Talk:Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Law Commission report

"The Law Commission, which has been examining marriage law for several years, published its final report in July 2022. It found that register office ceremonies involving a member of the royal family were "non-qualifying ceremonies" (i.e. they have no legal effect). It also found that no marriage ceremony had ever been declared void for lack of witnesses, adding that the making of any such declaration would be illegal. Finally, it ruled that the royal family is still subject to the same marriage law that applied to everyone until 1754."

• I have moved the above section here from the article for further vetting. The actual report, appears to be at https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2022/07/A-new-weddings-law-LC-report.pdf . So, the cite given seems wrong and we would need page numbers, and what is the relevance? The major finding of the report appears to be marriage law in England and Wales is confusing, out-dated, and needs to be changed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's completely irrelevant as far as I can make out and I can't find the content in the citation. There's one footnote on the royal family that seems to be talking about exemption from banns. Celia Homeford (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that the report itself be used in the Marriage in England and Wales article, if someone wants to make actual very good use of it, for history and for today. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This looks like an attempt to claim that the private vows they had with the arch-bishop was the official wedding. However, the entirety of the relevant section renders this text (the relevance is based on WP:OR) completely moot. SSSB (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

An earlier commenter pointed out that the article appeared to display prejudice against Meghan, and here we are again. The National Archives, no less, confirm that these private weddings were valid, and she said at the time "This can be independently verified, (i.e. Lambeth)." Maybe an extended quote will put the validity "beyond doubt" (as Lord Falconer claimed that his argument, such as it was, did for Charles' ceremony). So I propose adding the following to the quote:

"These marriages, though, were not just for the, the dubious people at the bottom rungs of society. Sometimes they, they could be quite popular with people at all levels of society, and that includes people with, with very very wealthy people, titled people, and they were not always up to no good. It wasn't always somebody duping somebody rich and famous into marrying them for their property. Sometimes it was just, it could be two people whose families did not particularly approve of that match who wanted to arrange for them to marry something more dynastically suitable, and they could run away there, and I suppose it must have had a certain amount of cachet, it was just so much more racy and exciting than going through the whole rigmarole of the big society wedding, and it was a really good way of irritating your parents, and that's always been very popular with, with people. And why did they use the Fleet and its, its near relations? It was quick. This is a two-edged sword, because, "Marry in haste, repent at leisure" didn't become a saying for no reason at all. It was cheap. It was cheap, well the whole point of it, or one of the points of it, it was cheaper than paying to marry in church. So that was a big attraction. And it was private. Now that didn't necessarily mean that you had something to hide, but anybody who has ever been married or been involved closely with somebody planning to get married will know that almost everybody gets to the point where they think "I just want to run away and get married somewhere really quietly. I've had enough of all this wedding planning, etcetera, etcetera," and to a certain extent I'm sure that has always been the case, even if it's not the big all-singing, all-dancing Bridezilla sort of wedding that some people go for nowadays, the fact that all of your friends and family are putting their oar in, generally interfering, telling you what you want and what's best for you, you, you really can have enough of that. So the fact that it was private, we just want to be married, we don't want all the rigmarole, that seems to me like a perfectly good reason for getting married somewhere nice and basic and no frills. If we've got any money, let's spend it on something nice and sensible like a house and new carpets, not on a great big party for a lot of people we don't like."

The Law Commission report, like every family law professor who has ever written on the subject, agrees wholeheartedly.

Page x states:

"Non-qualifying ceremony": a ceremony that results in a marriage that is neither a valid nor a void marriage because the wedding ceremony did not comply with the required formalities under the law."

Page 5 states, at paragraph 1.19:

"The canon law of the Church of England had long governed weddings, but although it directed weddings to be preceded by certain preliminaries, they were not essential to the validity of a marriage...However, the weddings of Jews and Quakers were excepted,⁹ and left unregulated by the law..."

9 Weddings of members of the royal family were also excepted.

Thus, because the statute law has no applicability to the royal family, register office ceremonies involving them are what the report categorises as "Non-qualifying ceremonies."

