Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Disputes with the British Royal family

I think perhaps it might be time to start a section for "Disputes with the British Royal Family." that seems to be one major theme of Meghan's current public activites and creative output. I suggest we start looking at ways to formulate and compile this topic into an informative section. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Which disputes are you referring to exactly? I'm asking because we have to be specific. As you know there are articles published daily about these disputes and dramas, none of which are actually confirmed to be true by either the Palace or the Sussexes, and frankly without confirmation we can only treat them as gossip. The legal disputes with the media are already covered, and so is the Oprah interview to some extent (we also have a whole separate article on the interview itself). So far they have not made any defamatory claims openly in recent times, thus, I suggest we avoid introducing new information that has not come out of either her or her husband's mouth. The article is already deemed to be too long by some users, and we should avoid making it unnecessarily longer. Keivan.f^Talk 20:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

A country’s minorities are crying out for better policing, housing and healthcare, but instead they are faced with a debate over which princess made the other one cry over a bridesmaid dress.--91.54.15.103 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Meghan-Trevor

"The act of entering judgment is carried out by the court and it creates a formal record of the decision that is reached and the outcome" which was on Mar 7 2014. The marriage was terminated on Feb 24 2014 from the document. Leaving this here to avoid any confusion with the divorce document.[2] --Aaron106 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Second mention of name

Since this discussion turned out to discuss "do we need consensus to make exceptions to MOS, even when the MOS itself allows for variance?", and thus is very little about the actual article Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, I'm collapsing this for posterity. CapnZapp (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

