Talk:Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This article is not about any wedding

Only one sentence in the entire article is about a wedding. Everything else is about two people, not about an event, and merely repeats the information from their biographies. The article about the wedding might be warranted in the future but is now simply premature. Another premature thing is describing Markle as Harry's spouse.
Users editing articles about royals apparently have a tendency to rush things and write months in advance. We discussed that recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, when an article about a celebrity pregnancy treated its subject as a person notable from conception. In a similar fashion, this wedding is purported to be notable from the moment a ring was seen on the woman's finger, despite the fact that we have only a single sentence to write about it. Surtsicna (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: this is worth discussing. However, that the article has only limited information about the title topic would make the article a stub, but does not directly address notability. And a consensus on a single article is a local consensus, and does not necessarily apply to other articles. (As seen in how the AfD for the Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge did not dictate the far more proximal AfD for the Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge). There is no mention of "spouse" in this article, that was the Prince Harry page, so that is not relevant here (see Straw man). Also, I would suggest that the facts be discussed here, rather than the editing styles of users ("Users editing articles about royals...") (see Ad hominem). Dbsseven (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Do not get me wrong: I was not trying to apply any consensus to this situation. I never even mentioned any consensus. I did, however, draw attention to the tendency to write about things prematurely. Royalty articles have been my main area of editing since I registered in 2008. There is nothing ad hominem about referring to "users editing articles about royalty", since editing articles about royalty is not shameful. Or do you disagree?
Now, a stub is an article that is short but has the potential (i.e. enough info available around) to be expanded, right? The problem here is that there is not yet anything to write about, so it's not merely a stub. We have a single reliably sourced sentence about the wedding. Everything else that is reliably sourced is not about the wedding; anything else that is about the wedding cannot be reliably sourced because the information has not been released (and will not be released for many more months). We could spend the following months reporting tabloid speculations, but should we? I doubt it. Surtsicna (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe there is anything shameful about editing this article either. However, ad hominem has nothing to do with shame, but rather addressing the presenter rather than the content. (In this case the editorial style of the editors, rather than the content of those edits.)
I have expanded the article with additional information, with citations from the BBC and CNN. I don't believe source meets the definition of a tabloid, or are unreliable. And the facts added are more relevant in a wedding specific article than either participant's articles. (And I believe this is exactly the purpose of stub articles, to be expanded with information appropriate cited from reliable sources.) Dbsseven (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton was created long before the actual wedding itself. If we follow that precedent, then this article would have to remain intact. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The huge difference here is that your example deals with the wedding of someone who is expected to one day be crowned king of a major sovereign state. A wedding that was expected to produce a further person to be crowned king of that state. This article merely deals with the wedding some other member of that royal family.Tvx1 01:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If only. Currently it does not deal with any wedding. It's a mere placeholder. Surtsicna (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Should this article get deleted? so be it. I won't oppose an Afd. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The standard for an article is notability, usually as determined by secondary sources, not where any potential children might fall in a line of succession. And as I read/understand it, this article is a stub, being actively expanded (which is the purpose of a stub). And to the argument that this article is not about the wedding: the most comparable Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton has a highly similar structure/contents. That wedding article is clearly about the totality of events leading to and from the wedding, rather than solely the events on the day itself. It seems to me a similar scope is appropriate here. Otherwise those facts would be scattered and repeated over multiple articles (and I believe eventually merged back here). Dbsseven (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The meaning and definition of the word wedding ([1], [2]) is very clear. I have never encountered anyone who understands the English word "wedding" as encompassing the couple's lives from elementary school until the actual ceremony. The structure of Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton is thus rather silly. William's elementary school and military career and Catherine's "few distant Scottish and French Huguenot ancestors" have as much to do with their wedding as the divorce of Diana's parents and her work as dance instructor have to do with her funeral. Scattered facts repeated over multiple articles is exactly what we have here now, as literally half the article has been copied from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle (and has existed long before the engagement alone was announced). If we are going to base this article on similar articles, why not choose a more sensible model? Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles, for example. Surtsicna (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The meaning of the word wedding was never in dispute. Rather, I am trying to discuss an outline (rather than individual edits), so we can get a consensus on the scope of the article. We agree that facts shouldn't be scattered and repeated. But the related activities (before and after) would seem to be well within the scope of an article about the wedding. (ie. The definition of engagement is "the period of time when marriage is planned or promised".) This is seen both in Surtsicna's example of Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles, and in here, here, and here.