On page 7, in paragraph 1.25 (summarising the existing law) the report says:

"For example, there are no universal requirements for who must attend a wedding other than the couple."

Paragraph 1.26 says:

"Anglican weddings must generally take place in a church or public chapel, but exceptionally can take place anywhere on the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury..."

On page 12, paragraph 1.39(5) says:

"Weddings can take place in any type of location, with venues not subject to any pre-approval process. Anglican clergy...conduct religious weddings;"

Paragraph 4.95 on page 128 says:

"Under the current law, Anglican clergy - referred to in the legislation as Clerks in Holy Orders - are automatically authorised to conduct weddings in England and Wales."

Paragraph 4.97 on page 129 says:

"...all Anglican clergy, by virtue of their orders and regardless of whether or not they are incumbents, parochial clergy, chaplains, retired or in secular employment, are currently authorised to officiate at weddings."

Members of the royal family can be married whenever and wherever they choose by Anglican clergymen. Far from the law infringing their human rights (as Lord Falconer claimed) it emancipates them over the rest of the population. This the report confirms at paragraph 6.13(2) on page 227:

"The law is silent about where Jewish and Quaker weddings can take place. They are legally permitted to take place anywhere, in any type of location: they can therefore be held in places of worship, but also in hotels, outdoors in parks and gardens, on beaches and in fields, and in private homes."

As royal weddings are in the same position as Jewish and Quaker weddings (vide para. 1.19 above), the same applies to them. Jews and Quakers, however, are not specifically banned from having register office weddings if they want them - the only people who are banned (under public policy? the sovereign is the Supreme Temporal Governor of the Church of England) are the royal family.

Paragraph 9.4 on page 289 states:

"...while successive statutes have required the presence of witnesses, their absence has never rendered a marriage void."

Paragraph 9.59 on page 300 states:

"Few consultees noted that the absence of witnesses does not invalidate a marriage under the current law."

The Archbishop of Canterbury and his minions are perfectly aware of this - therefore SSSB's claim that "the entirety of the relevant section" negates the truth of the additional sourcing abets the cover-up. Wikipedia is not in the business of suppressing truth because certain actors face jail if it comes out.

The fact that Charles and Camilla have been suppressing the truth for eighteen years is neither here nor there. Paragraph 9.105 on page 307 of the report states:

"The Court of Appeal in Attorney General v Akhter⁴⁹ has now made it clear that the passage of time does not validate a non-qualifying ceremony."

49 [2020] EWCA Civ 122, [2020] 2 WLR 1183.

On the same page, paragraph 9.107 states:

"The presumption in favour of the validity of the ceremony arises because the likelihood is that the ceremony was valid, not because lengthy cohabitation corrects an invalid ceremony."

Note 55 on page 311 states:

Recent research shows that almost half the population still mistakenly believe that cohabitation results in a common-law marriage conferring the same rights as a legal marriage:

Paragraph 9.124 on page 312 states:

"Further, a couple do not become married by holding themselves out to be married."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7c:38c1:3600:7848:d2fe:9525:f3da (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless you can quote the either, the part of the report that mentions the wedding of Megan and Harry, or quote someone (a reliable a secondary source) who links the report and the wedding like you did, this is WP:OR.

Secondly, the only part of Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle#Preceding private ceremony this contradicts is "...both of which require at least two witnesses."

Thirdly, I haven't read the full article, but Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle#Preceding private ceremony is not guilty of "prejudice against Meghan", it only points out that Meghan said something which wasn't completely accurate (something even admitted by them through their spokesperson). If you read the section without bias or prejudice, the conclusion is you reach is that Meghan considered them to be married through the private ceremony, but they weren't officially married till the televised ceremony.

Finally, your proposed addition to the article is unduly long. SSSB (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, The coverage was largely meant to be "negative" because some people got into a probably malicious and generally "gotcha" snit about it. She said "marriage" and some just had to say 'oh no you are so wrong or stupid, if not a liar' -- when nothing about the context of the statement says she was speaking as a lawyer or about legal marriage.

