Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Wording

@User:Alanscottwalker: Hi! Regarded the reverted wording - I think it's important to a. mention the publication that reported the allegations and b. summarize the content of the report without getting wordy - I don't believe either of these things amounts to "trivia", but it's a better summary then:

"In March 2021, a 2018 allegation of bullying by former press secretary, Jason Knauf, against Meghan was reported". In my opinion, this sounds too general and nonspecific - the original phrasing of:

"In March 2021, The Times reported that a bullying complaint was made by Meghan's close advisor, press secretary Jason Knauf, during her tenure as a working royal, which claimed that Meghan had caused two personal assistants to quit their positions in the royal household and had undermined the morale of a third employee" outlines the basics of the allegations - individuals involved, when it allegedly happened, what reportedly occurred as a result - etc. This can also be trimmed down to:

"In March 2021, The Times reported that a bullying complaint was made by Meghan's royal press secretary Jason Knauf, which claimed that Meghan had caused two personal assistants to quit their positions and had undermined the morale of a third employee". What are your thoughts on this matter?--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It's too much. No, the name of the publication does not matter. Look at the rest of the article, we don't normally say the name of a publication. And there is no special reason to do that, here. And no, it does not need more than the allegation and by who. What it does need is the fact that this was years ago, in 2018, and it does need to be stated as alleged, it is not proven to have occurred. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Other disputes with Splash News, Mail on Sunday, etc. have all named publications. Obviously it's not proven to have occurred - it's an allegation. I'd argue that the timing doesn't matter either - it was reported merely two days ago, which makes it relevant. The current phrasing makes it sound like Meghan bullied Knauf himself, instead of filing it on behalf of the employees. Context is important. To whom did he alleged it to? The Times itself? It's not specific enough to faithfully and succinctly summarize the widespread reporting by media sources.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Reported two days ago does not make it relevant it makes it less relevant for the encyclopedia per WP:RECENTISM. Nor is Wikipedia here to pass along gossip, see WP:BLP. Knauf allegedly made the allegation. And yes, it was years ago. And no, this is not a dispute with The Times. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Knauf allegedly made the allegation, but was not the receiver of the supposed and alleged behavior. Phrasing it like he was is inaccurate. These allegations have garnered press attention and multiple statements to multipel news outlets from the couple's lawyers. Again, current phrasing contradicts reporting stating why and who Knauf make the allegations to in the first place - summaries should be accurate.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Knauf allegedly made the allegation. It's not phrased like he was anything except the one who allegedly made the allegation. You have against policy fixated on recent reporting, and that is precisely what we should not do in the encyclopedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"a 2018 allegation of bullying by former press secretary, Jason Knauf, against Meghan was reported" - It's phrased as if he made the allegation because he experienced the terms of the allegation. An encyclopedia should provide enough information to maintain accuracy of allegations, even in summary. --Bettydaisies (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't see it, but have rephrased that the allegation refers to staff. The when (2018) and who made the allegation still belong, and the paper does not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, thank you!--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The Meghan Markle Wikipedia has so many errors, we are left to believe it just be trolls who’re doing this on purpose. First of all it reads like a daily diary, with tabloid rumors repeated on here as if it was the truth. You go as far as to repeat a widely disputed and defamatory claim that she started dating Harry before breaking up with her ex boyfriend. There is no proof she ever dated that chef, never been confirmed by her in her old blog or any interviews, in addition in the months before she meet Harry, she was blogging about hoping to find a boyfriend. Secondly, you refer to Harry as the patron of Invictus games, when he’s the founder of this entire institution. A lot of trolls went on our page and incessantly changed him from founder to patron. There is so much more on Meghan’s page that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but we’re not able to edit and it’s too much to go over it here. To everyone who are able to edit, Please take a step and treat it like any other Wikipedia page. Stop adding daily tabloid stories, about allegations etc. only add things that were resolved. Also, Meghan grew up in an area in LA called black Beverly Hills. A historically significant place for black Americans, yet no one added that info, instead adding defamatory fabricated stories about the exact date she broke up with a unverified chef boyfriend. Stop citing British papers, they’re infamous for hacking phones and lying through their teeth. InvictusGames (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @InvictusGames. Wikipedia WP:COI requires the public disclosing of involvement with article subjects, including the Duchess and your eponymous Invictus Games. If you truly represent the organisation, please refrain from directly editing articles relevant to your workplace, and instead suggest and discuss edits for consensus on the talk page (as you have done here - thank you!) The information you mention is largely sourced from WP:RSP, aka reliable sources. We therefore have little reason to believe that the information is false unless publicly declared so by Meghan, or if you receive direct authorization to speak on her behalf (?) and request it be removed. More information on Harry's founding and extensive work with the Games is found on his article, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. The issue of the location of her upbringing has been discussed before, and will be added in due course. Unfortunately, reputable British papers still quality as reliable sources on Wikipedia, so again, we have little reason to believe the information is false.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

