commonly used by reliable sources? DeCausa (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Strongly support - move performed without discussion, against the consensus reached in a discussion held throughout April and May, and against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (primarily WP:COMMONNAME, seemingly at the urging of a tiny coterie of Anglophile lickspittle toadies who worship "royals" and follow these topics obsessively. Pftaylor61 and others: we don't care a goldplated rat's turd what "the name by which any member of the British Royal Family is officially known" happens to be! That matters to Wikipedians no more than what the North Korean state press office says about their dictator, or what official titles Zog I of Albania granted himself. According to our rules, we use the common name for the subject, which in this case is Meghan Markle. And hell, yeah: this is most surely "a matter for discussion by editors of Wikipedia": any other path leaves to servile obeisance. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Your personal views about the monarchy or the UK are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Her legal name according to British law is the one granted to her by Her Majesty the Queen as the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy regardless of whether you like it or not. Her legal name according to US law is also not Rachel Meghan Markle anymore, it is likely to be something more like Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor as the last time I heard the US recognises marriages in the UK as valid. Markle is her maiden name. I'm not sure if you did so, but it would be quite offensive to suggest that US law is somehow above British law, and the fact that she is still (for the time being) American doesn't mean she should be treated differently as if US law is something holy or universally recognised. She is currently in the process of acquiring British citizenship and there is no lack of clarity over her intentions to fully invest herself in her new role as a member of the British Royal Family. However, I also recognise that her legal name is not the only thing to be taken into consideration when choosing the title for this article. Contributors who claim that she should still be known as Meghan Markle because of WP:COMMONNAME should probably read the guideline (and it is just one guideline) a bit more carefully. The bit about name changes is most relevant to this discussion and specifically these parts :
"Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the 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, sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, per COMMONNAME."
"common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English language sources."
The only sources still calling her Meghan Markle are tabloids by the likes of Daily Mail (which by the way is not an accepted source for Wikipedia) and similar others. Respectable sources such as the BBC say that she should (along with her husband) now be "known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" [2]. This is not only happening in British news outlets but also American ones such as the CBS (see: What will Harry and Meghan's lives be like in their new roles as Duke and Duchess of Sussex?. Moreover, yes she has made a quite successful career as Rachel Zane on Suits, but no one can surely honestly say that she is more famous for her acting role rather than being a royal. There is no question that she is far more famous now than she was when she was an actress especially outside of the United States. Furthermore, Grace Kelly has been referenced here multiple times as a comparison, but in reality its like comparing apples and oranges. Award winning Grace Kelly was a far more established actress before her marriage into the minor royal family of European microstate. WP:COMMONNAME is not the only guideline in Wikipedia and indeed there are others which are very relevant to this such as the more specific guideline about royals (see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)). It would be entirely inconsistent to name her as just Meghan Markle, as the only other similar British case would be Wallis Simpson who was never actually a part of the Royal Family. Wallis Simpson was not styled as HRH but by the non-royal style Her Grace despite being a Duchess which would suggest that she was not an actual royal but rather just a member of the nobility. In addition, she lived practically in exile in France, which most definitely is not the case with Meghan, who has been accepted into the Royal Family. I am not sure why I even think your comments about "Anglophile lickspittle toadies" should be honoured with a response, but I would just like to say that it would be nice if everyone would conduct this discussion within the spirit of collegiality and kindness. As for your other comment about the North Korean state press office and the Royal Family, I cannot even become to fathom that someone would think the Royal Family is as unreliable as a source as the North Korean state press office. When for example the Princess of Wales died reliable news outlets did not confirm that she was dead until the Palace had confirmed it or when Harry and Meghan got engaged the official announcement was treated as the only legitimate confirmation by the media. Of course no source is entirely unbiased, but to compare the Royal Family's and North Korea's reliability as similar is completely frivolous. --Ransewiki (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The move was made at 11:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC) and this RM was posted at 11:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC) — a lightning-fast response to the move — but Jimbo Wales had the accurate instinct and timing for his action. It is done and that is how it should remain.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Now that is very lightning-fast!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gateshead001 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support: per WP:NAMECHANGES we need to keep the original article name until we see what becomes the consensus amongst reliable sources following her marriage and new title. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per preceding reasons and noting that such policies as WP:COMMONNAME are guidelines and not entrenched law. While we should acknowledged that though (and perhaps because) the move was disappointing in light of the previous consensus, the outcome of this new discussion should be considered valid and the resolution of the matter – previous consensus irrelevant. Rustic / Talk 21:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support for the reasons given by DeFacto. --76.69.47.55 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose She will quickly be known as the Duchess of Sussex in the UK, which is now her home. She has left America and her acting career, which was where she was known as Meghan Markle. MightyWarrior (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support for the return to the heading "Meghan Markle." This, the original heading, and despite today's royal wedding, best addresses the five goals of a Wikipedia article title. These are Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. As an aside, I think that many people are confused by the difference between one's name and one's titles and styles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Firstly, the page should not have been moved in the first place, when a move discussion had already taken place, and page protection was applied to prevent an undiscussed move. That needs to be reverted, even if Jimbo was the person to do it: "Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think" —Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. We should wait and see if the current title (or even Rachel, Duchess becomes the most commonly-used one, and leave the article at Meghan Markle meanwhile. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 00:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose If I person was knighted, then from that day onward they are Sir. XYZ not Mr. XYZ even if he had a 100 years of being addressed as Mr.XYZ. She is royalty now and she is a princess, deal with it!Kanatonian (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. She's the Duchess of Sussex, absolutely no reason to move her page back. 185.203.122.9 (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)— 185.203.122.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose: She is already being called by her new name by multiple sources. How stupid would we have to be to user her maiden name after she marries into royalty and becomes a duchess? If they ever get divorced or he abdicates we can revisit this, but as of now Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is here name. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Just to update my vote. As of this afternoon if you google “Meghan Markle” and then google “Duchess of Sussex” and include a parameter of last 24 hours, I still get the impression that “Meghan Markle” is still the primary name used with a distictly secondary reference to her as Duchess. This BBC article from this afternoon, nearly a week after the wedding, is typical: |Royal Wedding 2018: Meghan Markle coat of arms revealed. COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly support: Whatever the article title is, it should NOT be 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex' which is NOT her official title, and not a valid title at all. Please either use her personal name - Meghan Markle - or her title - HRH Duchess of Sussex - or some combination eg 'Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex' but please NOT Meghan Duchess of Sussex which is so wrong (as it's the title of a divorcee) as to be offensive.
So... Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is wrong as well? StAnselm (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support What gives this so called Jumbo or Jimbo the authority to preemptively move an article bypassing the prior reached agreement to come to a consensus on whether to move the article or not, and then request the article be moved back only if a consensus can be reached here? Is Wikipedia his personal property now? And what makes him an expert on peerage? This discussion is utterly pointless. This article should immediately be moved back to undo the controversial move. Then we can discuss and try to reach a consensus on moving back the article, if at all. SissyFitz (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)— SissyFitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
He's the founder of Wikipedia. KaiKaiD (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Does this Jimbo person actually own Wikipedia? JLJ001 (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, he's Jimmy Wales, the co-creator of Wikipedia and Founder of Wikimedia Foundation. Which owns Wikipedia. KaiKaiD (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
He deserves and gets no special editing privileges. But he has been awarded a Jumbo fish, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most have already said my thoughts, this is her title now. As others have pointed out, also consistency with the other royals. This is her official title now. However, a talk should have occurred beforehand 100%.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reasons why have been clearly articulated by several others. Surtsicna, seriously, arguing with the founder of Wikipedia over the appropriate editing of Wikipedia is hubris. And any argument that your concern is in protecting the democratic consensus of the community is undermined by the great number of responses you've posted to the 'Oppose' votes of others. Speaking only for myself, I'm left with the impression that you're not so much interested in consensus as in convincing everyone else that you're right. You've made your case. Now let the community decide. KaiKaiD (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)— KaiKaiD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • So, your very sixth edit (and the first since August 2017) is to launch a personal attack on another user in support of the unilateral decision of "the founder of Wikipedia"? You commenting on me rather than the issue at hand perfectly captures the quality of the "oppose votes" here. Grounded in no policy or guideline, they are mostly mere shouting. Now, even attacking. Disgusting. Surtsicna (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Personal attack? Stating the impression your comments have made on me? Your response only furthers that impression: you're right, everyone opposed to your position is wrong, and consensus is irrelevant. The irony of you attacking my lesser-than-your Wikipedia editing experience while simultaneously arguing against an edit made the literal founder of the site kinda says it all. And what's with the quotation marks? He's not 'allegedly' the founder of Wikipedia, he IS it's founder -- or co-founder if we want to be pedantic about the point. KaiKaiD (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Commenting on editors is frowned upon in a civilized Wikipedia discussion. Both your comments revolve around your impression of my character, which is despicable. In fact, you have not mentioned Meghan Markle in any of the comments you left on this page so far. All you have done is invoke the argumentum ad Jimbonem. What kind of an impression is that supposed to leave on me? And what merit does that give to your comments? Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
          • The very first sentence in my initial 'Oppose' comment expresses that my thoughts re:Meghan Markle have already been expressed by others. Why should the same points be repeated? My issue with this discussion is your continuing to argue against nearly every 'Oppose' voter along with the multiple snide comments you've made about the quality of "most" of those objections. What merit do my comments have? Well, I'll let the other editors following our little back-and-forth be the judge of that -- but I find it difficult to believe that the tone of your commentary is very persuasive to any 'swing' voters. KaiKaiD (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per PonyToast, 87.210.99.206 and QueerFilmNerd. While I'm not a monarchist, it's a consistent policy that we should implement consistently here also. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest Wikimedia foundation investigate the possible collusion between user: Jimbo Wales and the British government. What is his motive for single handedly changing article titles of people as soon as they get married to high-profile British royals? -- 43.250.242.91 (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)— 43.250.242.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support. "Meghan Markle" was her name both before and during her engagement. It is well established and recognisable. Her married name is presumably "Princess Henry of Wales" now, but without a deed poll, it is not her official legal name (as in what is on her US passport now, or what goes on her UK passport when she gets it). Her full formal title is "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex". The form "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is just one of many correct and incorrect ways the media will contract these proper forms for their own purposes. There is no evidence or indeed reason to believe it will become the most commonly used form, let alone become so prevalent it airbrushes "Megan Markle" out of existence. Strictly speaking, simply "Duchess of Sussex" is the shortest, most accurate way possible for an encylopedia to uniquely identify her, if it wants people to think she has somehow stopped being "Megan Markle", or no longer sees it as her own name. Nobody here has any real reason to assume this couple are going to slavishly adopt royal convention and stop using her maiden name in public or private. Indeed they have already done things which suggest they will not so easily conform to the old order, where women cease to be independent beings once married, especially when marrying a Prince. So it is rather unseemly for Wikipedia to be seen to be assuming they will. Monkey Bar Freak (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 02:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment:Actually if you followed the ceremony there was a part before the singing of the national anthem when Harry and Meghan disappeared to sign the register which officially recognises their marriage and the name change. It's a bit complex what the legal name actually is because senior royals in the UK never use a surname (and the law in the UK recognises their special status in that regard) and depending on if you mean US law or British law, but it is legally now either Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or HRH (Rachel) Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. --Ransewiki (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • A marriage register does not legally change a bride's name. It doesn't even record her married name, she signs it using her maiden name. As such, if the document being signed wasn't a deed poll, which becomes legally binding the moment she signs it, and I don't think it was, she has not legally changed her name to anything simply by getting married, least of all "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". I will repeat, nobody here has any clue what this clearly very progressive and independently minded couple intend to do regarding their married names, let alone now they intend to refer to themselves in their public or private lives. And they will certainly never be in a position to know what it says on their passports, unless they choose to make to known. Monkey Bar Freak (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 02:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Really?? So what does "legally change a bride's name"? There must many thousands of married women in UK today assuming they have legally taken their husband's surname? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The concept of a "legal name" doesn't really exist in English law and Scots law seems to follow much the same principles in regards marriages (the information of the Northern Irish page is not as clear). A person can go by whatever name they like so long as it is not for fraudulent purposes and they do not need a deed poll to legally change their name on marriage; instead they can use their married name already and the marriage certificate is usually sufficient evidence of a name change. Most deed polls in such circumstances are either because a spouse didn't realise it wasn't necessary to waste time & money or because some little jobsworth wouldn't update their name without one. Many other common law countries have a similar approach. Timrollpickering 10:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say this one Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

Here: [11] it clearly says "On her marriage to The Duke of Sussex, Ms. Meghan Markle will become known as Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex." Period end of discussion. Eric Cable  !  Talk  15:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, she certainly won't be known by that name in the title of this article! She'll still be Meghan here, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC) stupid voters are people too, you know.