Indeed, in the actual context, she emphatically was not talking about the law or legal marriage. But that does not make the report relevant (as opposed to the strange reaction) indeed it makes the law report generally not relevant. That 'the law's an ass' is an old saying (the Commission recognized the 'law's an ass' and not actually of personal meaning to many couples) but that does not really need to be said here. (unless a new source makes a direct connection) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

On a talk page, you are of course permitted to make unsourced claims. However, as a matter of courtesy, when asked to substantiate them you should do so. Our article Attack on Paul Pelosi links to a claim that the defendant committed a "politically motivated crime". The article links the crimes he was charged with (the charges do not mention any statutes) to articles on certain statutes contained within the Californian criminal code. Now, your argument that Meghan's statement that she "got married" on 16 May 2018 cannot be referenced to the law on royal marriages or a law report referencing the law on royal marriages because neither the law nor the report mentions Meghan by name is exactly analogous to arguing that the Californian penal statutes cannot be referenced in an article about David DePape because they do not mention him by name. The fact that you argue that Wikipedia permits the link in one case but not the other demonstrates your prejudice against Meghan.

We take the point that the quote from the podcast is overly long and would suggest trimming it as follows:

"In the podcast the archivist explains why "very wealthy, titled people" married privately. It could be because the "families did not particularly approve of that match" and "it was a really good way of irritating your parents." Also, 'anybody who has ever been married or been involved closely with somebody planning to get married will know that almost everybody gets to the point where they think "I just want to run away and get married somewhere really quietly. I've had enough of all this wedding planning..."'. She observes: "So the fact that it was private, we just want to be married, we don't want all the rigmarole," and concludes "not on a great party for a lot of people we don't like."

The same applies to Alanscottwalker's argument, which is that when, for example, a woman filing for divorce swears an affidavit that she "married" on a certain date the petition must be denied because she adduced no evidence that she was "legally married" on that date. You argue that the report found that that the law is "not actually of personal meaning to many couples." Given the heartbreak caused to many women who thought they were married only to discover they were not would you like to pinpoint the paragraph where the report reaches that conclusion? Then you infer that if a woman proves her case all is to no avail "unless a new source makes a direct connection". That is not how the law works. Judges can affirm facts on a single piece of uncorroborated evidence if they believe the witness's testimony. The only legal restriction on giving a verdict on the basis of uncorroborated evidence is that "no person can be convicted of an offence solely on the basis of the testimony of a single witness." In fact, Meghan's evidence was corroborated by her husband, and they know more about royal marriage law than most, if not all, newspaper hacks and Wikipedia editors.

When Meghan stated she "got married" the onus then fell on the editors who say in Wikipedia's voice that she was lying to produce evidence proving that she was lying, and this they have conspicuously failed to do. 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:806D:E353:52B6:75DB (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No. We need a reliable source to make the connection between this wedding and this report. It won't go in otherwise. (Also, no such thing was inferred; and you have already been given the sources for the statements above, -- "meaningful" is in the report more than 50 times, the disconnect between wedding law and what couples find meaningful is throughout the report). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This is your own personal view. Not only is there no policy supporting what you claim, consensus is against you. The cited sources for the allegation say in Wikipedia's voice that the sixth in line to the throne and his wife are liars. The actual wording of the offending passage is "this was not an official or legally recognized marriage, both of which require at least two witnesses." The actual wording of the source is "Additionally, two witnesses are required at any marriage, in church or otherwise." So according to you, a comment by an unqualified journalistic hack citing no sources which makes no reference to this wedding but is speaking generally is acceptable but a comment by Government family law professors which speaks specifically of royal weddings and gives detailed citations to statute and case law is not acceptable. Moreover, you insist on telling the readers that any ceremony with fewer than two witnesses is null and void while the Government family law professors, again quoting statute and case law, say that no witnesses are required for any wedding, whether royal or otherwise. So who should the readers believe, the legally qualified experts or you? 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:24B8:B87C:6023:963E (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. The two sources in the article are all about this very wedding, (also, the consensus is clearly against adding this report) if there is some modification to that sentence that should be made, propose that edit. I doubt "two witnesses" need to be mentioned in this article at all, but that's a different edit entirely. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Explain to me how the sources can relate to this wedding (and no other) when they clearly state that they relate to all weddings. How can a source which does not mention this wedding relate to it? 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:64E5:D755:7B39:A4E9 (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I don't know what you are talking about. Someone else may come along to help you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can't understand plain English it's hardly worth continuing the discussion. 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:64E5:D755:7B39:A4E9 (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Regardless, I am sure that is not the problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, discussion over as there is no problem. I'll be preparing an edit on that basis shortly. 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:64E5:D755:7B39:A4E9 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

