Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Changing the title of the article

I expect this article to be moved within seconds of the subject saying "I do", so I would like to preemptively oppose that.

The article should not be moved without a proper move discussion per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Self-published name changes. Wikipedia guidelines do not require moving an article when its subject changes his or her name. In fact, such moves should only be performed when it is "unavoidable that the new name will soon be the most common name". It is far from unavoidable that Meghan Markle will cease to be commonly known as Meghan Markle, as we can see from the example of the Duchess of Cambridge, who is still most commonly referred to as Kate Middleton. Unlike her future sister-in-law, Meghan Markle was notable long before becoming associated with the British royal family. This article was created in 2007, 9 years before she met Harry. She has built a career and fame under the name Meghan Markle. That all makes it even more likely that her birth name will stick no matter how many dukedoms her husband is given. Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Making her the exception to the "Duchess of X" rule? not sure about. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no such rule. Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder that we could request move protection. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Great idea! I had not thought of that. Surtsicna (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Lazy journalism more likely the reason she is still referred to as Kate Middleton. I would argue that an encyclopedia would have the correct information including names and titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.137.48 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it lazy journalism that Yusuf Islam is still referred to as Cat Stevens? Possibly but I do not think it would be incorrect to keep the article about Meghan Markle at Meghan Markle, while noting the name change in the body of the article, until (and unless) the new title becomes the most common way to refer to the (former) actress. Surtsicna (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess the case about royal figures is a little bit different than others. Obviously Diana and Catherine are both commonly known as Princess Diana and Kate Middleton (occasionally Princess Kate) in the press. Does it mean that we should have those incorrect forms as the titles of our articles? I'm not saying that we should immediately move Markle's page to the new title, and I'm open to discuss the possibilities, yet I believe it would be better to include the appropriate royal title in the title of the article as that's going to be her profession for the rest of her life. Keivan.f^Talk 03:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

But isn't the case of Meghan Markle quite a bit different than those of Diana and Catherine? She was, by Wikipedia standards, a notable individual for a decade before she met her prince. She had a flourishing career as Meghan Markle. Furthermore, "Princess Diana" and "Kate Middleton" were never correct forms; Middleton never used the name Kate herself. On the other hand, referring to Meghan Markle as Meghan Markle will be as correct as referring to Queen Mary as Mary of Teck or to Grace, Princess of Monaco, as Grace Kelly (hint: another actress turned princess). Surtsicna (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't usually care about this stuff, but yes, I think there's a good case for keeping this article under the name she has always been known by. Grace Kelly is a salutary example. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I second that. The Grace Kelly naming precedent seems to be the correct way to go. -- fdewaele, 12 May 2018, 22:04 CET.

Yes, it has legally never been right to refer to Catherine as Kate Middleton, but that was her common name for a decade during which she was dating William, and I guess that was the title of her article before becoming the Duchess of Cambridge. On the other hand, Grace was always known as a prominent American actress and had won an Academy Award for one of her roles. I'm not trying to say that Markle is not as prominent as Kelly, but the fact is that Kelly's career as an actress overshadowed her life as a royal figure. We just have to wait and see what Markle's case is going to be. Keivan.f^Talk 22:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@82.26.137.48: If journalism, lazy or not, uses one or more names or titles for the subject then those can be mentioned in the lead or body of this article. This talk page section is about if and when the article itself should be moved from Meghan Markle to something else. For example:

• Grace Kelly married the Prince of Monaco. Her Wikipedia article remains at Grace Kelly.
• Elizabeth Patterson married Jerome Bonaparte (brother of Napoleon), later King of Westphalia. Her article is now at Elizabeth Patterson Bonaparte.
• Wallis Simpson married British king Edward VIII. Her Wikipedia article remains at Wallis Simpson.
• Marie-Chantal Miller married Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. Her article is now at Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece.

That's just a short sample. Many commoners have married royalty^{[1], [2], [3]} with some still being known by the name they used prior to their marriage, others taking on their spouses name, and still others becoming known per WP:COMMONNAME by their titles.