Based on current information available, I would suggest a outline/structure of: engagement, and wedding. Details of the participants not pertaining to their wedding can be moved elsewhere.Dbsseven (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Name

Should be changed to Wedding of Prince Henry and Meghan Markle. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: While "Henry" is his given name, per WP:COMMONNAME "Harry" is more appropriate. Dbsseven (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Should we at least add "of Wales" to the title? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be either "Prince Harry" (common) or "Prince Henry of Wales" (formal). "Prince Harry of Wales" is neither here nor there. Surtsicna (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

First or Second American

Would this be the first or second American to marry into the royal family? The note states that W. Simpson did not marry Edward VIII until after his abdication. However, I would think he (Edward VIII) was still a member of the royal family and therefore Markle the second American. Dbsseven (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Dbsseven (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he retained his royal title, HRH, but it was denied to his wife. The citation says she is the first biracial Jewish American and the first American welcomed into the royal family, which is slightly different to being the first American. (i.e. There was one other but she wasn't welcomed and she wasn't biracial or Jewish.) Celia Homeford (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No he lost his royal titles by the abdication and his brother (now the king) stated he was giving *him* back the style of HRH the day of the succession."Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion Do hereby declare Our Royal Will and Pleasure that Our Brother Edward having been born in the lineal succession to the Crown shall notwithstanding his said Declaration and the said Act be entitled to hold and enjoy for himself only the style title or attribute of Royal Highness so however that his wife and descendants if any shall not hold the said style title or attribute"Garlicplanting (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford:, thank you. Is there a way to clear this up a bit for readers unfamiliar with this aspect of the royal family? (ie. Does "marrying into the royal family" require you be given a royal title also? Or is the marriage itself sufficient?) I think the "welcomed" language is much clearer. Or maybe something like that if welcomed is too ill-defined. Dbsseven (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Plenty of people have married without a title (though only husbands would need one) Depending on what you meant, wives automatically gain the female version of their husbands titles (ie Princess Henry of Wales) as a matter of law with peerages and the Crown. HRH status being an exercise of pure prerogative does appear to be able to be denied by the crown but otherwise is likewise gained automatically. (there is a more complex legal argument here but now is probably not the time for this)Garlicplanting (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like someone already changed the language. Dbsseven (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Would we have a count for royalty from the New World (including Aus/NZ), the Americas, or North America? -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Title

It has been noted in the article Duke of Sussex that Prince Harry has been promised this title. Should this be included in this article? It seems as though it is a foregone conclusion. (003FX (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC))

It depends on if he will be given that title prior to the wedding or after. I do think the article name should be changed to include his real name: Wedding of Prince Henry of Wales and Meghan Markle. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The title will be issued the DAY OF the marriage. This is how it was done for his brother, uncles, grandfather... Duke of Sussex, Duke of Clarence, whatever it is, it will be issued the same day, not before nor after.--Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No the question of the Dukedom is little more than idle speculation atm. It may or may not be correct but we have no authoritative sources to justify changing anything. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the article should be titled Wedding of Prince Henry and Meghan Markle and if he gets a title, his page page should be Prince Henry, Duke of X. CookieMonster755✉ 23:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Irish Guards?