And that edit will be reverted because you continue to fail to understand wikipedia's rules against WP:Original research. Unless a reliable source (so not you) connects what law proffessors say to this wedding, it is original research and therefore cannot be added. The reason Attack on Paul Pelosi can mention the penal codes is because reliable sources have connected the penal codes to the attack. As the law on royal marriages or a law report referencing the law on royal marriages do not mention this marriage, and no reliable source has connected to this marriage by reliable sources, it is original research - becuase you (someone who cannot be verified as reliable, or an expert, or anything other than human) are the only person to connect the two.

The same applies to Alanscottwalker's argument, which is that when, for example, a woman filing for divorce swears an affidavit that she "married" on a certain date the petition must be denied because she adduced no evidence that she was "legally married" on that date. - that's not his argument.

Then you infer that if a woman proves her case all is to no avail "unless a new source makes a direct connection". That is not how the law works. - no, it is not how the law works. But it is how Wikipedia works, and Wikipedia is not the law.

Meghan's evidence was corroborated by her husband, and they know more about royal marriage law than most - this is wild conjecture. Just because he is a royal doesn't mean he knows the law about royal weddings. He doesn't spend his time reading about the laws which govern royals.

I still don't see how the law on royal marriages is relevant, becuase no-one is maintaining the claim that they were legally married in private. Above you said "Further, a couple do not become married by holding themselves out to be married." Equally, a couple do not become married just because they exchanged vows in front of someone who is allowed to perform weddings. And a couple do not become married just because they consider themselves to be married. And the fact that the private ceremony could have been a legal wedding is not relevant when you consider that no-one is maintaining the claim that it was legal.

Finally, you keep accusing this article of accusing Meghan of lying about the 16 May private ceremony. We don't. The only way you could reach that conclusion is if you read it with the prejudice that this article is biased against Meghan. At worst, we suggest Meghan was mistaken about the legal status of the private ceremony. But as I have said several times before, I interpret Meghan's coments as being: we conisdered ourselves married three days before, when we made personal vows. Not: we were married three days before. SSSB (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

There is so much that is wrong with this analysis. Let's take the points one by one. First, Meghan said:

You know, three days before our wedding, we got married.

You say you "interpret Meghan's comments as being:

...Not: we were married three days before"

In the legal context, which is what you are arguing here, there is a rule that words are to be assigned their normal and obvious meaning, unless the context indicates otherwise. If the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation. Meghan's ten words brook no interpretation other than the obvious one, so please explain the thought processes that led you to conclude she meant the exact opposite of what she said. 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:E419:4DD1:FAC7:6222 (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The context does indicate otherwise. Namely the context provided post-interview by their spokesperson, the archbishop who married them and their wedding certificate. All three of which are discussed in the article. SSSB (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The way the legal system works is that facts are decided according to the evidence. Meghan has stated that she asked the archbishop to conduct a wedding ceremony, he did so, and vows were exchanged before him in the mutual knowledge that this would create a legal marriage. Meghan is a reliable source for that. I agree, and before you castigate my opinion as being rubbish let me tell you that I am legally qualified, having studied law and passed the relevant examinations. The archbishop has chosen not to give evidence (surprise, surprise) and the spokesperson has no evidence to give, not having been present. Case closed, but I would make two further observations. The "Attack on Paul Pelosi" article does not support your case, it destroys it. The article notes:

NBC News retracted a story which relied on anonymous source [sic] who said that Paul Pelosi gave police no indication he was in danger when he answered the door, after it became clear the source's account was incorrect and unreliable.