She wasn't raised in black Beverly hills, that house was her grandfather's house (now deceased) that her mother moved into after inheriting it, circa 2013. She was raised in woodland hills, with her dad. 85Rose (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Referring to the comment from May 4, I should point out that the article says that she stopped dating the chef in May 2016 and began dating Harry in June 2016. I don't see an overlap there, or any statements that would imply she was dating both of them at the same time. Regarding the place where she was raised in, we need reliable secondary sources. I see contradiction between the two statements here. One says that she was raised in Beverly Hills presumably with her maternal granddad, and the other says that she was raised in Woodland Hills with her dad. A reliable source (whether it be American or British) should be used to support any such claims. Also, no tabloid references have been used to back up the information in this article. All the info comes from reliable news agencies, papers or outlets. And it is totally normal to cover occasional criticism about the subjects, as solely praising them would violate the neutral point of view policy. Articles on other royals contain information on scandals reported in the press as well as general criticisms, all of which are not necessarily resolved or addressed by the individuals but are noteworthy because they are widely reported. Keivan.f^Talk 21:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Title and style

I’m surprised that the Duchess is here styled ‘Meghan, Duchess of Sussex’, as this is not the normal style accorded to the wife of a duke, but that for the wife of a deceased duke or the former wife of a duke following a divorce. (Sarah, Duchess of York, is the correct style for The Duke of York’s former wife, to give an example). The correct title and style is simply “Duchess of Sussex”, as per Debrett.

I’d submit that the article would be better titled “Duchess of Sussex”, and perhaps for clarity add a disambiguation link leading to former holders of title or to the “Duke of Sussex” page which would equally clarify.

For the sake of clarity, “Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle) might even be better than the current error in style, allowing for both the correct style and appropriate search functionality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cursitor (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The guiding policy here is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). If you look at the talk page of that and its extensive archives you'll see this has been gone over for the best part of 20 years now, and this seems to be the form that has been arrived at (same as for Charles, Prince of Wales for example), even though as you point out on its face it looks like the form used for a widowed or divorced wife of a peer. The central problem is that these people don't have surnames in the straightforward way the rest of us are used to, so we are bound to end up with some choice of construction for how to name them, and all the options have their downsides. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Per Common name (no puns please) I suggest reverting to Meghan Markle, which is what most readers would type in. Duchess of Sussex is a redirect to this page, which makes sense since she is the only person to be called that. Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) in fact says that, "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English." This isn't Burke's Peerage or a court circular. I would mention also that when women marry, we don't usually take their married name. We didn't change Jennifer Aniston to "Mrs. Brad Pitt" when they were married. (Of course when they divorced, that would have been Mrs. Jennifer Pitt.) TFD (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces It was discussed very recently here. Sampajanna (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a small but determined group of editors who are resistant. For example the article about John Buchan was originally called John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir. (Talk:John Buchan/Archive 2.) The only time I see her referred to as the Duchess of Sussex in news reports is when both she and her husband as referred to as "the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" or "the Sussexes." Separately they are usually referred to as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. I have never seen her referred to as Princess Harry, although that would be correct.

Since she is never referred to as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, I agree to the move to Duchess of Sussex.