I support Surtsicna's suggestion that we use a proper move discussion though oppose "preemptively opposing" any name changes as Ms. Markle and her husband could soon start working actively towards establishing a new WP:COMMONNAME for her. Wikipedia should not take the lead in recognizing the new name but if reliable media starts using it then we can cite those articles to support moving the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note This is neither here nor there and means nothing, but I strongly remember that while we were in the midst of a move discussion regarding Kate Middleton, Jimbo Wales himself swept in and moved the article to its current location. Again, this is neither here nor there, it holds no precedent, binds us to nothing, just an interesting anecdote on what occurred the last time around. Safiel (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Jimbo Wales actions regarding Kate Middleton notwithstanding, I believe that WP:COMMONNAME dictates that the article remain at Meghan Markle unless and until a majority of reliable sources refer to her otherwise, for example, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. So I would oppose any immediate move of the article. Safiel (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Does WP:BLP "We must get the article right" not trump WP:COMMONNAME? Her name is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (or potentially Rachel, Duchess of Sussex), not Meghan Markle. Will Bradshaw (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I see that Jimbo swept in, like the Kate Middleton article before, and unilaterally moved this article. Regardless of Jimbo's actions, any requested move discussion would have likely produced the same basic results as the one now currently underway, with the same people making the same comments as whether this article should be "Meghan Markle" or "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ancestors

It can't be proven she is related to Robert I. She is related however to the Bruces family if they are correct. That from info in the House of Bruce. One more thing , holy water only exists in the movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:C100:C44:8D0C:528B:F7FD:297A (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

36?

If she was born in August 1981, she has to be 37 now. LDanielHolm (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you just deny math? LDanielHolm (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No one denied math. on 17 May 2018 she is 36. She will turn 37 on 4 August 2018. It seems like you do not understand how to determine age. ~ GB fan 14:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You can see her age calculated here. ~ GB fan 16:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Religion

Is she Jewish and if so, should it be mentioned? There's a source in the wedding article that says she is: "Palace: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announce engagement". USA Today. 27 November 2017. Archived from the original on 27 November 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Celia Homeford (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No - "...the claim is utterly false." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

cmt - She was married before, in Jewish fashion. She was (a) perhaps nominally Jewish for perhaps that day (B) wasn't but participated in a Jewish style wedding According to the WP article Interfaith marriage in Judaism (tho we know WP is not a reliable source): "The Talmud and later classical sources of Jewish law are clear that the institution of Jewish marriage, kiddushin, can only be affected between Jews. The more liberal Jewish movements—including Reform, Reconstructionist (collectively organized in the World Union for Progressive Judaism)—do not generally regard the historic corpus and process of Jewish law as intrinsically binding. Progressive rabbinical associations have no firm prohibition against intermarriage; according to a survey of rabbis, conducted in 1985, more than 87% of Reconstructionist rabbis were willing to officiate at interfaith marriages,[39] and in 2003 at least 50% of Reform rabbis were willing to perform interfaith marriages.[40]... ... ..." (C) Speculatively, perhaps that marriage is considered annulled by the Church of England, hence she's never been married before. ... ...--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC).

religion earlier

"baptised Markle and confirmed her" - OK, but what was she before/till then ? Atheist or so ? I miss an info here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:810b:c40:14c:59e4:5963:b655:d5e4 (talk) 01:19, May 19, 2018‎ (UTC)

All children are atheists when they are born. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think the reasonable presumption is that children carry the religion of their parents. Until they (the children) decide otherwise when they are old enough to do so. Safiel (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Meghan's Name Has Just Changed On Her First Royal Title

As of 19 of May, 2018 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Has Just Confirmed That The Royal Title of Meghan Markle Is "Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.210.10 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

She is not Duchess of Sussex until they are married. Lyonsn (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

Name change to 'Meghan' and title 'Duchess of Sussex' added below her name. 2A02:C7F:7E34:FB00:6D6B:BCBA:D5D6:4F3C (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

At this time, that is not her title. See next section. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Duchess of Sussex

Hi, should the infobox and article make reference to her new royal title of Duchess of Sussex as per [4]? Wagnerp16 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

From the link, "Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex". A reference has been added in the article body to the announcement, but as it's not her title it shouldn't be added to the infobox at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Upon marriage (12:00 GMT) her title will change to HRH The Duchess of Sussex, as per protocol. Also, in the future the citizenship may need to be altered to ″American - British″ if she is going down the dual citizenship route. Wagnerp16 (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You guys jumped the gun, but I'm not gonna edit because it seems petty at this point.Viceroyvic (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the formal pronouncement by Justin Welby wasn't actually made until about 12:45 BST? The article was technically wrong for about 30 minutes? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2018

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)

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)