WP:SURNAME makes no exception for the first mention in the lead. We need an exception determined by consensus to state her full name in the second mention. Sundayclose (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC) As I stated on my talk page MOS:SURNAME is a guideline, not a policy, and its content can be interpreted in different ways. There are dozens of pages that do include the full name of the subject in the very first section, including Catherine, Princess of Wales, Angelina Jolie, Johnny Depp, etc. And it makes sense. When a reader wants to find information about a person's background, he/she should be able to find them in the corresponding section. And that includes their name at birth. Keivan.fTalk 18:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Please don't drag out the useless argument that MOS is a guideline not a policy. That's not a justification for ignoring a major guideline without consensus. MOS is widely accepted. We follow guidelines until a consensus to make an exception occurs. When it is challenged (as is the case here), it needs to be justified here and have an exception by consensus. What is your rationale for making an exception to MOS? As for other articles "other crap exists" is never an acceptable excuse to justify an edit. Sundayclose (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC) I edit articles based on precedent, so if you consider them to be "crap" that's your issue. I stated it once, and I'm gonna repeat it again. Her date of birth and her name at birth are two important pieces of information that should be included in the Early life section. Also, a stable article should not change because of your personal interpretations of MOS. As I pointed out in the edit summaries the guideline doesn't establish a clear-cut rule that must be obeyed, which is evident by the use of adverb "generally" as Surtsicna has pointed out here. Not to mention that it does not forbid including the full name multiple times if necessary. Keivan.fTalk 19:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Your interpretation of "precedent" does not take priority over a widely accepted MOS. I could quickly list dozens of well written articles that are a precedent for not using the full name after it is used in the lead, but that would be a pointless waste of everyone's time. "Precedent" has no meaning when it's WP:POV. Again, what is your rationale that this specific article (not other articles) should have an exception to WP:SURNAME? Sundayclose (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC) I have already stated it and so has another person. There is no exception being made here. The MOS specifies a guideline that should be followed "generally", not "always". Says nothing about a ban on repeating the full name multiple times. And the example given within it, is not that of an article's lede or opening section. Some articles follow this guideline, and some don't (and frankly they don't have to because it is not a policy). If you want to turn it to a rule that must be obeyed by all articles you should seek consensus somewhere else. Otherwise, there is no obligation to follow one specific rule because WP:MOSBIO exists for achieving visual and textual consistency, and this article is indeed consistent with dozens of others in terms of how its very first section has been set up. Keivan.fTalk 19:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC) It is an exception if there isn't s specific indication that "generally" excludes the lead. It's also an exception because it has been challenged. That requires consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC) There isn't specific indication that "generally" 'includes' the lede either. And it is not an exception because dozens of other articles repeat the full name twice as well, which is in line with WP:MOSBIO's guidance for achieving visual and textual consistency. And it makes perfect sense to include the full name in the first section of "this article" for a couple of reasons put forward by two different people. The date of birth and name at birth are two crucial pieces of information about a person's early life, and there is a source cited within that section that I would rather not have in the lede, because the lede is meant to be a summary of the article, not where you introduce new citations to back up information that appear nowhere else. Keivan.fTalk 19:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Again, pointing to other articles as if that's a justification for this or any article to make an exception to WP:SURNAME as it is literally written is a POV excuse. You're arguing in circles, but here's the bottom line: This requires consensus, especially since it is challenged and there are lots of articles that don't make the exception, so we'll see what happens. And by the way, two editors do not make a consensus. Consensus is not determined by counting !votes, so there's no need to repeatedly remind us about another editor's opinion that we are all capable of reading. Sundayclose (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Apparently you're the one who enjoys repeating the same argument over and over again. So let me remind you, there is NO exception. There is only an exception created by you based on your own interpretation of MOS, which 'again' is not a rule. You point out that we should not concern ourselves with other articles, yet you talk about lots of articles being written in a way contrary to this one. You also point out that votes don't count, yet you appear to be implying that the opinions of two people is not necessarily enough to establish consensus even though they might have made valid points. So which is it then? You asked for a reason to justify this so called "exception", and I gave you a couple of them. 1) The Early life section should contain information about a person's background and that includes her full name. 2) There are citations there that I would rather not have in the lede, as the lede is not a place for introducing new citations. 3) The lede should be a summary of the article and not a place where you put in information that appear nowhere else, and that includes her full name at birth, her date of birth, the names of her husbands and children, etc. all of which are repeated in the appropriate sections within the article. I'll leave this to other users now, but I doubt anyone would oppose the inclusion of her name in that section. Keivan.fTalk 20:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Yes, two people is not enough participation to determine consensus, especially less than two hours after the discussion begins, and especially for an article that has as much traffic as this one and for a guideline that has been firmly established for many years. That has nothing to do with counting !votes. Neither you nor I is in a position to declare consensus. Now, I'm finished encouraging you to beat this dead horse. I'm not repeatedly refuting the argument that you make over and over. We will see where this discussion goes. Sundayclose (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC) And neither am I willing to repeat the same thing ten more times. It is apparent that you and I cannot see eye to eye on this matter, but the article cannot change without consensus and based on a non-mandatory guideline and someone's interpretation of it. Keivan.fTalk 22:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC) WP:SURNAME says "generally". Besides, the examples cited give no impression that this is meant to apply to people who are article subjects. I find the use of full name in the Early life section to be a good opportunity to cite a source for the information; I'd rather not have the citation clog up the lead. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC) @Sundayclose Would you please briefly outline (without reference to MOS:SURNAME) the disadvantages to including the full name in the Early life section? @Keivan.f Would you please outline the advantages? - Ryk72 talk 22:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC) @Ryk72: I mean no disrespect and you certainly have a right to pose your request, but I (nor anyone) should be required to justify adherence to a well-established MOS guideline without reference to the guideline. The only justification required is WP:SURNAME. I think we can safely assume that the MOS guidelines were established by consensus for good reasons. I assume at least one of those reasons is to avoid unnecessary redundancy and thus avoid poor writing style. I agree with that reason. In biographies there is no need to repeat the full name after the first use, which in this case is in the lead. That's the only justification needed. If we want to make an exception that includes the second mention, that needs to be established by consensus at WT:MOSBIO. Sundayclose (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Hi Ryk72 and thanks for showing interest in the topic. I actually tried to make my points in the previous comments but I guess they ended up being buried. There are three main points that should be considered 'in my opinion' and I'll leave them here for anyone else who might be interested: 1) The Early life section should contain information about a person's background and that includes her full name, date of birth, etc. 2) There are citations there supporting the information in the very first sentence of that section that I would rather not have in the lede, as the lede is usually not a place for introducing new citations (see WP:LEAD, another part of the Manual of Style that could be considered in this case). It should simply be a summary of the article. 