TFD (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

TFD wrote "I have never seen her referred to as Princess Harry, although that would be correct." The royal wedding granted Meghan Markle a host of titles, including Princess Henry of Wales. Sampajanna (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, there’s no proof that she actually held the title Princess Henry of Wales. That was just a guess made by the article’s writer that in the hypothetical situation in which Harry wouldn’t have been granted a dukedom then his wife would have been known as HRH Princess Henry of Wales, just like Prince Michael of Kent’s wife is known as Princess Michael of Kent (or Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, who was known as Princess Richard of Gloucester before her husband became the Duke of Gloucester). In Meghan’s case, however, she was HRH The Duchess of Sussex from the beginning; pretty much like her sister-in-law who was HRH The Duchess of Cambridge from the moment she married William. Meghan has never been referred to as HRH Princess Henry of Wales in any official documents or palace records, just like Catherine who has never been named HRH Princess William of Wales. That’s why we cannot really make a solid argument in favor of these titles. Keivan.f^Talk 08:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

She has been referred to as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex multiple times - for instance, in her New York Times op-ed. If that were the case, wouldn't her husband's name revert to simply "The Duke of Sussex"? Regardless of my opinion, we should see what a discussion request to move yields. Additionally, I think the reason "Duchess of Sussex" redirects here while "Duchess of Cambridge" doesn't redirect at her page, is because Meghan is the only person historically to hold that courtesy title, while Catherine isn't, and requires further disambiguation. --Bettydaisies (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said she is never formally referred to that way. Oddly enough, when the NYT article showed up under my Google search as "Opinion | Meghan Markle: The Losses We Share - The New times." The actual article says, "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex." Other sources say "Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex" or ""Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex." It's like referring to Dean Baquet, editor of the New York Times. That's not literally his name. If there were lots of Meghan Markles, I would recommend calling this one "Meghan Markel (Duchess of Sussex).

May I ask: Do you think readers are more likely to type in "Meghan Markle" "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex?"

TFD (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Her referral in the news in general definitely fluctuates between all three variations - but its also important to consider this principle onto, for instance, Anne, Princess Royal, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, etc. I'd say people are definitely more likely to look for Meghan Markle; but from a historical point of view, there could be discrepancies, its a multifaceted issue, etc. This matter has been discussed multiple times on this page with no consensus, as recently as a few weeks ago, which is unfortunate.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Then there's Wallis Simpson, the most controversial of all royal wives. Common name of course does not ensure consistency, because common usage is not consistent. Note that article begins, "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor (born Bessie Wallis Warfield; 19 June 1896 – 24 April 1986), known as Wallis Simpson, was an American socialite and wife of the Duke of Windsor, the former British king Edward VIII." So we get to call her Wallis, Duchess of Windsor while making it easy for the readers to find the article and to know they have reached the right article by looking at the article title. TFD (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ha! this interminable and pointless discussion...actually, I quite like the IP’s suggestion of “Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)”. Works for “official name’, covers off COMMONNAME whether you claim DofS or MM as COMMONNAME, and best of all satisfies no one. DeCausa (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Readers are not more likely to type in "Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)” than "Meghan Markle." That's not common usage at all. TFD (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That’s what redirects are for and why article titles don't matter. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Article titles, "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." TFD (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is totally pointless. There was an RM which was closed about two weeks ago (scroll up) and the consensus was against moving this page. I also really want to know why people are so obsessed with moving this single page, while ignoring tons of other articles about female relatives for which we use this same format of titling. Examples are Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (aka Kate Middleton, Catherine Middleton), Diana, Princess of Wales (aka Princess Diana, Lady Diana Spencer), Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (aka Camilla Parker Bowles), Sarah, Duchess of York (aka Sarah Ferguson), Sophie, Countess of Wessex (aka Sophie Rhys-Jones), Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (aka Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott), Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester (aka Birgitte van Deurs), Katharine, Duchess of Kent (aka Katharine Worsley), etc. The example provided above about Wallis Simpson cannot be applied to Meghan's case, because Meghan and all of these women were legally made HRH and princesses of the UK by marriage whereas Wallis never had that privilege. Everything about her is unique and cannot be used to draw conclusions about what articles or article titles of other female relatives should look like. Additionally, removing the first name of these individuals would cause a huge amount of trouble because there have been women before them who used to have the exact same titles. And it's not gonna be helpful in Meghan's case either, considering that she herself uses her name and title together when signing documents or publishing. Not to mention that previous suggestions for moving pages such as Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall to The Duchess of Cornwall or Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall were strongly opposed by the community and I doubt it will generate much support in Meghan's case either. Also, at this point she has dropped her father's surname from whom she's estranged. I have never seen her use the surname Markle even once since marrying Harry; neither in her voice acting jobs, op-eds, nor in her interview. I guess we should stop shoving it down her throat when she obviously does not want it. Keivan.f^Talk 02:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Attention is paid to this article because the subject is currently in the news. Consistent with policy, my preference for article name would be (1) COMMONNAME, i.e., what the subject is normally called in reliable sources, (2) legal name, (3) what Buckingham Palace calls her, which is the Duchess of Sussex, and (4) what Wikipedia editors like. Bear in mind that we don't have to show deference to people of higher social rank, since Wikipedia is international. And if we do, we should at least get it right. TFD (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