You are aware that the sourcing which you, and you alone, support so vigorously, that claims categorically that the 16 May ceremony was invalid is incorrect and unreliable because you admit

the private ceremony could have been a legal wedding

yet you aggressively state that the forthcoming edit

will be reverted

The root cause of all this is Charles and Camilla's fake wedding. Watch [1] which reveals the spiralling havoc this has caused. 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:DDBC:AA4:20F9:3331 (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The way the legal system works is that facts are decided according to the evidence. - irrelevant. This isn't a legal document, it is an encylopedic article.

I am legally qualified, having studied law and passed the relevant examinations. - meaningless, as there is no way for you to prove this. You could be lying to push your personal agenda (if you really are a liar you'll notice I said "could", I am not personally accusing you of anything).

The archbishop has chosen not to give evidence - he has given evidence. He is quoted as saying "The legal wedding was on the Saturday."[2]

the spokesperson has no evidence to give, not having been present. - the spokesperson was briefed by Harry and Meghan - being their spokesperson. Therefore, anything they say can be considered evidence presented by the couple, for the purposes of an encylopedia at least. Unless you have specific evidence that they lied about the date of the wedding. If this was the case, the comment would surely have been retracted.

...vows were exchanged before him in the mutual knowledge that this would create a legal marriage. - WP:PROVEIT because there is more evidence against this, than there is for it. The spokesperson, archbishop and wedding certifcate.

The "Attack on Paul Pelosi" article does not support your case, it destroys it. - no, it neither detroys nor supports it. Please see WP:WHATABOUT. If you have a problem with Attack on Paul Pelosi, I suggest you take it to Talk:Attack on Paul Pelosi.

You are aware that the sourcing which you, and you alone, support so vigorously, that claims categorically that the 16 May ceremony was invalid - the only sentence which suggests a 16 May ceremony would be invalid as a wedding is "The Church of England sources clarified that this was not an official religious or legally recognized marriage, both of which require at least two witnesses." At no point in this thread have I defended that sentence. The only parts that I am defending are the parts which argue the wedding was an informal ceremony between the couple, not that it wouldn't have been legal or official had they intended it to be so.

yet you aggressively state that the forthcoming edit "will be reverted" - that's because it would be WP:OR. The test is simply. If you are personally the one making the argument (rather than just reporting it), then it is WP:OR. You are personally making the legal argument that is was official, you are therefore engaging in WP:OR. Then there is the added complication that the claim the legal wedding was in private is not supported, not even by the couple following their admittance (via their spokesperson) that the private ceremony was neither official not legal (as dicussed in the article).

The root cause of all this is Charles and Camilla's fake wedding. - relevance? SSSB (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

As to my academic qualifications, I acquired them at the Examination Schools in Merton Street, Oxford on 3 April 1969. You say the couple have admitted

(via their spokesperson) that the private ceremony was neither legal nor official

We agree that it was not official, but what is the basis of your claim that the spokesperson has said it was not legal either? Be aware that we already have consensus that inline citations [¹⁸¹] and [¹⁸²] are false. Last night I picked up a book, Abdication, by Juliet Nicolson (Bloomsbury, London, 2013, ISBN 978 1 4088 3093 2). I will read it avidly. That was a bone of contention between Meghan and the now discredited source Camilla Tominey of the Daily Telegraph. When Meghan said "Archie reads voraciously" Camilla transformed that into "Archie re-reads books voraciously" [3]. She has an agenda, basically sucking up to Camilla Parker Bowles [4]. 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:9031:7396:852E:8624 (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Even I fell for Camilla's lies! Meghan didn't say Archie "reads voraciously" (he's only two years old). She said "He has a voracious appetite for books." 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:9031:7396:852E:8624 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

What's your basis for the claim that it wasn't legal? The source that cites that sentence in the article. If you have reason to doubt that the quote was accuratly taken, provide the evidence, because I don't see any reason that we should doubt the reliability.