I see this regiment in the list of those associated with the wedding, but it is the only one without a citation. If there's no mention of them being there, why are they in the list? I don't know of any connection between this regiment and Prince Henry.--Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Links are easy to find (not that every single thing needs to be linked or it gets silly) www.forces.net/news/breaking-military-involvement-harry-and-megans-wedding --Garlicplanting (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Every single thing does need to be referenced. Otherwise it should be removed. Surtsicna (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Duchess

Was Markle really made a Duchess before the ceremony, or did she become one one at the point of marriage? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

She became one at marriage, according to USA Today. Shearonink (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

According to the BBC, the titles were conferred by the Queen this morning at around 9am. I definitely heard that it would happen BEFORE the wedding. It is now 2pm and this article was released 5 hours ago, stating "Now the Queen has made the royal couple the Duke and Duchess of Sussex..." – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-43953622 Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

But to be more precise, the title of Duke of Sussex was conferred on Prince Harry this morning, and the title of Duchess of Sussex was promised to Meghan at the point of marriage so she became duchess shortly after 12 noon. https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle-announcement-titles Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not how peerages work. Harry was created Duke of Sussex. Meghan is now the Duchess of Sussex by virtue of being married to the Duke of Sussex. Nothing at all was "conferred" on her or "promised" to her: she simply became a duchess automatically upon marrying a duke, like every other current duchess in the UK. Proteus (Talk) 13:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

They didn't gain their titles simultaneously. This needs to be corrected in the lede. Landbroke99 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

OK my choice of words was wrong but the point I was making was that Harry got the title this morning and Meghan got it in church! Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually the royal ref. does use the word "confer". I shall change the lead accordingly. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2018

Channel Four Television Corporation broadcast

The programme titled “When Harry Met Meghan: A Royal Romance” which was broadcasted on Saturday 12th May 2018 (exactly 1 week before the Royal Wedding) from 19:00 until 20:00 on Channel 4. The programme is a documentary about the new to-be wife of Prince Harry, showing Meghan Markle’s family history, character and life. Experts on Royalty look at interviews colleagues and friends of Meghan Markle, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s Relationship from the early stages, Meghan Markle’s parents arrival in America, and finally Meghan Markle’s family history/ancestors. The directors are: Richard Sanders, Lisa Martinson, and Edmond Buckley. The Executive Producer is Julia Harrington. The producers are: Richard Sanders, Lisa Martinson, and Edmond Buckley.

BBC Television Live broadcast

The programme titled “The Royal Wedding: They’re Getting Married in the Morning” will be broadcasted on Friday 18th May 2018 at 19:00 until 20:00. This programme will give you the new news ahead of the next day’s Royal Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. The presenters will be speaking and listening to people with key/major roles in the Royal Wedding and reporting on the preparations for the very special occassion. There will be lots of reporters reporting on updates and on the crowds that start to gather and line up on the street for the big day the following morning.The presenters of the programme will be Kirsty Young, Huw Edwards, and Dermot O'Leary. The Editor of the programme will be Claire Popplewell. The Producer of the show will be Catherine Stirk. The Executive Producer of the programme will be Sally Dixon.

ITV (TV network) broadcast

The programme titled “Invitation to a Royal Wedding” was broadcast live on 29th April 2018 at 21:00 for a duration of 60 minutes on the ITV (TV channel). The programmed showed behind scenes of other Royal Weddings, to give viewers a taste and insight into what will be a significantly memorable wedding day. The presenters of the programme were Julie Etchingham and Trevor McDonald.

The British Public will be able to watch live television coverages of the Royal Wedding Day Service of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

BBC Television Live Coverage

BBC One and the BBC News (TV Channel) will broadcast a live coverage of the Royal Wedding Day Service of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on Saturday 19th May 2018. The programme titled “The Royal Wedding: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle” will begin at 9:00 AM and will finish at 14:00. The programme will include: The Royal Wedding Ceremony at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, and the carriage procession with Soldier’s from the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment. The presenters of the programme will be Kirsty Young, Huw Edwards, and Dermot O'Leary. The Reporters of the programme will be Tina Daheley, Alex Jones (Welsh presenter), Ore Oduba, Anita Rani. The Editor of the programme will be Claire Popplewell. The Producer of the programme will be Catherine Stirk. The Executive Producer of the show will be of the programme will be Sally Dixon.