All of these figures are constantly in the news but I don’t see an RM getting opened for them every 6 months. The Palace also refers to the royals as HRH The Prince/ss / Duke/chess of X and to Elizabeth II as HM The Queen. We obviously don’t (and shouldn’t in my opinion) use such formalities here. Nevertheless, it’s important to remember that people can have more than one common name, and this seems to be the case for Meghan and all of the aforementioned women. Per MOS:IDENTITY a person’a choice of name must also be considered (the most recent example that I can think of is Elliot Page, previously known as Ellen Page). In Meghan’s case, she evidently doesn’t like being referred to as Meghan Markle as I explained before. And as you said Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, which means that we treat all people equally, regardless of their title, but providing information on people is different from the process through which their articles are named. We have royalty and nobility (WP:NCROY), whether we like it or not, and these people utilize their titles in their daily lives and our articles here should be a reflection of that, regardless of their nationality (Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland (Sweden), Queen Rania of Jordan, Kiko, Princess Akishino (Japan), Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco, etc.) Obviously referring to these people by their titles doesn’t make them superior to anyone else, and keeping this page at its current title doesn’t make the subject superior to us either. It does, however, keep it consistent with the articles on all international royals. Keivan.f^Talk 03:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

TFD : Fair comments. Just to clarify, what is her legal name? Sampajanna (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex (1) based on how her name originally appeared on her son’s birth certificate, and her sister-in-law’s is Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge (2). Though I should mention that a petition was filed in June 2019, which changed her name to Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex by removing Rachel Meghan from her son’s birth certificate (3). This was similar to how Diana’s name appeared on her sons’ birth certificates as Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (instead of Diana Frances Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales) (4). Nevertheless, the point is that her legal name is not Meghan Markle in the UK. As a married woman, there’s a possibility that her name in the US could now be Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor, but this hasn’t been confirmed yet. Keivan.f^Talk 04:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what her legal name is. Her son's birth certificate contains her name as reported by her, and is only a legal document for her son. Better sources would be her U.S. passport (if she is ever allowed to see it), her UK driver's license or the name on her National Insurance Card. One could also consult the name she uses to register as an elector in California. TFD (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I bet she has her passport now that she’s in the US, otherwise how could she possibly leave and travel in the first place? Also, hers is not the only one taken; it’s a precautionary measure to monitor movements of members of the royal house and provide them with security. In any case, that’s a legal document that we have access to. Doesn’t make a difference whether it’s for her or her son. It’s still a legal document containing her legal name; just as any woman’s legal name would appear on her child’s birth certificate. Also, there were some reports that according to sources close to her, she voted in the 2020 US elections (1) but this was never confirmed. Is there a way to find out more about it? Like a database of registered voters? Through I think such information would not be available to the public. Keivan.f^Talk 08:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it seems I was right. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), for the state of California these are the people who can request access to the voter file: Candidates, parties, ballot measure committees, and to any person for election, scholarly, journalistic, or political purposes, or for governmental purposes, as determined by the Secretary of State. All voter information is confidential except for those listed above that may request lists. Keivan.f^Talk 08:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal document for her son? So, what? Even were that solely true, that document legally identifies his parents by law and in fact (see, Act of Settlement; Succession of the Crown Act; etc.) -- he has inheritance rights because of those facts and by law, not only to a dukedom but to a throne, partly because his mother, in fact and by law, is the person legally named there, and the mother, legally named there, is wed to the Prince, Duke of Sussex. But it is not solely true that it is only a legal document for her son, it is a legal document for her: as evidenced by that document, she has legally identifiable rights as his mother.[2][3] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The parents' names on a birth certificate is whatever the person registering the birth says it is. You cannot change someone's name by using a different name to register the birth of their child. In the U.S. there are public records with persons' names, such as voter registration lists. It will also be interesting to see what name Markle uses when she runs for U.S. president and even more interesting what she will be called if she wins. TFD (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You? Do you mean, her? Whatever the person says it is, is the changed name, and it is legal. In common law countries, like the UK and the US, a woman can change her name on marriage just by her using the name, and she doesn't even have to use it all the time, just using it customarily will do. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