• Oppose, although there should have been a formal move request to begin with. Brocicle (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - current name for living person; WP:UCS --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no requirement to use "current name for living person". Yusuf Islam is the current name of Cat Stevens, but the Wiki biography is titled Cat Stevens. Common sense suggests using the name the subject has been known by for the past decade and by which she will likely continued to be known. You have made it clear that you want all married women under their married names (suggesting titles such as Louise of Sweden, Queen instead of Louise Mountbatten, Catherine of Sweden, Queen (1531-1535) instead of Catherine of Saxe-Lauenburg, etc) but that is not grounded in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. In fact, it is contrary to several. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for consistency with other Royal Brides such as The Duchess of Cambridge and The Duchess of Cornwall. Yes, she had a significant profile page before, but that does not change who she is or the titles she received, and would be a strange deviation from a format Wikipedia currently uses. I further Comment that this page should not have been moved without consensus and in the future perhaps page protection should be employed so such formalities aren't missed. PonyToast (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The page was protected so that only an admin could move it and that is what happened an admin that doesn't do a lot of admin work moved it. ~ GB fan 11:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • You mean this admin? >> User:Jimbo Wales – Flix11 (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, there is no consistency there. In fact, the article is now inconsistent with Wallis Simpson, the other American who married into the British royal family. Her marriage does not change who she is either, nor does it obscure the fact that she was a well-known actress before getting married. There are multiple precedents here, from Cat Stevens (who changed his name to Yusuf Islam) to Grace Kelly (another American actress who became a princess). Surtsicna (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree next time (for the next royal wedding in 30 years) there should be a discussion before a move. Miss HollyJ (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Why? So it can be completely ignored like this one was? Surtsicna (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The name 'Meghan Markle' is no longer correct, instead being only valid for historical purposes. Whilst some sloppy journalists might still refer to 'Meghan Markle', reliable sources will inevitably refer to the subject by her new, correct name, 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex'. This is one of those exceptional cases where a name change is explicit and undeniable. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose She has retired from her acting career and now is a royal family member and I believe it is more appropriate that she uses her title
• Oppose per above comments, naming consistency, and present reality (she's still standing in the aisle on my television set, but now married). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Well right now there shouldn't even be a debate because she isn't actually a Duchess yet, she has to sign for it to be official :p ··gracefool 💬 11:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments above, Markle is no longer her last name, and she is the duchess now. JE98 (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, Media etc will still call her Markle but she's now Duchess of Sussex, As noted above no objections to a rename in 45 years. –Davey2010^Talk 11:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support She is still known by the name Meghan Markle, so it should be the title of the page, regardless of what her "legal" name now is. 175.157.247.218 (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural close pending the revert request at RMTR. James (^talk/_contribs) 12:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support for procedural reasons (to undo a recent controversial move). Moves should be policy based. I agree with User:Surtsicna that this is an embarrassment considering the issue was discussed before today. Popular or not, WP:RMUM should be applied here and those in favour of the new name (Sussex) should make their case. —  AjaxSmack  12:18, 19 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 - Why move it back only to have a short discussion for then to move the name back to her new title. Utterly pointless. Let's move on.BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 19 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. Surtsicna (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Note This page move was made by no other than User:Jimbo Wales! 87.210.99.206 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. That makes it all the more embarrassing, since Wikipedia is supposed to rely on consensus and policy. Surtsicna (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – Per comments above, as Grace Kelly used Grace, Princess of Monaco during her marriage to Rainier III, Meghan's usage of "Sussex" is now becoming more common that is being a member of royalty. ApprenticeFan work 12:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Seriously? She, a Hollywood actress for more than a decade, has been married for an hour and you claim that she is already becoming commonly known as Duchess of Sussex? Surtsicna (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly supportin accordance with Wikipedia's policy of using commonly recognizable names for article titles Composemi (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The move is consistent with other cases. We are not talking about the actress she was, but just on how to name this page. Of course, the way she is going to be known will change in time and not abruptedly, but the right moment to move the page is now, since this is the only moment when an abrupt change happens in reality. 79.40.177.136 (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The move is not consistent with all other cases. It is not consistent with Wallis Simpson (the other American who married into the British royal family) or with Grace Kelly (the other American actress who married a prince), for example. There is no indication that she will become better known as the Duchess of Sussex than as Meghan Markle. In fact, past precedent indicates otherwise. Surtsicna (talk) 13:00, 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 she received more attention following her engagement and subsequent marriage. Keivan.f^Talk 12:47, 19 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. 82.18.67.217 (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• 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: [5]. 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)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

Education/Alma Mater information on the right hand info box was deleted. I suggest restoring and including her education in the info box. Junkerscrown (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: From what I can gather we don't include this information in infoboxes (I'm simply going by the fact alma mater isn't on other articles (Prince Harry, Prince Charles and Elizabeth II). –Davey2010^Talk 12:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Changing Name

We might as well change it until it goes through. We can keep the article change name box on the topic while it is going through the change name process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabermoose (talk • contribs) 13:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)