Yes, it clearly says "HRH The Duchess of Suffolk". It does not say "Meghan, Duchess of Suffolk". The Palace would never have issued a statement giving the bride the title of a divorced woman. Try again. Surtsicna (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if someone were to open up a page move request at the Duchess of Cambridge's article. I wouldn't be surprised at all. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - FWIW, I think the no-consensus close should be returning the page to the AT in place prior to the undiscussed move. After all, if anyone but Jimbo had made the move, it would be back there already. Guettarda (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • But now it was Jimbo who made the move. Why should be return the page name of Markle only to have a short discussion about it and then move it back again. To ease some huge egos? Meghan will never be announced as Meghan Markle again. BabbaQ (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I mean apart from all the news sources using Meghan Markle.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Because it was performed without discussion, against the consensus reached in a discussion held throughout April and May, and against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The subject has been referred to in the past 24 hours as Meghan Markle by the most reputable British media, including BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph; so much about your prediction. And your personal attack on those who disagree with the undiscussed move is reprehensible. Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, yeah. The coverage of the wedding used the name Meghan Markle, because Meghan Markle didn't become Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, until after she and the Duke of Sussex wed. The wedding was between Meghan Markle and the Duke of Sussex. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and because the very recent move was moved out of process. We shouldn't even be discussing this while it sits at the current title. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Regardless of Meghan's past, she is now a member of the Royal Family and is no longer known as Meghan Markle. All members of the British royal family have articles named by their official titles and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is now her official title. Commyguy Talk 21:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Diana, Princess of Wales is known almost universally as Princess Diana and yet her article remains named Diana, Princess of Wales. The need for a commonly used name must be balanced with a need for accuracy. Her name is not Meghan Markle any more. The wedding was a highly publicised event that will remain in the public consciousness for considerable time, given that her husband is a senior member of British Royal Family. It is not reasonable to think that people will be unduly confused to see the title as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The Wallis Simpson thing - she was primarily known for the events leading up to and culminating in her marriage. Following her marriage (when she was Wallis, Duchess of Windsor), she largely faded from the world stage. Her notability came about when she was Wallis Simpson. If Meghan continues to exist in the public consciousness as Meghan Markle then I would probably support moving it back, but I think we need to start off with the expectation that her new title will be the one that sticks. §
Note that where the above vote bolds "Support",it expresses opposition to the proposal to move the article back to "Meghan Markle".12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I also like to add that I hope you haven't forgotten that Princess Christina of the Netherlands uses Christina as her name instead of Maria, Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands also uses Laurentien instead of Petra, Princess Carolina, Marchioness of Sala uses Carolina instead of Maria. Just as Meghan uses Meghan instead of Rachel. Mirrorthesoul (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose She is a member of the Royal family and will be for life. Just like Pope Francis immediately became Pope Francis in Wikipedia, the Dutchess of Sussex should immediately become Dutchess of Susses in Wikipedia. Explorium (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment: Whaaaaaa? We didn't retitle the Trump article when he became President; so your argument is almost surrealistically self-rebutting! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
      •  Comment: Whaaaaaaaaa?... Baa Baa Black sheep. Thank you for taking the time to help me further strengthen my opposition and enhance my analogy... I duly corrected my error. You make a good helper.Explorium (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose This is the subject's current name and title. She is a member of the royal family. (Sellpink (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC))

Oppose For consistency - we changed Camilla Parker-Bowles name to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, yet she was REALLY well known as Camilla Parker-Bowles for nearly two decades. 110.147.205.88 (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)— 110.147.205.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. It may be that in the future she becomes more known by her title amongst the media. If that is the case, we should move the article then - but not now. The out of process move shows again the disrespect for other editors and the community that certain admins posses. I also remind editors that we are a global encyclopedia, with servers and offices in the United States. We are not the Court Circular and we have no obligation to follow decrees from the British royal family. The level of deference being shown by some editors would make a poodle blush. I'd also point to Grace Kelly as a good comparison here. Her article is titled simply Grace Kelly, not Grace Kelly, Princess of Monaco. AusLondonder (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for consistency with other women who similarly married into the Royal Family, including the Duchess of Cambridge and the Duchess of Cornwall. Her prior acting career does not seem more significant than her new role as a royal, so I'm hesitant to use Grace Kelly as an example to follow in this case. Edge3 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It is clear from the text of WP:TITLE that WP:COMMONNAME, which is given a lengthy and forcefully stated section of its own, is a more compelling consideration than consistency, which receives only a brief bullet point in a list of several considerations to be taken into account. Even the specific naming convention guideline for royalty and nobility (WP:NCROY) defers to WP:COMMONNAME, stating that "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English". By its own account, WP:NCROY is intended to give us a reasonable convention for royalty and nobility where the choice is not obvious—not to overrule WP:COMMONNAME.
Aside from consistency arguments, there have been attempts above to argue that WP:COMMONNAME itself favors the title as Duchess of Sussex, because she will henceforth be referred to that way. Not only Grace Kelly but also Sarah Ferguson (whose article is wrongly titled) indicates otherwise. Though we all know that Sarah Ferguson is Duchess of York, we also all still know her surname, which has constantly been used in the press: see this Google search on "Sarah Ferguson".
The right way to honor consistency is not to double down on misnaming this article, but to change all the other misnamed articles likewise to conform to WP:COMMONNAME—starting with Sarah Ferguson. Until that is done, name this article correctly, consistency considerations to the contrary notwithstanding.
—Syrenka V (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support title "Meghan Markle" The article name seems to have been preemptively changed, opposing Wikipedia's guidelines for name changes, and she is still the most well-known by this name. Human-potato hybrid (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Currently the second-highest Twitter trending topic in London right now is "Meghan Markle". Not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". Just a factoid which shows the "official title" may not be what she is known by the public as. AusLondonder (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose — She is no longer Meghan Markle. She is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. I haven't heard the former Kate Middleton (aka the Duchess of Cambridge) referred to as "Kate Middleton" since her wedding to William. The Markle name will fade into obscurity, just like the Middleton name, the Spencer name, the Parker-Bowles name, etc. For those using Grace Kelly as an example: Grace Kelly was an international superstar before she married, and she is arguably more famous for her acting career than her life as the Princess of Monaco. Meghan Markle was on a middling television show that wasn't even on any of the primary television channels in the United States, a channel that mostly airs reruns of Law and Order: SVU and Modern Family. Her acting career will be a small footnote to her career as a royal. This entire conversation is ridiculous.

MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

    • For goodness' sake, will you all stop repeating that nonsense? She is not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". That's the format of ex-wives of dukes. She is "The Duchess of Sussex". You will find no official source mentioning her as "Meghan, Duchess of Suffolk". In fact, this Wikipedia article is the only place out there where she is called by that name. And the claim that the names Middleton, Spencer and Parker-Bowles have faded into obscurity is laughably easy to disprove. Not even the Ferguson name has faded into obscurity, as pointed out by Syrenka V. Surtsicna (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As per the obvious fact that this article is never going to get reverted back to its original title. Using Wikipedia to force consolidation of a title (heinous as it may be), which seems to have been the objective of the person(s) who moved the article in the first place, seems to have been achieved. So this whole exercise is a waste of time and effort. However that does not mean I think the arguments for reverting back the article aren't strong ones. -- Michael'sCurries (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)— Michael'sCurries (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose: Now that this is her title, referring to here as the Duchess of Sussex or Meghan [Markle], Duchess of Sussex in news articles, social media, and royal family communications will be common. Above all else, I oppose this change because of consistency. Blue jays (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is her correct title now, and the article already says "born Rachel Meghan Markle". This is correct, and enough. David G (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose: Isn't the British Royal Family institution enough for Wikipedia of all things to respect its traditional proceedings? Surely any arguments about WP policy and even user consensus, frankly, are irrelevant when faced with such historic officialdom. Basically, the Queen's vote wins. 109.148.98.191 (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)— 109.148.98.191 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
*Comment: Amen. KaiKaiD (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Answer: No. If Elizabeth wants to edit Wikipedia, she is certainly welcome to do so, but her vote does not have any special weight. --Trovatore (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Correct answer:Yes. To the extent that any Wikipedians disagree with her,they are wrong;to the extent they cite any Wikipedia policies in defense of their disagreement,those policies are wrong.12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, dear. Elizabeth herself would chuckle and roll her eyes if she read that :D Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I am proudly "plus royaliste qui le roi" in the extent of my monarchism,and always have been.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The English monarchy has evolved from a loathsome and despicable institution, which is what it was when it had actual power, to "mostly harmless, and I suppose diverting for those who like that sort of thing". But it has no power here. --Trovatore (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
As Tolkien said,"Touching your cap to Squire may be no good for Squire,but it's damned good for you." What you consider loathsome,I consider loathsome to refuse to revere.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Read that British Monarchy website and you'll find the bio refers to her by her title throughout while mentioning her birth name once in passing.LE (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
And your point? Unless you are arguing, we should title this article "Duchess of Sussex" , which you are not, you are promoting your own invention and something the royal website never uses. It does however use, "Meghan Markle," so it certainly seems fine with the name, and that you'll get who that is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies are guidelines, and where there is a consensus that compliance is inappropriate it should not be insisted upon.LE (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although in my view Jimbo Wales, should not have jumped the gun, I've come round to the view that she should be given her title on the grounds of WP:CONSISTENCY with other royal brides, not to do so could open a can of worms in relation to other royal duchesses etc.. In my view there is too many of these disputes on Wikipedia between 2 names where everybody accepts that the other name should be a redirect. There ought to be a presumption in favour of moving a newly married woman to her new name without waiting for sources to catch up (assuming she has decided to change her name). There will be exceptions, but Grace Kelly, really is an exceptional case, IMHO we should also give Wallis Simpson her title as Duchess. PatGallacher (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per COMMONNAME, which may take some time to settle down. Not only should there be no deference to Jimbo, there should be no automatic deference to Queen Liz or the UK titles system or 'marriage conventions'. A year from now, we will have a clearer picture of how she is going to be referred to. She had an established name before getting married and her previous notability should not be automatically ignored just because she's married into a better known family. Pincrete (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • People can claim COMMONNAME should prevail but the reality is that no one will ever call Meghan, Meghan Markle again. Her title is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, should Wikipedia be the only source where she is called Meghan Markle. It makes no sense.BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Well as of today what you say is untrue, "Meghan Markle" is still being referred this very day. It's fine to make up your own thing but it's good to admit it, and really, you know, deal in sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to have made the form of the name of divorced wives of British peers and princes, the form of the name to be used on the title of these women's entries within Wikipedia. "Diana Princess of Wales," for example, was the form used by that lady after her divorce; before her divorce she was "H.R.H. the Princess of Wales." I have suggested as an alternative to use the form of the name "The Duchess of Sussex - formerly known as Meghan Markle" or "The Duchess of Sussex (from birth, Meghan Markle)" or the most traditional way, "The Duchess of Sussex, née Meghan Markle." (Née is the French form of born, and many, many people will have already been accustomed to seeing women's names presented in this way. But many others will not have seen it.)