ITV (TV network) Live Coverage

ITV (TV channel) will broadcast a live coverage of the Royal Wedding Day Service of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on Saturday 19th May 2018. The programme titled “Harry and Meghan - The Royal Wedding” will begin at 9:25 AM and will finish at 15:00. The programme will include: The Royal Wedding Ceremony at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, and further important updates on the Royal Wedding Day. The Presenters of the programme will be Julie Etchingham, and Phillip Schofield. The Contributors of the programme will be Mary Nightingale, Nina Hossain, Charlotte Hawkins, Chris Ship, and Rageh Omaar. The commentator of the programme will be James Mates. The Director of the programme will be Lorna Iles. The Editor programme will be Matt Brindley. The Executive Editor of the programme will be Rachel Corp.

Sky Television Live Coverage

Sky One and the Sky News will broadcast a live coverage of the Royal Wedding Day Service of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on Saturday 19th May 2018. The programme titled “Royal Wedding Day Special” will begin at 9:00 AM and will finish at 15:00 The programme will include: The Royal Wedding Ceremony at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, and much more. The Presenters of the programme will be Kay Burley, Anna Botting, Jayne Secker, Sarah-Jane Mee, Colin Brazier, and Jonathan Samuels. During the “Royal Wedding Day Special” segment named “The Royal Wedding” commentary will be given by the Commentator Alastair Bruce of Crionaich.

BBC Television Live Broadcast

The programme titled “The Royal Wedding: Highlights of the Day” will be broadcast on BBC Two on Saturday 19th May 2018 from 19:00 until 20:30. The programme will reflect on the key moments the BBC Television’s live broadcast from the Royal Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. The programme will look back on the arrival of guests including who will be the Grandmother-in law of Meghan Markle Her Royal Highness, Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the highlights from the wedding ceremony; and the dress of the Bride Meghan Markle. The presenters will be joined by the people who witnessed the celebrations and the people who were lucky to have played significant role during the wedding ceremony. The presenters of the programme will be Kirsty Young, Huw Edwards and Dermot O'Leary. The Director will be Helen Scott. The Producer will be Glenn Barton. The Executive Producer is Steve Hocking. Amanuel56 (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please change the occurrence of "BBC ONE" in this section to match the previous "BBC One" for the sake of accuracy and consistency. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Location

I've changed 'England' to 'United Kingdom, seeing as we're using 'United Kingdom' at Prince William's wedding article. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request - Coverage

Please add the following under "Coverage":

CBC Coverage will begin at 4 a.m. EST on CBC-TV and CBC News Network hosted by Adrienne Arsenault, who will be joined by Peter Mansbridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landbroke99 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

References

 Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ululation

Mention of the ululation that greeted the couple at the West Door was sadly lacking from the official BBC commentary by Huw Edwards. But I'm glad to see that Malineo Motsephe made the South Wales Argus: [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sinn Féin objection to Irish TV coverage

Should this article devote a whole paragraph to the Sinn Féin objection to the Irish TV coverage of the wedding? I didn't think so, but my removal of it was reverted. What do others think? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that one paragraph is too much, but a few sentences would actually be reasonable. I guess we just need to mention that some individuals and groups opposed the broadcast of the marriage service. Keivan.f^Talk 21:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

chapel, NOT abbey

It says "Guests starting arriving at the abbey." It should be "started arriving at the Chapel," as St. George's Chapel is a chapel, NOT an abbey; you're confusing it with Henri's brother Willy's wedding, which was at Westminster Abbey. Change. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Has now been corrected, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Michael Curry