But lets not forget that even if the spokesperson had said nothing at all (or hadn't mentioned that the private ceremony was [not] legal) this wouldn't invalidate the other evidence: the arch-bishop's comments, the wedding certificate and the comments made by the person who drew up their special license (this isn't mentioned in the article, possibly due to it being considered WP:UNDUE to list that too, or as an oversight.)

I also think it beyond dubious that Harry and Meghan wouldn't have clarified their spokesperson comments (or had their spokesperson do it for them) if they discovered they had been misquoted - I would also be dubious at a claim that they wouldn't have noticed if their spokesperson had been misquoted. SSSB (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say this, but it's becoming painfully obvious that you have no legal qualifications whatsoever (your resumé/curriculam vitae, Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics, confirms this). Do you think you could pipe down and leave this discussion to people who know what they are talking about? To recap, cases are decided on EVIDENCE. Evidence is what people give when they go into the witness box, take the oath, and describe what they saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears. Speculation as to the legal effect of what they saw and heard, as indulged in by the archbishop (and, according to you by the spokesperson) is LEGAL ARGUMENT, which is something very different. If you want to speculate here that the spokesperson engaged in legal argument then you have, as a bare minimum, to cite here (within quotation marks) what the spokesperson actually said, not what Camilla Tominey (without the use of quotation marks) writes by way of paraphrase. A piece of paper (like a forged wedding certificate) cannot speak and therefore cannot give evidence. It can be used as a prop (by archbishops, for example), to advance a legal argument.

You allege that I argued that the private ceremony wasn't legal. That is the exact opposite of my argument. You then speculate why Stephen Borton, the guy who actually wrote the licence in collaboration with the archbishop, doesn't feature in the article. Probably because he published a photograph of the licence which states on the face of it that the pre-1754 law applies to royal weddings. 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:755C:19B4:CB4F:F8BA (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you think you could pipe down and leave this discussion to people who know what they are talking about? - I should be saying that to you. This is Wikipedia, not the law, and it is "painfully obvious" that you don't understand this, and that you don't understand WP:OR. It is "painfully obvious" that you don't realise that Wikipedia echos arguments that have already been made, it is not a WP:FORUM for you to make your own. It is "painfully obvious" that this is what you are attempting to do, making your own arguments here.

You allege that I argued that the private ceremony wasn't legal. - that's not what I allege. If it is what I wrote, it is a typo. If you are talking about the opening sentence of my previous comments, it should have been "What's my basis for the claim that it wasn't legal?", not "your".

And on the subject of the evidence, you aren't providing any for the claim: "(like a forged wedding certificate)... It can be used as a prop (by archbishops, for example), to advance a legal argument." This is actually a violation of WP:BLP. You can provide evidence for this claim or remove it, or I'll remove it for you (you've got 24 hours).

I also starting to doubt you have any legal qualifications at all, otherwise you'll know that a legal document is evidence.

Frankly, I am forced to the conclusion that you are either WP:DONTGETIT, or are a WP:TROLL. I won't be continuing this conversation until you do get it, and will continue to revert any attempt to add WP:OR into the article. Unless you have something else to discuss? SSSB (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I guessed from your previous forays into this area (why don't you stick to motor racing, which you seem to know something about?) that you would soon be descending into threats. You are so convinced of your own importance that you added your own name to the Wikipedia calendar (someone even awarded himself a barnstar)! I am aware that to some social media discussions (which is what the wikipedia talkspace is) are a wild west-type forum completely ungoverned by the law, and they only realise their mistake when they get chucked off (Donald Trump, etc.)

There is a remedy for people who make unsubstantiated comments on Wikipedia which impinge on people in the real world (e.g. that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are liars). Piers Morgan tried that on ITV and look what happened to him. High visibility articles in the royal namespace have been protected at your behest to keep such offending content in. The dispute always arises when you allege some fact disparaging to the couple and then refuse to source it when asked. According to you, their spokesperson has said something awful about the couple which has created an irrebuttable presumption that they are liars. You are the only person who has raised this issue. Asked to substantiate your claim by typing here verbatim the alleged actual words of the spokesperson which led you to this conclusion you went quiet.