3) The lede is equally not a place where you put in information that appear nowhere else, and that includes her full name at birth, her date of birth, the names of her husbands and children, etc. all of which are repeated in the appropriate sections within the article. Keivan.fTalk 22:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Thank you both. Appreciate the time taken to outline your positions. Per my comments below, the MOS:SURNAME guideline does not support the position that articles must always refer to the subject by surname only; provided that the article generally refers to the subject in such a manner, the guideline accommodates occasionally referring to the subject using other terms. In the absence of any other (non-MOS:SURNAME) reasons for removing the second reference to "Rachel Meghan Markle" in the Early life section, those advocating retaining that reference (on the grounds outlined by Keivan.f) would appear to have the stronger argument. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 06:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC) While I agree this is against the MOS, it appears to be common practice. See the early life sections for Sarah Ferguson, Diana Spencer, Wallis Simpson, Jill Biden and Hillary Clinton, which are the first I found for comparison. This specific section of the MOS appears to be commonly ignored. Therefore, it would probably be best to get a clarification in the MOS. Should we change all these articles or change the MOS? It's better to have the discussion there, since it would impact many articles. TFD (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC) I agree that we need to bring this up at WT:MOSBIO to determine whether an exception is acceptable. I don't think we have any evidence that it is more of a "common practice" to make the exception than it is "common practice" to comply with the guideline. Sundayclose (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Why are we still talking about the Duchess of Sussex's surname? She no longer publicly uses one. She goes by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex. cookie monster 755 01:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC) She was born Rachel Meghan Markle. The issue here is whether her full name should be used in the second mention of her birth name. Sundayclose (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC) To make this further clear, the discussion is not about using her surname throughout the article. We are debating the issue of whether we need to have her full name at birth in the 'Early life' section, or merely her surname. Keivan.fTalk 02:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Articles usually refer to people by the name they used during the period in question. So she would be Markle until she assumed her husband's name. TFD (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC) @TFD Re: I agree this is against the MOS; my initial thoughts were the same, but now I'm not entirely sure that it is. The guidance provided by MOS:SURNAME is After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only ... or may be referred to by a pronoun. emphasis added. That's a general guidance, not an absolute prohibition. Both the versions align with that guidance. In the body of the article, the text "Markle", in reference to the article subject appears approximately 50 times, of which only 3 include additional portions of the name. She is "generally referred to by surname only" in either version. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 02:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC) I don't see a problem mentioning "Rachel Meghan Markle" in the "early life" section to introduce the subject. If it were a transgender person or someone who was adopted, that would be a different story. cookie monster 755 04:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC) You need a reason why this is an exception. I think an argument could be made that since the person was born with a different name from their current one, it makes sense to give their original name in full in the early life section. But I still think that should be discussed at MOS. My assertion is that it (this article) is not an exception; that it satisfies the guidance of MOS, which is that the surname only (or a pronoun) should generally be used. (Contrasting the MOS text, "generally referred to", with the non-present, "only referred to"). An alternative phrasing of that assertion would be that MOS:SURNAME already contains an allowance for exceptions; provided that the exceptions do not become the general usage. MOS does not support the absolutist position asserted by Sundayclose. (As always, happy to agree to disagree). - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 05:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC) "generally" does not mean that there are routine exceptions. TFD (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Hrm... interesting. The obvious (and unecessarily glib) reply would be that "generally" doesn't preclude routine exceptions, and does indeed allow exceptions without the "rule being broken". But that wouldn't advance the discussion significantly, and I regard you too highly to be so glib. I'd prefer to understand your position; and perhaps better articulate mine. So... are we able to agree that: 1. The requirement at MOS is that the article "generally" refer to the subject by surname only (in contrast to "always"); 2. The article text refers to the subject using surname only in approximately 38 of 40 instances (excluding quotes, image captions, lists of books, & the first reference); 3. The article, therefore, generally refers to the subject by surname only, for the commonly understood definitions of "generally". See:Def 1,Def 2,Defs a&b; 4. That 3., therefore, satisfies the MOS requirement at 1.? If not, then on which points do we not align? - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 06:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC) cookie monster, I would be interested to know what Markle uses as her legal name. Married women remain entitled to use their maiden names unless they change their names by deed poll. While Sussex is not a surname, its a territorial name in the UK, but what is it in the U.S.? And Harry of course may have a surname that he could use. TFD (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC) I felt the need to chime in and point out that there was a discussion about her legal name in the past (see Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex/Archive_10#Title and style). I thought it could help with refreshing memories. With regards to Harry, he put "The Duke of Sussex, His Royal Highness" on his daughter's birth certificate (1). Though if he were to use a proper surname, I guess it would probably be Mountbatten-Windsor, the surname used for the male-line descendants of Elizabeth II and Philip. Keivan.fTalk 08:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC) It's done at Catherine, Princess of Wales's page. I reckon if one wants this changed, a discussion at the appropriate place would need to occur. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC) TFD Keivan.f there is really no reliable source stating what her legal name is. If very well may still be her maiden name, Rachel Meghan Markle, which was listed on her daughter's birth certificate. But this is WP:SPECULATION. cookie monster 755 19:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC) No. This has also been discussed here before. California law requires the mother's "birth name", "Markle" is listed as the mother's birth name on her daughter's certificate.[3] Unlike the English certificate for her son, [4] the released California certificate has no place for her current name (The English certificate has both mother's current name and birth name ("maiden name")). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC) I find it rather disappointing that we are having a 16,000+ character long debate about something so inconsequential. Whether that one sentence says "Markle" or "Rachel Meghan Markle" has no effect on the quality of the article. I wish all this effort could be directed at discussing the actual content of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Agree and if it helps, I also agree with others that the current set-up with the name also in "Early Life" accords just fine with SURNAME and LEAD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Princess of the United Kingdom?