I believe the article needs to talk about the sermon given by Michael Curry as it was very noteworthy and also somewhat controversial. - dimkadimon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:272:5700:6D3D:6C84:30F8:4030 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I wholly agree. This was one of the most notable aspects of the entire ceremony. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with 2001 & Martin - Certainly noteworthy. –Davey2010^Talk 19:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

There is more detail at Michael Curry (bishop). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for the Titles section

The last sentence in the "Titles" section presently reads:

Hours before the wedding, Prince Harry was was granted the titles [[Duke of Sussex]], [[Earl of Dumbarton]], and [[Baron Kilkeel]], and with Markle assumed the style, "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex" upon the marriage.<ref name="Sussex" />

I have highlighted the four areas that need to be changed, the duplication of "was", the unnecessary comma and "the," and implication that Harry assumed the style Her Royal Highness (as if he was not already styled HRH). A corrected version would be something like:

Hours before the wedding, Prince Harry was granted the titles [[Duke of Sussex]], [[Earl of Dumbarton]], and [[Baron Kilkeel]], and consequently Markle assumed the style "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex" upon marriage.<ref name="Sussex" />

125.168.41.242 (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Already done NiciVampireHeart 13:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

List of guests

Would a list of the guests for this event be possible? I'd be happy to start such a list, but if comprehensive (600 in the chapel) it would include more people without Wikipedia articles than for the most recent weddings to spawn such a list: List of wedding guests of Prince William and Catherine Middleton (does not appear to include all 1900 on the official list) and List of wedding guests of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer (does not appear to include all 3500 on the official list). Maybe it would make more sense to start with the 70 guests seated in the quire (choir)? Oh, and going another generation further back, the list of guests for the wedding of the current monarch is part of the article: Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh. Carcharoth (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I had assumed all the guests in the choir area would have articles, but there are several close family friends and minor royals with no articles. Samuel Chatto. Arthur Chatto. Amanda Ward (widow of Harry's godfather Gerald Ward). Jack Brooksbank redirects to his fiancee. Emilie Van Cutsem is the widow of Hugh van Cutsem. And so on. So maybe a list is less useful than it might seem. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's nonsense. There should be a list.217.92.235.144 (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

But we dont really need an arbitary list in the main article with a vague inclusion criteria, a lot of the 600 in the chapel have wikipedia articles so are noteworthy in wiki terms but such a list would overwhelm the article. You either list all of those noteworthy in a separate list or dont bother. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course you should do a separate list with all known attendents regardless if they have an article or not.217.92.235.144 (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Relevance

Why is this on the news in Wikipedia? It isn't important or noteworthy at all. Royal families all over the world get married all the time. The fact tabloid media is interested in this doesn't mean Wikipedia should be also.Rosa 07:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Other royals getting married dont get the size of non-tabloid coverage that exists or nearly 2 billion tv audience. MilborneOne (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realise monarchy was quite so ubiquitous. They must be exhausted. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing that more than 2k looked at The Lord bless you and keep you, just because it was performed at that wedding tells me there's interest.

Rosa - just be thankful the news media seems to be tapering off coverage of this silly non-event, and hopefully by Monday we'll be back on hard news and real issues/topics of importance on Wiki. 50.111.48.95 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I am thankful to read about a wedding instead of another desaster. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

News is what people want to hear about: not all people, but enough people to justify publishing it. A great many people are interested in the royal family and in a royal wedding - certainly enough to justify a good level of news coverage. If it only counted as news when everyone was interested in it, very little would be published at all: plenty of people have no interest in politics, or sport. Wymspen (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A B-rated actress marries a guy who will never be king. World stands in awe Rosa 22:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The world probably stood in awe, that is why the ceremony was watched by millions. Just because you're not interested in a topic doesn't mean that it should necessarily be unimportant. Keivan.f^Talk 01:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite. Wikipedia's role is to describe a significant historic event in a factual, dispassionate manner. WP:NPOV has no place for republican (or for that matter royalist) commentary. Cnbrb (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

How do we know he will "never be king", exactly? I think he has a slightly better chance than me (and quite a few others). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. you could have put "divorced mixed-race woman marries guy with a ginger beard"? or would that be too gingeriest?