Your second paragraph is no more than an admission that you don't know what you typed, and whatever it was you should have typed something else. As to your third paragraph, if you are ever inside a courtroom you will see on the bench a "trial bundle" which the judges consult as the trial progresses, and that prosecuting and defence counsel refer to identical bundles. In their submissions counsel frequently invite the judges to refer to "page xxx" as they quote from the document and phrase legal argument around what it says. Note that it is illegal for them to argue from what someone else says the document says - they must argue from the document itself. This is the "best evidence" rule. The fact that you are making this scurrilous allegation against the Duke and Duchess is a matter of law.

Your fourth paragraph: people who don't understand the law use legal terms in an inappropriate fashion. "Evidence" is a legal term. A document sitting in someone's house is not "documentary evidence." To be "evidence" it has to be introduced as evidence at trial. That means that before the trial someone has served a "notice to admit documents" on the other side , and if within a set period the party served has not objected they are deemed to admit that whatever the document says is literally true, that it is a true copy, that it has been produced from proper custody, and that it is what it purports to be. If there is an objection the side relying on it must prove all this by sworn evidence in court, that is, oral evidence by a human being.

WP:DONTGETIT describes you exactly - people who don't know what they are talking about but don't know they don't know what they are talking about. The consensus was reached long before (e.g. in this case that the inline references are false) but they bang on regardless, and, as is to be expected, the word TROLL features in their vocabulary (look in the mirror). About the only encouraging thing to come out of this is an undertaking from you to stop posting here, although your threat to railroad your minority-of-one view into the article remains. 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:9C47:E5B1:5525:F2A1 (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

References

The significance of the Camilla Tominey story: Wikipedia does not use dodgy references