There's nothing in the world wrong with Wikipedia settling on a way of referring to married women that may be new to many readers; it's certainly better than settling on a way of referring to divorced women as Wikipedia's way to refer to married women.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My two cents: precedent strongly suggests she will be known as the Duchess of Sussex. Kate Middleton may not have been independently famous, but she was an infinitely more familiar figure in her home country prior to marriage than Meghan Markle. People were use to calling her Kate Middleton, or simply Kate. Now she is primarily referred to by her title. And when she becomes Princess of Wales, she will be known as the Princess of Wales, and when she becomes Queen, she will be known as the Queen. This is how it works in Britain. This debate may fall the Markle side of the fence now, but give it six months, a year, it will be abundantly clear that she is mostly commonly referred to as the Duchess of Sussex. 217.42.255.108 (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)— 217.42.255.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment The whole argument that she is better known as 'Megan Markle' is entirely wrongheaded. Her noteriety as an actress is mostly limited to the US & Canada. Internationally, she is known as a member of the British royal family (Sellpink (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC))
  • Mild Oppose On the one hand, the fact is that she will probably be familiarly called 'Meghan Markle' in the press, especially in America, much as Kate Middleton is still often called Kate Middleton. But in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, there is no comparison to Grace Kelly (an immensely more famous actress) or Wallis Simpson (whose status in the royal family was the subject of great controversy). Markle was notable by Wikipedia standards before her relationship with Prince Harry, but it is the engagement and marriage that has made her internationally famous. For that reason and for consistency with the pages on Camilla and Kate, I'd say leave it as Duchess of Sussex. Proserpine (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, makes more sense to change Wikipedia:COMMONNAME to include an exception for British royalty. Landbroke99 (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: Same situation as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. "Meghan Markle" should redirect to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although WP:COMMONNAME would suggest it should remain Meghan Markle, WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT should prevail, IMO. Shadow007 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Shadow007 above. Title should remain consistent with other nobilities, as for Grace Kelly and other exceptions they were much well known even before their marriages for WP:COMMONNAME to prevail. To say that she is popularly known as an actress would be incorrect as the Google Trends data clearly shows that she became better known as a member of the British royal family rather than actress. Gotitbro (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Grace Kelly is the better precedent. Jvbignacio9 (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why should her naming convention be treated any differently from other members of fhe Royal Family? Moncrief (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Keep at "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex"): Same situation as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. She's a royal now and that's her official name. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Moncrief and others. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - She is no longer Meghan Markle. It would be incorrect to switch it back to her original name since she is now the Duchess of Sussex.Scott218 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Do we have a source that establishes she is no longer Meghan Markle? I ask as I find it difficult to believe that's the case. We have had no RS reporting she has petitioned for a name change in the United States, the jurisdiction in which she is a citizen and I feel as though such a petition would most likely receive wide coverage. It seems that "Meghan" (no surname) is simply an alternate name she is currently using in her country of current residency and that that country has extended some legal status to that alternate name. But to say the name "Meghan Markle" has been legally extinguished the whole world over is a monumental claim that would require supporting RS. Chetsford (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rockhead126 (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on procedural grounds (consensus already achieved precluding this move) and also per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. At the risk of this being a WP:VAGUEWAVE I'll just leave it there as many of the Oppose !votes - which seem largely based on feudal custom and the preferences of the British state, rather than WP policy and the preferences of our previously established consensus - are slightly impossible to logically rebut, such as: "Isn't the British Royal Family institution enough for Wikipedia of all things to respect its traditional proceedings? Surely any arguments about WP policy and even user consensus, frankly, are irrelevant when faced with such historic officialdom. Basically, the Queen's vote win." Huh? Chetsford (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The Duchess has risen above the ranks of the plethora of female actresses. Rovingrobert (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This is WP:NOTAVOTE. Is there a WP policy you are citing? Chetsford (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Risen above the ranks of actresses? Your comment has risen to the top of the plethora of revoltingly misogynist comments on this page. Surtsicna (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've been here before but I'm going to keep battering away until you idiots get it straight. Wikipedia is about rules and facts, not about fun. There are other places to go for fun. As of this moment, the title of the article is simply WRONG. The lady's correct style is HRH The Duchess of Sussex. She would only become "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" (the implication being 'a' rather than 'the' and note the lack of an HRH) in the case of a divorce, which God forbid, may they live happily ever after. Compare with "Sarah, Duchess of York" and "Diana, Princess of Wales". Do not get me started on "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" which is completely, utterly and egregiously WRONG on account of that lady and her husband remain happily married.