TFD, you are quite wrong. In common law jurisdictions (and almost all US states and England and Wales) name change is determined by common usage “open and notorious” i.e. unless it’s for fraudulent purposes, what one calls oneself is one’s legal name with no necessity for a formal process although they may be available for evidential purposes. In other words, in a common law jurisdiction you can generally change ones name simply by saying to the world ‘I now want to be called X’. This is different to civil jurisdictions. See Name change. Also, there may be a legal obligation to register the new name with various government departments e.g. DMV etc. But that isn’t to change the name - it’s just that they must be informed of your current name. If you don’t do it you still have the new name but you’ve breached DMV rules. The child’s birth certificate is evidence of her name because the parents have to register the birth, it is her act and her usage (and therefore equals her legal name). However, per WP:PRIMARY it would be unwise to place too much reliance on it and can’t be used for a generalised statement of her legal name. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course one can call oneself what one wants, but for most purposes you need proof that is your name. You can't open a bank account, get a passport or driver's licence, sign a contract or deed or run up a criminal record under an alias. Try telling the authorities that you choose to call yourself the High and Mighty Prince De Causa of the United Kingdom and see what happens. In my correspondence, I normally shorten my Christian name and omit my middle name, but that doesn't mean that I have changed my name. In a recent letter from HM Revenue and Customs, I am addressed as full Christian name middle initial surname. That doesn't mean I have shortened my middle name. The Dept. of Works and Pensions addressed me as first initial surname. That doesn't mean my Christian name is an initial. If you send me checks for all the versions of my name, we can see which ones your bank will honor. TFD (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

1) We are not talking about a pseudonym or what people do with initials (which at any rate, commonly do represent the full name), we are talking about a marriage and well established ordinary custom.

2) Yes, people do put their name on documents, documents like their children's birth certificates, where the name matters. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but they can put various version of their names on birth certificates. As an amateur genealogist, I can tell you that discrepancies are fairly common. And remember when the late Marquis of Bristol was arrested and the court documents called him Jamie Blandford or something similar? Is it your opinion as a lawyer that a person's legal name is whatever appears on their child's birth certificate rather than their own birth certificate, change of name by deed poll, marriage certificate, voter registration or passport? TFD (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I can tell you as a UK lawyer (and it would seem 46 U.S states - including California - have exactly the same legal basis) that if my name is X on my bank account, passport, social security, birth certificate, voter registration etc and on 16 March 2021 I start using the name Y, my name is legally Y with or without changing those other documents. The legal basis is that my usage just has to be “open and notorious” and intending that usage to be a new name. And it’s not restricted to marriage either. it’s a different question whether my bank, immigration authorities etc believe me if I deal with them with my new name - and they may well look for evidence that i have really done that such as a deed poll - but in law my name has changed on 16 March 2021 come what may. (Most common law jurisdictions are like this. By the way, civil law jurisdictions, including I believe, Louisiana have a concept much more akin to what people more popularly believe: that your name doesn’t change until there’s some sort of formal legal process completed.) That’s the relevance of her putting forwarded her name on her child’s birth certificate. But per WP:PRIMARY I don’t think it should be used in this context, so a bit of a WP dead end. DeCausa (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why my opinion as a lawyer would matter. Reading sources, however, the common legal rule found in sources is based on the person's usage. The birth certificate is sourced usage, and it accords with other usage like in her byline of last November, and it accords with marriage common name change custom -- thus it is makes perfect sense to read things in a story about a legal case, like, ". . . Duchess of Sussex . . . Meghan . . . The former Meghan Markle . . ." [4], easily and readily (or perhaps, if DeCausa prefers, 'openly and notoriously' :)) recognizing, there's a name change. (Anecdote: I have a colleague who 'openly' has used her married name for years, but I have to remember her maiden name when I email her because it is in her work email address, still I honor her choice of changed name with what I write in the e-mail or when I see her in person, as common courtesy.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There is theory and practice. I don't think all these organizations would accept a name change just because you told them you had changed your name. Normally they would require evidence such as a deed poll. But what is her name on her passport, driver's license, California voter registration, electric bill, and Netflix contract? TFD (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Court cases have upheld the principle that a person's name is what they give it as not what the bureaucracy lists it as. (The one that springs to mind is Greenway-Stanley v Paterson [1977] 2 All ER 663 although that's better known for what it sets down about the obligations on a Returning Officer.) Some little jobsworth may demand documentation to support a change of name that's easier to provide than dragging them through the courts but the principle of a name changing upon marriage is so strongly established that the marriage certificate itself would be sufficient proof. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Luckily, imo, it's not our job to trawl through her personal documents. And, I think I would find that invasive job a miserable existence, but that's quite different from reading what the BBC has sourced and sent around the world -- its not like, Meghan [drop former name on marriage], is anything shocking, nor a crime.[5]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, preference should be given to the common name. Some editors thought we should use her legal name, but we don't know what that is. Anyway we can revisit this as her Netflix series are produced and she possibly makes a run for president. TFD (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Her running for presidency is WP:CRYSTAL. She may or may not do it, though I find it really unlikely. Yet again, nothing is out of the realm of possibility so we just have to wait and see. Plus, at the moment, she and her husband are credited together on their mutual works as Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex; the most recent example being their podcast on Spotify as well as Meghan’s voice acting job with Disney last year. So that’s the common name used in those platforms to give her credit for her work. Additionally, she has written under the name Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex for The New York Times. Overall, there’s no indication of Meghan Markle being the common name at this point, other than it being used by tabloids. Things may change in the future if she runs for public office in the US and the issue can be brought up then with a new RM. Keivan.f^Talk 02:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