The discussion is closed. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

On 4 January 2023 Ndileka Mandela, granddaughter of Nelson Mandela, criticised the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in an interview with The Australian newspaper. Her comments were widely reported by journalists around the world, most of them reporting her comments verbatim. None of them resorted to the device of paraphrasing, putting quotation marks only around two widely separated individual words in a lengthy statement. Yet this is what Camilla Tominey did, a woman whose activities are chronicled in Meghanpedia under the headline "Let's talk about Camilla Tominey's voracious appetite for lying." Mrs Tominey's story claims that the couple's spokesperson admitted that his employers are liars. It is inherently improbable that any spokesperson would (a) be authorised by his employer to say such a thing and (b) actually say it. In the recent Netflix "docuseries" Meghan's lawyer pointed out that Jason Knauf, who alleged that Meghan lied under oath in a High Court action, could not have given evidence in the Duchess's copyright lawsuit against a newspaper publisher "without the authority of his bosses" (he currently works for Prince William and received a prestigious honour in the King's personal gift at new year). So Mrs Tominey would have us believe that Meghan called the spokesperson in and directed him to inform the media that she was a liar. In our article Intestacy it is stated "In the United States intestacy laws vary from state to state" [source]. The article continues "Each of the separate states uses its own intestacy laws to determine the ownership of residents' intestate property." The source does not say that, but the statement in Wikipedia's voice is acceptable because it is obvious that the courts of each state will apply the laws in force in that state. In precisely the same way, a statement of the general marriage law is obviously relevant to the analysis of whether a particular marriage ceremony is valid. Provided that there is no statement in Wikipedia's voice that the application of the general marriage law affirms the validity of a particular marriage ceremony there is no original research. What is original research is to say in Wikipedia's voice that a source has confirmed the validity of a particular ceremony. As this is a matter of law only a judge can do that. No judicial decisions have been cited. 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:9CE6:61EF:6392:A210 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC) If you think that Tominey is unreliable, then bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Until a consensus is formed there Tominey will be considered reliable, based on the fact that the publication she writes for is considered reliable. Even if Tominey is considered unreliable, the only source she wrote in this article was co-written, and her co-writers aren't accused of being unreliable. Secondly, the content that source supports is also supported by another source which Tominey had no involvement in. So the content would stay regardless. Next, I don't care what insestacy says, please see Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. And your intestacy example doesn't even apply here. The second is an obvious consequence of the second - its a case of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. What you tried to do is insert a part of the law commision report to argue that the private ceremony was the legal one. This is WP:Original research - because you are making an argument that hasn't been made by a reliable source (i.e. it is your argument). The fact you did this implicitly is irrelevant. SSSB (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC) If editors could remove references arguing that they imply something that they don't actually say this gives them carte blanche to skew articles so that the only point of view they cover is their own. What we have here is a source which claims that "weddings" are void if not attended by witnesses Additionally, two witnesses are required at any wedding, in church or otherwise. Where sources conflict, to preserve neutrality, both viewpoints must be given - the best source I could find for the opposing viewpoint is the government's own Law Commission, which has been publishing reports on the marriage law for over a century and says in its latest one that "weddings" are not void if not attended by witnesses. 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:4CA:2610:7AAF:1B9E (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC) No, what we have here is a source that says the private ceremony would be invalid because they weren't two witnesses present. The opposing view point would be that the private ceremony could be a legal wedding because having two witnesses isn't a condition. The law commision report doesn't do this, because it doesn't discuss this wedding. This is therefore original research. SSSB (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC) The point I'm trying to make is that without balancing the article readers will believe having read the source that any wedding which is not attended by two witnesses is void. Unless you get consensus for your view that Wikipedia's mission is to make use of sourcing which is demonstrably false I have no doubt that editors who believe that readers should not be misled in this manner will continue to point out sourcing inaccuracies as and when they come across them. 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:4CA:2610:7AAF:1B9E (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC) The point I am tring to make is that that is irrelevant unless you have a source that argues that fact within the context of this event. The fact remains that Wikipedia exists only to echo and collate what has been said about an event/person/thing by others. If all the sources state that the private ceremony would have required to witnesses to be legal, then we have no wiggle room. We can't argue something that none of the sources directly say - that would be WP:UNSOURCED. And we can't combine the contents of the law commision report with what we know, because that would be WP:OR. And having just read the relevant part of the law commision report, the parts you quoted, I don't agree with your conclusion. "For example, there are no universal requirements for who must attend a wedding other than the couple" - the key words are "who must attend". It doesn't say "...there are no universal requirements that someone must attend a wedding other than the couple". I would argue that all this means is that it doesn't matter who the other people are. Not that there don't have to be any. "...while successive statutes have required the presence of witnesses, their absence has never rendered a marriage void" - that doesn't mean it couldn't render a marriage void, it only means that it has never done so in the past. Just because it has never been rendered void, doesn't mean it could going forward, or should have done in the past. "Few consultees noted that the absence of witnesses does not invalidate a marriage under the current law" - only a few? Not very convincing. Subsequent paragraphs use "some" and "many". And this is exactly why we need a source that connects the two - because we have read these passages and come to very different conclusions. We are nobodies, our opinions don't mean anything which is why they aren't included in the article. We need this opinion to be given by a suitable source. SSSB (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Your latest revert objects to the inclusion in the article of the words "The Church of England sources commented that this was not a legally recognised marriage ceremony, because "two witnesses are required at any wedding, in church or otherwise." The source gives as the reason the Church of England believed the ceremony was not valid "two witnesses are required at any wedding, in church or otherwise." The analysis is identical, and it's not my analysis but the analysis of the Church of England. I don't see where "Original Research" comes into it - please quote verbatim the section of policy which you are relying on here. 2A02:C7C:38C1:3600:E48F:A2F2:FCA5:6A06 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC) That's not what I was refering to - by all means restore that, as that is a little more than a copyedit. The original research is "What they did claim is not revealed, and reference to the actual words of the statement sheds no light on the matter, since the report only quotes two words from it. Moreover, on the general question of whether the absence of witnesses invalidates any marriage the Law Commission takes a different view." SSSB (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC) This thread was started by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. They are community banned and thus subject WP:BMB, in case anyone would like to discard or archive the discussion. Favonian (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)