Red links

I ask whoever keeps removing red links from this article to read WP:Red link; and to cease doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that per the guidelines "it is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." Are you going to create separate articles for those subjects? By the way, I don't understand why Alexi Lubomirski should necessarily be an important figure. He has merely taken some engagement photographs. That doesn't establish notability. Keivan.f^Talk 02:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

He's a known international photographer. Notability not a issue here. I'm trying to assume good faith.Garlicplanting (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not required to create anything; and your lack of understanding is not a reason for removing red links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You are apparently the one who doesn't understand the guidelines clearly. Adding red links to the page when you think you're not either required to create articles or unable to establish notability for them is pointless. Keivan.f^Talk 15:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I can find no requirement for an editor to add these pages. WP:WTAF says that editors are encouraged to follow up a red link by creating an article, but that's about it. In fact removing red links is discouraged as they are seen as a good thing, as outlined in WP:REDLINK. The only question here is whether Wikipedia should have an article on the linked subject or not. A quick search on Wikipedia suggests that Alexi Lubomirski may have a substantial enough body of work to merit an article - so perhaps someone wants to write an article about him? Cnbrb (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

...and there you go, someone has created an article about the photographer, so he's not a red link any more. That's the whole idea of WP:REDLINK. Thank you. Cnbrb (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Divorcee?

The article states, in connection to Meghan Markle, "The Anglican Church no longer denies marriage to divorced persons with a living spouse." Does this mean Ms. Markle is divorced? If so, odd that the article doesn't mention it directly. 2601:644:1:B7CB:513:11CA:7A7B:5B2D (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As stated in her article, she was previously divorced. Greyjoy ^talk 07:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems worth mentioning in this article since it's apparently relevant (given the sentence quoted above). 2601:644:1:B7CB:3CB0:116E:A02F:8EAD (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done The article now says: "Although Markle is divorced, since 2002 the Anglican Church no longer denies marriage to divorced persons with a living spouse." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. it doesn't deny it to those who have divorced and whose spouse has died, but I'm not sure if that has always been the case. (p.p.s. Meghan's state is no longer "divorced" so maybe that should say "Although Markle was divorced"?)

Thanks Martinevans123 I have changed it to 'was'. Melcous (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Markle's baptism

Markle was not a baptised Catholic, and that is what the source says, although our article currently says she "did not identify as Catholic". Membership in the Church is something you don't "identify", it is based on baptism, so why don't we reflect what the source has to say? It would also serve to explain why she was baptised Anglican, because if she had been a baptised, non-"identifying" Catholic, it wouldn't have been necessary. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The Queen is the head of the Anglican Church - it could be because Prince Harry is a close family member of hers. Additionally, Catholic schools accept limited numbers of students who aren't Catholic. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so what does that have to do with our need to conform with the facts in the source? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps more sources need to be consulted. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that current The Daily Telegraph source says quite clearly: "She attended a Catholic school in Los Angeles but is Protestant." The original source for the baptism and confirmation, howewer, is attributed to our favorite Daily Mail. I'm not sure how relevant her baptism into the Catholic Church may have been. I think the intention of the baptism and confirmation by Justin Welby was for her to become a member of the Anglican Church before the wedding. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think she was ever baptised as a Catholic, and there aren't any citations saying she was. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

She was not: the Anglicans would not have baptised her if she was; and here is a source which says she was not. [4] 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think what you may have meant to say was "the Anglicans would not have needed to baptise her if she had been"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, or "...been able to"... 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The NYT says that she was brought up Protestant, but was not baptised as a child. Kate also chose to be confirmed prior to her marriage. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Crowd at Windsor