can someone explain to me why you are having a discussion about what her legal name is? Do you have the same discussion for Kate Middleton who is just as often referred to by her pre Duchess name? This entire discussion is proof of why Meghan is treated differently. No one can tell me that it’s a coincidence that the first African American president had racists incessantly asking for his birth certificate and crafting elaborate conspiracy theories about his “mysterious” back ground, when it wasn’t at all... Is it a coincidence that people are playing the same trick with Meghan? Asking to look into her voting records to verify she is who she says she is etc? Verify her name? There is nothing different about her and Kate in regards to the name, they’re both still called Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle interchangeably with their marriage titles. To all the people who kept responding to the “birther” who is demanding to see Meghan’s documents to verify her name, when there is absolutely nothing confusing about what her name is, why don’t you just call out the person instead of entertaining their birther conspiracy theories? How many times do we just stand by and watch people like this sneak into forums to taint it with doubt and hate? The sick part is that they’re incessant and never give up on their hateful campaign. Everyday tens of thousands of middle aged men and women wake up and think of how they can make Meghan’s life miserable on social media that day. Tens of thousands of accounts dedicated to conspiracy theories about her, everything from Archie is a doll to she used to be a prostitute. The person(birther) who is demanding to see her papers is clearly a dedicated member of the Meghan hatedom that is so prominent online, the person needs to be blocked from ever editing her page. Shows all the patterns of membership into that hatedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvictusGames (talk • contribs) 04:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe the conspiracy theories you've mentioned have been propped up by editors as reason for any sort of page room. The reason why people might want documentation is because when it comes to noble titles, legal names are tricky and difficult to determine - for instance, Princess Anne's legal name might be different than her given surname, Mountbatten-Windsor, but we have no way of knowing that without legal sources, etc. The majority of reasons cited discuss WP:COMMONNAME, and there have been naming discussions about almost every contemporary "married-in" royal spouse you can find.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue of her legal name came up because people who want the article to be called "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" insisted that was her legal name as it would appear on her passport, driver's license, tax return, bank account, etc. Policy however requires that we use COMMONNAME for subjects. Hence the article title Wallis Simpson for the late widow of the Duke of Windsor. It seems though there is a tendency by some editors to add titles to article names where they are clearly unnecessary. John Buchan for example was originally called John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir. You can read the move discussion at Talk:John Buchan/Archive 2#Requested move. As I explained then, "This is an encyclopedia not a social calendar and therefore we should use the most common name." It has nothing to do with the race or nationality of the subject. It's a little confusing anyway to use her married name, since her husband is not normally referred to as the Duke of Sussex, but as Prince Harry. TFD (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the norm for Kate Middleton, it should be the exact same for Meghan Markle. Both have two different ways that media and people in general refer to them. Media is still largely refer to Kate Middleton as Kate Middleton, just like Meghan. Do you have an opinion on this when it comes to Kate? Why are you editing Meghan’s page, you have too much hostility and every single comment of yours is a passive aggressive attempt to confuse everyone and make things around Meghan somehow more complicated. Borderline birther.— Preceding unsigned comment added by InvictusGames (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