I know she's the wife of a "prince of the United Kingdom", but I don't think that makes her a "princess of the United Kingdom". You'd have to be a daughter or granddaughter of the monarch, to be a "princess of the United Kingdom". A royal of the blood. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that Harry is a "Prince of the United Kingdom." In any case, the source for the claim is Archie's birth certificate, which is not rs for the mother's occupation. TFD (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Like Catherine, Meghan is a princess of the United Kingdom by marriage as she married a British prince. She is not a Princess in her own right but a princess by marriage Theeveralst (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Whether that is true or not, we cannot make statements in articles unless they are reliably sourced. Do you have a source that says that? TFD (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Archie's birth certificate has her listed as a "Princess of the United Kingdom", and it is similar to how Catherine has been listed on her children's birth certificate or Diana was listed on her children's before them. So I guess it's safe to assume that the husband's status is extended to the wife. Keivan.f^Talk 04:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Birth certificates have been discussed in other articles. They are not reliable sources for information about the parents. TFD (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

She became a princess because of her marriage, is the BBC's analysis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Since it is a courtesy title, not a substantive one, it doesn't necessarily mean that she is a princess. Archie Windsor-Mountbatten for example could use his father's subsidiary title of Earl of Dumbarton. But the Duke of Sussex would be the actual earl. And note that Markle does not use the courtesy title of Princess Harry. TFD (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Following the BBC source, it is not dependent on what she goes by, or what we know her by, it's only dependent on her marriage. As to whether it is "courtesy" or not (she is not the prince, the duke, or the earl), it does not follow that she can't also be princess -- princess is a rank established in their system and there are two ways to for a woman be it: their birth within lawful marriage to a father of the required close degree to the sovereign (or to the sovereign), or their own lawful marriage to a husband of the close degree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Image update

I know this conversation has happened before but I believe that there should be a strong effort by Wikipedia editors to look for a copyright free clear image of Meghan. It has nearly been 5 years since the current picture was taken she is now 41 and a mother of 2 and no longer a working member of the family. A lot has changed. The picture should reflect that with a more updated image. Theeveralst (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely agree I will try myself but if other wiki users could help find a more up to date picture it would make a good difference to this article! LaVozSA (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• 

This image was suggested by LaVozSA I definitely think its acceptable. --Aaron106 (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I would support that change. I think that image is also better since it's a frontal shot and not a side shot like the current one. Regards SoWhy 12:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This should be the picture as it’s a clear image of her face, frontal image and the most up to date one we currently have. I support this change and would love to see it happen LaVozSA (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the change. The newer image is lower resolution and of poorer quality. There's no discernible change in her appearance, so there's no benefit in a change. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose it as well. Mainly because of the image's poorer quality and its busy background, which I find very distracting. Keivan.f^Talk 08:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the opposes, the proposed image is poorer quality, cluttered, and it does not so much look like 'front-shot', as a slap-dash, poorly set, technically, poorly adjusted camera, where 'camera-person-is-about-to-bump-into-subject-shot', also the time issue is pretty meaningless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Pregnancy conspiracy theories

Here’s an article on the online conspiracy community that claims she faked her pregnancies (and in some cases, that her children don’t actually exist). Her own half-sister has promoted these theories too. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

They have no place in the biography of a living person unless they are proven to be true. Keivan.f^Talk 04:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2022

change first picture, 2018 one, because the smile looks weird and creepy (perhaps someone has done that with bad intent on purpose) to another picture. thx Mnlfp098 (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Changed to which one? Lemonaka (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 16:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Meghan-hating media fraternity

Dan Wootton, Piers Morgan, Nigel Farage, Tom Bower, Brendan O’Neill, Freddy Gray, Richard Tice, Toby Young and Rod Liddle.[5] 91.54.15.103 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

An opinion piece by Catherine Bennett is not enough to label a group of people as haters. Keivan.f^Talk 04:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship

Is she a British national? 2A02:8440:5218:FC6:F540:EB4F:7ACB:DA2D (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably not. At the time of her wedding it was announced that she would acquire British citizenship, but we got no updates afterwards to the best of my knowledge. Keivan.f^Talk 04:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No she did not complete the residency requirements. If the usual requirements had been waved by the Home Secretary, I may be mistaken on this point, they would’ve had to announce it publicly. DSQ (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)