The number of spectators planned for in Windsor was 100,000 e.g. [5]. What was the actual number? Shouldn't this be added? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Image

I think this article really needs an image. It should be an image about Megan and Prince Harry at the Windsor Castle on that day. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright-free images seem to be very scarce. Although SmugMug might have some here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that almost the images the world is familiar with emanate from the BBC coverage and so, the BBC would own the rights to those... Shearonink (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... I agree. But if the only most familiar image would be the BBC stuffs, then unfortunately that would be the only option to show such an image using fair use in order to make a complete article. :( But fortuntely, if we even have the most recognizable image as the main wedding area at the event, regardless of who own or not, then provided we have good fair use we can add the image onto the article. :) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, did we ever have any 100% permissions (as in not requiring the "fair use" Wikipedia policies) from BBC to post their images to Wikipedia before? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

My main point about mentioning the BBC is that when I searched for images of the wedding online almost Every. Single. One. was a screen-cap of the BBC live-feed etc. even when it was not labeled as such. I leave the issues of fair-use/Wikipedia/images/copyright to those around here more-experienced in such matters. Shearonink (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A good place to search is search.creativecommons.org for Flickr and Google images - more images may appear as photographers upload pictures (but beware of people falsely tagging things as Creative Commons when they just nick stills off TV programmes). Using BBC images will not pass Fair Use unfortunately. Hopefully more photos will appear at the Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on Commons. I did put a Commons link into the article but it was reverted, now it's been re-inserted.Cnbrb (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The chapel footage was a pool camera provided free to all broadcaster so I would assume that any caption from that raw feed is free to use.Garlicplanting (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In rights, never assume anything! In the broadcast industry, pooled news/sport feeds usually have a time-limited rights period where it can be used by broadcasters who have signed up to a joint agreement. Often copyright reverts to a particular broadcaster after a period of weeks. In essence, it's not as simple as a free-for all, it's actually quite a complex area, and in any case, Wikipedia is not a broadcaster and does not have the right to use any of the images from BBC, Sky, ITN or any other. Wikipedia can really only rely on editors uploading their own photos to Commons with a suitable CC licence - something that nobody has done yet.Cnbrb (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You would think that Wikipedians could organise themselves to actually send someone there to take photos. Admittedly, it might have been difficult to get in a good position on the day, or get access to some locations. But hopefully not all potential Wikipedian photographers were either watching on TV or editing Wikipedia (at home). Actually, if I had been more organised, I would have gone, being only a short train ride from Windsor... Oh well. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be nice! but keep an eye on Flickr - sometimes people upload photos after a few days that have CC licences. Just need to wait a while. Cnbrb (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The order of service says "Photography, video, and sound recording equipment are not permitted in the Chapel" (page 1). This might prevent us using images taken by guests in the chapel, even if they were posted with a free licence. However, there is a good change that freely-licenced images of the procession through the streets of Windsor can be found, possibly of the couple in the coach after the wedding. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably about right. The photos of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton on Commons are a reasonably good selection along those lines. We'd just need to wait until someone uploads something suitable for the 2018 do. Unfortunately, it's a waiting game. Cnbrb (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In 2011, there still have more people to use Flickr, but in recent years, most of the people only share their photos on Instagram or Facebook. But these platform don’t have free content. The only way is we need to attract more people to participate/contribute in Wikipedia, especially upload the photos with good quality.--Wpcpey (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're desperate, there's a very convincing reconstruction of the procession at Legoland Windsor! Cnbrb (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a scandal. No ginger beard! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC) ... the first Royal Wedding beard in 125 years apparently!