BTW, word is, the artist formerly known as Meghan Markle is now the *only* Duchess of Sussex *ever* on account of the son of George III who previously held the Dukedom was not lawfully married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4601:6428:804E:318F:869B:FD87 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC) — 2601:647:4601:6428:804E:318F:869B:FD87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Moral support. It is indubitable that Mr Wales's action has resulted in the wastage of time of a large number of editors in a futile debate over several pages and that by imposing his own view, ignoring the previous discussion and the page protection, he has disheartened other editors by making them feel that their contribution is unwelcome and unwanted. This was not his intention, but it was the result. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENCY until more post-wedding examples are available. The problems with applying WP:COMMONNAME here are (a) most of the available sources currently are pre-wedding and (b) there is no worldwide consensus on what to call a British royal spouse who is a commoner -- Prince William's wife is variously referred to as Kate Middleton (despite protests), Duchess Kate, Princess Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, or (as Wikipedia does per WP:NCROY) Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Also, WP:NCROY suggests the title of a royal may be part of their "common name" for WP:COMMONNAME purposes. The current title of this article is consistent with not only Kate, but also Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (a commoner by British standards though IIRC she was formerly Lady Camilla Shand), and adjusting for his princely title, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Grace Kelly and Wallis Simpson are not appropriate examples as they are deceased; those are decided by a post-mortem "common name"-like consensus (like Diana, Princess of Wales and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother). --RBBrittain (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Kate Middleton's article was moved to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge after the wedding, even though she was probably better known as the former, so there is a precedent for moving it to the proper title and keeping it there. --Zimbabweed (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support why should her husband's title be favoured against her father's name? She was known and reknowned as Meghan Markle before, the duchess title can be an alias. Why should Wikipedia reflect an elitist habit of aristocrats in England?--Nattes à chat (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't most women in UK take their husband's surname? I'm not saying they have to, or even should, just that this is typical. If your husband doesn't use a surname, but instead has a title, wouldn't you expect to adopt that instead? Complaining about the "elitist habit of aristocrats" suggests you would rather have Harry stripped of his title in the first place? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I find it hilariously ironic that the current page title, which many here favor on the basis of it being her "official" name, is actually incorrect, and would only be correct if she and Harry divorced. James (talk/contribs) 18:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    Do you find the page title for Kate and Sophie equally hilarious? Maybe it's just as well that someone has now opened a formal RfC about this styling? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Textbook example of WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONAME, which is policy.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support This is nonsensical. The move shouldn't have been made to begin with. ShadessKB (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME. The move was undiscussed and the title reeks of 1950s sexism where women are treated as mere appendages to their husbands. She is a well-known actress with her own independent career (quite unlike her husband who doesn't have a notable career himself) who is known as Meghan Markle. There is not even any evidence that she, as an American citizen, changed her name to anything with "Sussex", and regardless, she's overwhelmingly referred to as Meghan Markle by reliable sources. The fact that she marries a guy from a foreign country with a non-democratic political system (and who is a minor member of the royal family there who is merely 6th in the line of succession – far less in a couple of years – and who will never hold any important office) doesn't make her just an appendage to her husband as the current title indicates; things simply don't work that way in America or in most of the developed world. --Tataral (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
A clear I don't like it comment. Absolutely no need for this dismissive rudeness. 'far less in a couple of years'? Completely untrue. 'never hold any important office'? Already untrue. 'changed her name to anything with "Sussex"'? Already confirmed. 'quite unlike her husband who doesn't have a notable career'? Ridiculous. '1950s sexism'? Don't be so offensive. Let's focus on the topic and not Tataral's personal opinions. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure if you checked royal.uk's updated page for Meghan saying at the bottom: The couple are now known as The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. So, the current page should be kept as is, otherwise, you're disrespecting her by ignoring that. Don't care how the media continues to call her that or the rules and policy on Wiki as you should be respecting the living person with her new title. Don't ignore that. Mirrorthesoul (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Are we disrespecting Yusuf Islam and Kim West? What about Princess Consuela Banana Hammock? Besides, this living person's new title is not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". As you noted, she is now "The Duchess of Sussex". "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" would be her new title if she divorced. And as long as respect is a criterium, I would say it's much more disrespectful to imply that the subject's marriage has already broken down than it is to refer to her as Meghan Markle. Surtsicna (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Chase and Tataral. WP:COMMONNAME applies here. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As noted above, WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Moreover, I thought that the Grace Kelly example was a strong precedent for keeping the name of this article as Meghan Markle. If the media and most of the general population refer to her as Meghan Markle, then why should she assume the formal title on Wikipedia? If her name is changed, then we should be consistent and change Grace Kelly as well. Or is the suggestion that the British royalty only needs to be consistent and all other European aristocracies can deviate from using formal titles on Wikipedia articles? Ambrosiaster (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment/Suggestion What if we renamed the article Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex (in which case I would suggest we do this for other princesses and peeresses who are not divorced, i.e. Catherine, The Duchess of Cambridge or Marie-Chantal, The Crown Princess of Greece)? That way we are still using their name and their full title in the lead instead of the form of address for a divorced peeress. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Makes some sense,though those who insist on her outdated name will likely not care.12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Will you also be renaming Barack Obama to "Barack, the President of the United States" or Matt Kenseth to "Matt, the Driver of NASCAR"? Chetsford (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Those analogies do not even make any sense as one is a political office (with a set term) and the other is a profession. "The Duchess of Sussex" is neither a political office nor a profession, but a royal title of peerage. Just as other nobles are titled in their articles. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Not a sensible analogy,since only one person alive can ever be "The" Duchess of anywhere,the other jobs have no such expectation.12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose She is no longer working as an actress so she will not be using her maiden name in the futureTomrtn (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Of course an important difference between Grace Kelly and Meghan Markle is that Grace Kelly married a reigning monarch (one of very few monarchs in Europe at that time) and became the equivalent of a Queen consort in the UK, whereas Markle only married a minor member of a royal family who is merely 6th in the line of succession to become what Kelly's husband was – a monarch – and who will in all likelihood see his place in the line of succession dwindle further to make him into the equivalent of Prince Michael of Kent (who held roughly the same place in the line of succession when he was young) importance-wise, and who has never held any important office or done anything important. And even in such a situation, Grace Kelly's article is still titled Grace Kelly. --Tataral (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it appears to me that there is a logical inconsistency here. What is essentially being said by those on the "oppose" side is that if you marry into the British royal family, then you're important; if you marry into some other European royal family, however, you're not as important, as no one recognizes any royal family more than they do the one in Great Britain, and, if you marry into one of those more obscure European royal families, such as the ones in Monaco or Denmark, then you can retain your birth name for Wikipedia, such as Grace Kelly did... I understand that the British want people from other countries to recognize the legitimacy of Markle's British peerage, but for us Americans, who do not have a King, perhaps her 10-year-long career as an actress is just as important as her British peerage, as seems to be the case with Grace Kelly. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Not really.. For example from Monaco we have Charlene, Princess of Monaco (an Olympic swimmer) and from Denmark Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark who both follow the same titling as this article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