We don’t have an article for “Kate Middleton”. It’s under the name Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. So, yes, Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle are treated exactly the same way. What’s your point? DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Racial Identity and the Media

Hi all! I wanted to discuss the addition of a section about her racial identity and the media, especially in the context of the Oprah Winfrey interview. Even though Meghan Markle is frequently described as a modernizing force, she is rarely considered in light of her biracial identity, which is an important factor in considering her relations with the British press. Markle has been often labeled as “black”, rather than as biracial, which enforces a racial binary. It also sets her apart from her sister in law, Kate Middleton. From this Guardian article, it can be observed that she has received twice as many negative reviews as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. 43% of articles written about Markle were negative, and 20% were positive. As well, this research demonstrates that her identity as a biracial woman has been reduced and ignored, while the Daily Mail describes her as “straight outta Compton” and her appearance as “messy”. Additionally, more negative reviews came after comments made by her father came out, and after she and Prince Harry made the decision to have a private baptism. 43% of articles written about Markle were negative, and 20% were positive. The abuse and harassment reached such a level that it at one point prompted a statement from the Press Communications Secretary. The harassment includes the Daily Mail describing Markle incorrectly as a “descendant of slaves”. As well, Prince Harry was the first British royal to sue the press for harassment of his wife, emphasizing the intensity of the comments being made. He is quoted as saying that Markle is a victim of the press, who he says were waging a campaign against her. It seems that there is a clear correlation between Markle’s identity as a biracial woman and racist undertones in reporting by the British press. It appears to be more significant than criticism that Kate Middleton faced, as it ties directly into Markle’s race, something that was hardly discussed or mentioned with Middleton. Considering that her identity is a significant part of who she is, it seems to warrant a new section addition.

Digitalculturestudent (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi! I think a lot of the content you mention surrounding, for instance, headline coverage and Press Secretary comments, could be synthesized into the "Privacy and media" section, perhaps with a subsection heading, if other editors concur. Further conflicts with the press, such as her successful lawsuit against AN/Daily Mail, are also covered in the same section.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Digitalculturestudent Also, have a look at the (Almost) Straight Outta Compton article. Sampajanna (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

To the extent you wish to represent a study and conclusions of an academic, you should consider putting them in the form of "According to linguistics professor X." Also, note, this Wikipedia article does note her ancestry, and the article you cite [6], does not really take issue with the facts of her ancestry, as incorrect, but rather the context in which the Daily Mail used it. Perhaps people might need some time to review your sources, but thank you very much for providing citations to sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

On another source, I'm not familiar with: [7]. There is a notice board on Wikipedia that discusses sourcing issues, WP:RSN, see WP:RS for the Wikipedia guideline. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, [8] appears to be an undergraduate thesis, so probably not usable WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but it might help you find usable RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. 2001:1970:5147:4100:4976:F112:693B:D9E3 (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of this, shouldn't she be in the category african-american? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.96.125 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Previously discussed at Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 2#African American categories, Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 4#Identifies Bi-Racial She is NOT African American and Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 7#Nationality/ethnicity categories. DrKay (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but, if it isn't a bother, why was american people of african descent taken off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.96.125 (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

One of those 'falling through the cracks' things, I think the African decent category was deleted because some people thought it was being misused on other articles. IMO, yes we should have the AA category here, but oddly (imo) it seems some people don't understand that one can be AA and other things too, they treat AA like an excluding race (Really odd, since AA is an ethnicity not a race and the plain fact is AA are often of very mixed ancestry). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Meghan: celebrity