Oh well, I think it's safe to say that no-one is going to provide a free image that can be used. After a month, no Creative Commons photos have surfaced on Flickr or anywhere else. It's possible we may be able to use a non-free photo under fair use - will have to source something suitable, probably a non-news agency photo of the parade in Windsor. Cnbrb (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I think a fair use claim may not stand up, with the number of people present then free images will exist, the fact we cant find them is not a defence to claim fair use. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I've tried CCsearch to no avail. Any other free image sources you can recommend? Cnbrb (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Because you cant find it doesnt mean they dont exist, you need a pretty strong argument for fair use. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Combined Coat of Arms of Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex

The image File:Combined Coat of Arms of Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.svg has been added as the lead image appears to be unreferenced and home made - not something we should be using. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Have self-reverted - I added it in good faith thinking it was a genuinely researched image, but am unable to validate it so have removed it for now. User:ElSeñorDeLaNoche originated the file and may wish to comment. Cnbrb (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hum there are other "combined" coats of arms used in royalty articles all of them appear to be home made without reliable sourcing! MilborneOne (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to take it up with the originators of those images - you'll find them all on commons:Category:Coats of arms of the Royal Family of the United Kingdom. I'm not a heraldic authority so unable to comment. Cnbrb (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018

Please add as guests Dean Stott and Alana Stott friends of the groom.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/13/prince-harrys-friend-cycles-across-america-world-record-time/ Alanastott (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Hi Alana. This article only includes those people who are really notable (i.e. have their own article), but I have added the names to the child article, List_of_wedding_guests_of_Prince_Harry_and_Meghan_Markle#Friends_of_Prince_Harry_and_Meghan_Markle. Fish+Karate 10:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"Secret wedding"

Before anyone re-adds the juicy titbit about the "secret wedding", know that the evidence is largely stacked against it. There's a debunking source from the Telegraph but it's behind a paywall, so here are the relevant details from the Mirror: nobody from the C of E, let alone the Archbishop of Canterbury, can officiate a wedding off church property in a "backyard", there need to be witnesses (I'm strongly inclined to believe this goes for every wedding in British law) and there must be public access to the building to allow anyone's objections to the wedding. This story violates just about every rule for a C of E wedding, let alone a wedding under wider British law. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It's verifiable that the couple say that they had a secret wedding / private ceremony and there are reliable sources that claim it could not have been a wedding in the legal sense. Just cover the topic using WP:RS. Greenshed (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

So, don't call it a "legal wedding" or a "legal marriage". Did anyone ever talk about "legal" anything in the interview? Nonetheless, it is apparently perfectly legal in the UK to have any kind of "commitment ceremony" you want, anywhere, anytime, with anyone in attendance or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Unknown Temptation: Removing any mention of it entirely was not the solution. It was poor practice for you to have done that. SecretName101 (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nationality

The article says "whether she will retain dual nationality has not yet been made". But the source for that is from 2017. What has happened, if anything, since then? This does not seem to be dealt with at all over at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, where she is described just as "American". Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's something from the UK tabloid Daily Mirror from 2018: [6]. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop perpetuating full-blown censorship

She said she "got married" and anyone changing that section is literally assisting her in rewriting her history. You can google "Meghan Markle we got married" and there are countless news articles quoting her words verbatim as well as the original interview itself which has been conveniently wiped from most of the internet. I refuse to support this blatant censorship. 173.35.240.92 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to make it clear that's what she said/thought, even though she was wholly mistaken. In my opinion, just adding quotation marks isn't enough. I'm not "censoring" anything. And the articles are not "countless" - you can count them, including all the tabloids. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Official acknowledgment of the relationship, 8/11/16

A statement was released from the royal family's communications secretary addressing the "wave of abuse and harassment" directed toward Markle.

This is referenced by ‘A Statement by the Communications Secretary to Prince Harry’ - clearly briefed by Harry (and by implication, Meghan). I don’t think that this source should be classified as ‘the royal family's communications secretary’, as it is worded in the article. Valetude (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Stating the "family's communications secretary" is misleading, as the queen has a different one to Charles, the Middletons have another etc. Sure they communicate, as is frequently necessary, but they all have different communications secretaries. SSSB (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

...and not just a careless slip, I reckon! Valetude (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)