These examples don't quite compare. If you reference back to the original Wikipedia article on Charlene, you will see that it was created because she "rose to fame [for] accompanying Albert II, Prince of Monaco at the opening ceremony of the 2006 Winter Olympics." Before being seen with Albert II, Prince of Monaco, she did not have a high profile. Her becoming the Queen consort gave her a profile. Not a bad example, but a little bit different than Meghan Markle's case. (The example of Mary also does not compare.) - Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Charlene had a Wikipedia profile prior to her marriage that was titled by her maiden name. She was notable under this name as an Olympic athlete (I would also like to point out that she is NOT a Queen consort, but a Princess consort). Charlene is almost exactly like Meghan's case. A high profile person in her own right (although arguably more so because of her long term relationship with Albert prior to marriage but still eligible for an article because of her status as an athlete), who is now even more notable upon marriage, whose name is changed. I still think Wikipedia should create a universal policy for women who marry into royalty. And what of Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece who was a notable socialite prior to her marriage? Or Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland who was a notable model prior to her marriage? Or Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark who was a notable person in the fashion industry prior to her marriage? Or Princess Salwa Aga Khan who was a notable fashion model prior to her marriage? I still think, if we are going to use royal titles in the name (which I support) I suggest putting "the" in the front to differentiate from the style of a divorced peeress. (i.e. "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" as opposed to what "Diana, Princess of Wales" has. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
No, Charlene is definitely not "almost exactly like Meghan's case." Charlene is married to a reigning monarch, whereas Markle is married to a minor member of a royal family who is currently merely 6th in the line of succession with no prospect of succeeding whatsoever, and whose importance is comparable to that of Prince Michael of Kent (once 7th in line, now 46th) Charlene is in fact the equal of Queen Elizabeth (the Queen mother) during her husband's reign in the UK. The (Sovereign) "Prince" title used by the monarch of Monaco shouldn't be confused with "Prince" titles used by junior members of royal families; the title in the monégasque context simply means "monarch" or "ruler". --Tataral (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Charlene is a consort, yes, but NOT a queen. The consort of a Sovereign Prince (which does rank higher than "Prince" but not an equivalent to King) is still styled with Her Serene Highness and not Her Royal Highness and ranks lower than the queen in order of pretense. Anywhoo- you are right that Meghan's rank is lower, in comparison, in the UK than Charlene's is in Monaco. Still doesn't mean her name change shouldn't happen in the article. Technically Charlene's is wrong to because she is not 'Charlene, Princess of Monaco', but 'The Princess of Monaco'. I still think we should make Meghan's article (and other wives of royalty and nobility who come into such titles) 'Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex'. The title of Albert does not simply mean 'Monarch' or 'Ruler'. It means monarch of a Principality, not a Kingdom. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
That's my point too. This article was created in 2007, 9 years before she became associated with royalty in any sense. This is what the article looked like the month before she began her relationship with Prince Harry. She was obviously not an anonymous nobody, as some here would have us believe. And while the royal romance and wedding have undoubtedly increased her profile, they have neither obscured her former career nor her birth name. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for all the reasons listed above. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Meghan Markle is not the first actress to marry into the House of Windsor. We have forgotten about Sophie Winkleman, whom we do not call Lady Frederick Windsor. Granted, Winkleman is still acting, but the rationale for the move back from Lady Frederick Windsor to Sophie Winkleman (rigid court etiquette trumped by WP:COMMONNAME) still applies in this case. Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:IAR: Most coverage is related to her connections to the Royal Family, and most of that is about her engagement to the prince. The only reason why these sources did not use this name is that it didn't exist yet. However, it is a reasonable assumption that the Duchess of Sussex will be known as Duchess of Sussex and not under her former name, based on similar cases... and Grace Kelly is not a similar case(which was already discussed ad nauseam).2001:A61:4E6:C500:D102:468B:3EC1:2D2A (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)— 2001:A61:4E6:C500:D102:468B:3EC1:2D2A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Not a reasonable expectation at all, given that the Duchess of Cambridge is still commonly called Kate Middleton. And unlike Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Cambridge is known solely for her relationship and marriage. I applaud you, however, for making a much better case than most of the registered users here. Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for consistency with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, the Prince of Wales's other daughter-in-law. Actually, I am now undecided I do understand the arguments on each side, but Meghan was relatively obscure as an actress outside the US; had she been anything like as big a name as Grace Kelly, it would be a different matter. If she ever went back to acting, then of course this proposal could be reviewed. Deb (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The argument is not that she should be referred to as an actress. It's that her most common name is Meghan Markle. Meghan Markle is her big name. That may or may not be due to her acting career, but it's a fact. Surtsicna (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I guess this is a Google search fact. As the previous IP pointed out, it's difficult to find evidence for a name that didn't exist four days ago? In which case no article title should changed for a woman just because she marries? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
        • It is not difficult to ascertain that articles published after her wedding still refer to her as Meghan Markle, even when noting that she now has a title (eg. The Guardian saying: "Meghan Markle makes online debut as Duchess of Sussex"). Indeed, no article title should be changed just because the subject married. I thought that went without saying. William's cousin Zara Phillips married in 2011, but we only moved the article to Zara Tindall in 2016. Surtsicna (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Zara Tindall looks like a very good example, assuming it was watched carefully in those 5 years (and I've no reason to think it wasn't). This might explain why Kate Middleton and Sophie Rhys-Jones were changed more quickly. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
            • I don't think Zara is a good example, actually, because she never had a royal title. If she had, I think the article would have been called by it throughout (and Tindall would probably have been given a title as well). I also don't think Meghan will be referred to by her birth surname for much longer. Every time she's mentioned in the UK media from now on (except by one or two ignoramuses), it will be as the Duchess of Cambridge. However, we should probably take into account the fact that the US will continue to refer to her by her acting name for a while. (Or have they already started calling her "Princess Meghan"?) Deb (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As the actress is now a member of the British Royal Family by marriage, I believe that she will partake on various royal duties as the Duchess of Sussex. Similar to the style of Her Royal Highness Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, The Duchess of Sussex is now married to a prince of the United Kingdom, so I believe that the title of this article to remain as it is now. Poeticfeelings (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Her common name from now on will be the Duchess of Sussex or simply Meghan. Just as we had/have Camilla, Diana, Kate (or Catherine, as she now prefers to be called), Sophie, etc. Yes, I appreciate she was already well-known as Meghan Markle and had a public profile as such, but she is no longer an actress and she is no longer called Meghan Markle (and no longer uses that name in any context). It's not like she still uses the name professionally or has faded into obscurity; she is more famous now than she ever was as an actress and will continue to be so, but under her new name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: editors should be aware that someone on Wikipedia saying she is no longer called Meghan Markle is rather meaningless, so fyi, today the BBC called the subject, "Meghan Markle." [12]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. Until and unless there is evidence that sources have changed their usage in the wake of the wedding, then there's no reason for us to have renamed this article. And consistency with Kate Middleton is a red herring, because unlike Kate, Meghan was independently notable before becoming a duchess. Whoever closes this should also bear in mind that Meghan Markle is the long-term stable name for this article, and it should be reverted to there if the result of this discussion is "no consensus".  — Amakuru (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for consistency with other Royal Brides such as The Duchess of Cambridge and The Duchess of Cornwall.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Change to: Strong Oppose - The more that I read others' comments, the more certain I am of my vote. Her name was legally changed with her marriage and having received her titles. Her current name is not Meghan Markle. It is changed. We should recognize the change and follow existing conventions for other royalty. People that type in Meghan Markle will get routed to her correct name.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Absolute poppycock. Her name was definitely not changed with her marriage, and you are as clueless about what her "current name" is as I am. See Monkey Bar Freak's explanation above. And once more, Wikipedia does not care about legal or current names. That much is obvious. Surtsicna (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
See Name_change#United_States,as cited above by Timrollpickering,paying especial attention to the "except at marriage" part.Her name changed. For Wikipedia to not care about what there is no excuse for refusal to care about may be obvious,but that is a matter for atonement,not continuation. 12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
re: "Absolute poppycock" - don't you mean that "her name may have changed with her marriage, if she herself has decided that it has? It's her choice, isn't it? It's just that we have no reliable source(s) to indicate what she has chosen? (won't affect adherence to the WP:COMMON name policy, of course). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Per this [13], "Once married, Meghan will sign as Meghan, no last name. Just as Harry signs as Harry. Royals use only a first name," royal expert Marlene Koenig tells Town & Country."–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah ok, Seems I was wrong. That looks like a reasonable source. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Martinevans123, I meant it changed if she decided to change it. As you say, it's her choice. (It's not Marlene Koenig's.) Surtsicna (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME. If she becomes known more commonly as the Duchess of Sussex the page can be moved then, but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and the current WP:COMMONNAME is Meghan Markle. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Consistency with sister-in-law in parallel role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.183.217 (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2018‎— 178.208.183.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support. The Markle→Sussex page move was premature, especially given that there was already a discussion about this question. In a few months we should have a sense of whether her WP:COMMONNAME has changed--it's quite possible that people will still call her "Meghan Markle" (she's a special case, after all!), or "Meghan of Sussex", or "Princess Meg" because why not, we're ’Merican. (Some of us, anyway.) But until we see what happens, let's leave the page as "Meghan Markle". — Narsil (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: How do administrators deal with this influx of anonymous users? How do we know who is saying what? It is obvious from their comments that these anons are not Wikipedia regulars, so I would not be surprised to learn that this discussion is being advertised on a forum somewhere. Like this. Though to be fair, even the comments of a majority of registered users here are based only on a personal preference or belief rather than a policy or guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The page is being seen by a million people per day and there is a big, ugly box at the top of it saying 'It has been requested that the title of this article be changed to Meghan Markle. Please see the relevant discussion on the discussion page.' Of course you are going to get lots of anonymous users commenting! Don't attack other editors when there isn't any need to. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
"Yeah, the crazies are out there in full force. It's kinda disturbing. I mean, people have their crazy conspiracy theories and want to pass it off as facts." Maybe posting here should be by appointment only? ---Lilac17 Active Member (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose No one ever immediately brought up changing Kate Middleton's page name when she became Duchess of Cambridge, so why do it in Meghan's case? She is retired from acting and has no plans whatsoever to go back to it so why go back to her former name? I feel like this is really about something else....Trillfendi (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There is only one Meghan Markle so no need for a disambiguator. AIRcorn (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although there are reasons to question if the current title is exactly right according to WP rules, reverting to Meghan Markle would be less valid as this is clearly (from both a legal and notability standpoint) no longer her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.249.190 (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — 86.11.249.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • From a [irrelevant] legal standpoint, her name is not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" either, nor has it ever been. And she is notable precisely as Meghan Markle, that being her name in virtually all the sources. Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Meghan Markle is in fact both her WP:COMMONNAME and her legal name (she's an American citizen, not a British one), although "legal names" don't really matter for Wikipedia article titles. She's no more a Duchess in her country of citizenship than any other American citizen. There's no nobility or royalty in America. --Tataral (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
British law has never cared,nor should it,about whether courtesy or peerage titles inherited by or conferred upon those of other citizenship are recognized by those other countries.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
British law is irrelevant since she isn't British, not any more than her husband Mr Wales is American. Why is it that it is automatically assumed by some that she somehow becomes subordinate to her husband by marrying him and subject to his country's laws and values (including outdated values concerning gender equality), and not the other way round? Why shouldn't the couple be subject to American laws to the same degree when one of them is American and not British? --Tataral (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The only relevant laws about the title are the ones under which the title exists,namely the British ones.12.144.5.2 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Much like Wikipedia has never cared, nor should it, about British law. Surtsicna (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Is that right? We can dispense altogether with UK copyright law then, and just stick to US, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Not comparable at all. Copyright law legally affects publishers (like the Wikimedia Foundation). Noone is required to use "Duchess" as an article title in an encyclopedia, or even recognise an American citizen's claim that she holds a foreign noble title. --Tataral (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as she is undergoing the process of becoming a British subject she will not, in fact, be an American citizen's claim to hold a foreign title (which, legally, Americans are allowed to do so long as they are not in political office or granted a title in order to perform some form of political act. American civilians are legally allowed to hold foreign titles.) -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Former last name,she no longer has one.12.144.5.2 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
        • That's what I thought too, but the main rationale for moving the article to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is that using "Meghan Markle" suggests that she is an actress. I'll take it that that rationale is rubbish, then. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
          • It originates from Lancashire, allegedly. Surtsicna, for someone who doesn't have English as your first language, you put many of us native speakers to shame here. Your contributions are faultless. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. except it's not from Lancashire but from somewhere in Germany of course.
            • Hardly faultless but thank you! I think 11 years of editing Wikipedia, starting in my early teens, did the trick. As for the surname, my point is simply that it does not define the subject. Surtsicna (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I really, really, really want to support the move back to Meghan Markle. The notion that there's some "fact of the matter" about her name, determined not by her but by an institution characterized by some of the nastier human behavior on record, and that this binds Wikipedia, is beyond irritating. Wikipedia should not, in its own voice, reify the British monarchy.
    That said, there does seem to be a WP:ENGVAR connotation to this. Markle is American, and until now WP:TIES would point to using American English, but I think it's fair to admit that that may no longer be true, legal citizenship notwithstanding. So if it can be demonstrated that the new name is what she's called in British sources, that might be relevant.
    So the punch line is I abstain — but if the article is moved back, it certainly won't break my heart. --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, Trovatore, Meghan is definitely called Duchess of Sussex in British sources. She is called Duchess of Sussex in American sources too. Usage in both countries favors the name Meghan Markle, however. As cited above, even articles in the publications which are normally very deferential to the palace still call her Meghan Markle. This one, published today by The Telegraph, calls her Meghan Markle in the title, and uses "Meghan Markle" and "the Duchess of Sussex" interchangeably, all the time referring to her in the present tense. Thus, the argument that the name Meghan Markle is in the past does not stand even in the UK. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • So the preferred usage, in one of the best popular UK press WP:RS sources, suggests the two names now have equal status, only five days after the wedding? I wonder how the !vote currently stands here now (not that it's ever a vote, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The idea of a name change after marriage is nothing new, so I'm a little perplexed by this discussion, as she is no longer "Meghan Markle." Her official name is now: "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex."[14] Since the Wikipedia does not allow HRH in titles (see WP:TITLESINTITLES), it is correct to title the article: "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex." How is this different from the article on Princess Diana which is titled: Diana, Princess of Wales? The first sentence of that article begins: "Diana, Princess of Wales (born Diana Frances Spencer...). It would be inconsistent with the other articles on the Royal Family to revert the article back to Meghan Markle.-Classicfilms (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • No, her official and legal name is Meghan Markle. She is an American citizen, not a British one. Her country doesn't recognise any form of noble titles and no American is legally called "Her Royal Highness" or anything like that. What a foreign country of which she isn't a citizen calls her has no bearing on her official and legal name. There is no reason to apply the laws of her husband's country to her, but not her country's laws to him. With equal justification, one could argue that her husband should be the subject to the laws of America and officially be considered as Mr Henry Wales, nothing else, the name he would probably be required to use if he sought US naturalization and a US passport based on his marriage to a US citizen. We should not treat women as inferior to men and appendages to their husbands, and his country does not take precedence over her country just because he's a man (at least it doesn't work that way in America). Regardless, Wikipedia article titles are based on WP:COMMONNAMEs, not legal names. She is most widely known as Meghan Markle, not as "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex." And she's not comparable to Diana at all; first of all Diana was a British citizen (unlike her), and secondly Diana was married to the heir to throne in her own country, whereas she is merely married to an exceedingly minor member of a foreign royal family who is now 6th in line in his country and who will probably be something like 46th in line when he's old (like his relative, of equal importance, Prince Michael of Kent, once 7th in line and now 46th in line). --Tataral (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Of course she is comparable to Princess Diana, as a non-royal woman who married into the royal family and whose name changed. It isn’t up to the Wikipedia to decide the status of a person - meaning this isn't about a google search or the fact that Meghan was an actress, known for her role in a popular American television show. Per WP:RS, I cited a reliable source that states her "official" name change after marriage.[15] - I do not see a source that states that "Megan Markle" is still her official name. And as I stated above, it is very common for a name change to occur after marriage, and that is what we are seeing here. Disagree if you like, but my vote remains Oppose. I'm signing off for today.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • What the native countries of foreigners who marry into the RF recognize is irrelevant...British laws concerning British royal titles are the only laws relevant to British royal titles. And pay attention to the language in Name_change#United_States regarding changes at marriage if you're so hung up on American law.12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
        • America is a much bigger country than England. Most people consider Harry the foreigner in this marriage. And no, British laws don't take precedence over other countries' laws, and they are utterly irrelevant for Wikipedia article titles. --Tataral (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Harry cannot be a "foreigner" in a wedding that took place in England. He is British. It is the British royal family. It doesn't matter if "America is bigger". Know what is larger than the United States? The Commonwealth of Nations. 53 of them. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose this proposal as it is nonsense. Meghans's name is Meghan, Dutchess of Sussex now. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • No, it's not. As explained by several users in this discussion, her name will only be "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" if she divorces Harry. The only nonsense here is the repeated claim that the subject's name is that of a divorcee. One can only be dismayed to see so many Wikipedians exhibit such ignorance of both policy and the subject at hand. If these comments are not completely discounted, we can safely conclude that polling is now indeed a substitute for discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I have serious issues with the status quo of (firstname), (title) of (place), as used in this article and those for other wives of royalty. Firstly, as this is neither the correct form of address, nor the common name by which most are known, it fails WP:COMMONNAME while not even being WP:OFFICIALNAME. Secondly, and more importantly, it is specifically the correct form of address for a former wife of member of the royal family. Purely by the titles we are using for these articles we are implying that the women are divorced from their royal husbands. Diana, Princess of Wales is correct, but Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is not correct, and implies to anyone with an understanding of royal titles that she is divorced. In my opinion, the status quo is incorrect, and should be revised. I do not support moving back to Megan Markle, but believe a new format should be agreed upon that both respects the official titles without implying divorce. Barnowldance (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)— Barnowldance (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Should Wikipedia really care if an "official title" implies divorce? Surely Wikipedia would not want to acknowledge any anachronistic system which defines women in terms of their marital status? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Should? Wikipedia does care if our titles are literally untrue, even if they are ambiguoulsy unture, it cares. We are not here to represent that which is untrue, especillay about living people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia should care if the title of an article misleadingly implies anything. It is not for Wikipedia to judge any system as anachronistic, which is why there are special expections to WP:COMMONNAME for Royalty and Nobility. It is a fact that Firstname, Title of Place is the format for divorced wives of members of the royal family; it would only take a small change to remove the implication. For example, a better article title could be "Megan, The Duchess of Sussex". The addition of the word "The" removes the confusion, while also satisfying WP:COMMONNAME, as the name she is now most commonly referred to as is "The Duchess of Sussex". Barnowldance (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • The is an awful amount of UK-centrism, and frankly, UK chauvinism, in articles on all royals regardless of nationality, as we've now seen in this article on an American (not British) woman. Its seems to be the case that articles in this particular niche area are always titled based on what they are "officially" called in the UK, and the "rules" are always bent to suit the British POV. If an American woman who is well known in her own right as an actress marries an exceedingly minor member of the British royal family who has no prospect of ever becoming a monarch, then suddenly her own identity is erased and she becomes an appendage to her husband and his British titles. But if a minor British royal marries into the royal family of another country and occupies a much more important position there than she did in her own country, British editors insist that she must be known by the anachronistic lesser title used in the UK. One of the worst examples seems to be "Victoria, Princess Royal", as British editors have insisted on naming the article on a woman who was an Empress and a Queen, of one of the world's great powers of her time! --Tataral (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. She is now the Duchess of Sussex. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support First of all, I condemn Jimbo's preemptive move of the article as totally out of line with Wikipedia policy. The article should be preemptively moved back to the last stable title and the burden should be on the proponent's of a move to a new location to obtain a move consensus in a proper move discussion. Now I have been hearing crap about how her name is now officially Duchess of Sussex or whatever. Absolutely, totally and 100% irrelevant WP:COMMONNAME operates solely in how she is referenced in a preponderance of independent, reliable sources. Her official name is irrelevant. Just ****ing irrelevant. It is how independent, reliable sources refer to her that counts. Safiel (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
IP, your claim that no reliable source would use the name Meghan Markle is known as the no true Scotsman fallacy. As such, it isn't worth further attention. Surtsicna (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes facts are facts,and claiming they aren't is the fallacy.12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Julia Shear Kushner, "The Right to Control One's Name", UCLA Law Review 313 (2009), 324–9. The states which require a statutory name-change procedure are Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, and Oklahoma.
  2. ^ "Royal wedding 2018: Royal Family thanks public".

Question for administrator

There has been considerable discussion about this topic. Is it possible for an administrator to evaluate the ivotes and come to a conclusion?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I will go ahead and reply. First, the original move should never have taken place per the procedure explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves. There was move protection on the page to prevent undiscussed moves, and it was foreseeable that this would be a controversial change, so it should have been preceded by a move discussion. Second, once the move was objected to, the move should have been reverted to the stable title as a recent, undiscussed move that turned out not to be uncontroversial. Third, many opinions expressed in the discussion are not based on policy (Wikipedia:Article titles), naming conventions (WP:NCROY), or other relevant sections of policy and guidelines (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:TITLECHANGES, WP:OFFICIAL, etc.). The weight assigned to these comments should be low. Fourth, however, they probably won't be discounted sufficiently because the page was moved by User:Jimbo Wales, because of the heavy traffic currently at the page, and because no one will want to take the heat of a Wikipedia:Move review that is similarly likely to draw the attention of editors who are less familiar with relevant policies and conventions. My impression from reading the discussion to this point is that the close most consistent with normal operating procedure at WP:RM would be to move the page back to the stable title, Meghan Markle, and let another move discussion take place in the coming months. I just don't believe that will happen, and User:Jimbo Wales deserves something more than a trout for interfering with the standard process to little benefit, resulting in the diversion of a large number of hours of a significant cross-section of editors that could have been better spent elsewhere. Finally, move requests are closed after a week. This should stay open until the week has finished, and may take a bit longer than that because it won't be worth the pain that will be inflicted upon whoever closes it. Dekimasuよ! 20:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, Dekimasu!--–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Little did Elizabeth II realize her bestowing a title on her grandson, would create such disturbance here (as well as at Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex). -- GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Attaching undue weight to the cited policies remains a mistake.As is any move to "Meghan Markle".12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It would be a reversion to Meghan Markle, the stable title. Policy can be ignored when necessary, but it is incumbent upon the editors who wish to ignore policy to show why this would be appropriate. There may be reasons to do so, and some editors may have presented such arguments over the course of this discussion, but comments along the lines of "that is her name now," or simply "oppose" with no stated reasoning, do not reach this standard. It is not "attaching undue weight to policy" to state that, in normal circumstances, article titles should be governed by the policy appropriately called Wikipedia:Article titles. Dekimasuよ! 22:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Dekimasu, your efforts are in vain. The IP user has already stated that the British crown is above Wikipedia policies. (Yes, believe it or not.) This whole debate feels like trying to hold off a coup by fundamentalists. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you appealing to the No True Wikipedian Fallacy?12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
No. Surtsicna (talk) 08:46, 26 May 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Explanation for thread collapse

I suspect we are about to get another equally large move thread and in light of that, it seems like a good idea to collapse this massive thread. Safiel (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be counterproductive to initiate a new request days after the old one. If the issues raised are to be the same, then the comments in the just-ended discussion remain relevant, making it likely to be as difficult to gauge or reach consensus as before. Hopefully editors here can leave things be for at least a few months to give reliable secondary sources a chance to make it clear what usage they will favor. Then we will have a better opportunity to avoid the appearance of forum shopping, and we can determine what title will best coincide with WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:NCROY, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLECHANGES, WP:OFFICIAL, and other policies and guidelines that we consider when choosing article titles. Dekimasuよ! 23:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dekimasu: Actually, I do NOT support a new move discussion, at least in the immediate future. In fact, I was on the side calling for the article to be moved back to Meghan Markle. However, I thought it would be prudent to collapse the old thread, as we all know somebody is going to start a new discussion in the not too distant future. Safiel (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex/Archive_6&oldid=1137002113"