I do appreciate that profession has previously been discussed.*[9] At the moment, the lead reads: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (/ˈmɛɡən/; born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981) is an American member of the British royal family and a former actress. Especially as a result of the attention given to her by mass media since the Oprah with Meghan and Harry TV interview, MM's celebrity would seem to have expanded. Here are some alternatives:

• an American celebrity member of the British royal family and a former actress
• an American celebrity, member of the British royal family and former actress
• an American celebrity, former actress, and member of the British royal family

Comments or suggestions, please. Sampajanna (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There has often been mass media and it's because she is a member of that family and had a working acting career. It's basically the same as when they did that engagement interview, and then the South Africa interview. (See also Vanity Fair cover article in that engagement year.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Alanscottwalker is right. People do interviews but that doesn't indicate a change in the reason for which they are prominent. Also, building up on that logic, Harry would be considered a celebrity as well. I think in essence, all members of the royal family, specifically the younger generation, have some sort of celebrity status, including Will and Kate. Keivan.f^Talk 23:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Keivan.f : The following may be of interest : "The royal family is undoubtedly very famous. However, unlike many other famous people, members of the royal family have to represent the royal brand and cannot be celebrities in their own right. This means that much of the work they do should ultimately tie back in to what the establishment stands for, not be for their own personal gain." Sampajanna (talk)

Their notability hasn't changed in the light of the interview, in my opinion, especially since the basis of the episode and subsequent coverage revolved around their links and experiences in the royal family. Depending on how they go forward (i.e Archewell Productions) their occupation could be added to as, for instance, producers and such, but I don't think I've ever seen a person be listed strictly as a celebrity; figures "famous for being famous" are typically referred to as socialites, and I'm not sure how well that would apply here.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the term "celebrity" is just too vague. People should be listed by profession. As Bettydaisies suggested, as their career develops we can add terms such as producer, businessperson, podcaster, etc. to the lead in the future, similar to Sarah, Duchess of York. Keivan.f^Talk 00:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Depending on the future path taken by Meghan, I think the term celebrity might be well and accurately used. Celebrity is a specific term which can be used descriptively of one facet/set of facets in a person's life. Yes, not all celebrities are the same but neither are people to whom other valid descriptors might apply. The only question, for me, is whether an accurate use of a term such as celebrity would fit in with trends of term usage within Wikipedia. GregKaye 12:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Shes not nobility. Her husband is, and since he is no longer a working royal or a HRH, I believe she should be filed under celeb or former royal. 85Rose (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

I agree it's not "public or post royal work" and I'm not sure where else it might be placed. But it might be wise to provide an explanation as to why she will not attend alongside her husband. It's quite a notable event. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s better to include it on the actual funeral’s article, since Wikipedia’s focus better suits topical and encyolodeic content rather than explanation. I don’t know if it warrants inclusion based both on organisation and overall notability within her biography. I agree it’s definitely a notable event, and full nuances and details reported regarding attendance should absolutely be included on that specific page. Additionally, it might be best to wait until after the funeral before deciding on inclusion on individual biographies. Bettydaisies (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes Betty, that's a perfectly reasonable argument. I guess this may depend on press coverage, although perhaps it shouldn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME

@User:Векочел - per MOS:SURNAME, public figures are typically referred to by their last names in articles (i.e Grace Kelly). As Meghan didn't have a title before marriage, On Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, for instance, she's referred to mostly as "she" and "her" in the early parts of the lead and entirely as "Middleton" through her engagement. I"m not sure if it's suitable to refer to Meghan by her first name in the biographical portions dating pre-2018, especially since she established notability under her maiden name. This discussion could also be applicable for Sophie, Countess of Wessex. I'm curious to know your thoughts (and other editors, if they wish) on this matter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Well Bettydaisies, I’m sure people will have a number of thoughts on the matter. We have Wallis Simpson be referred to by her first name, as is Diana, Princess of Wales. She is called Meghan as Duchess, wouldn’t it make sense to refer to her with the same name throughout the article? To me, it seems reasonable that this should be the case. Векочел (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It should be Markle. Unlike Catherine Middleton and Wallis Simpson, Meghan Markle was professionally notable prior to her remarriage and called Markle in all reputable media. The article should reflect that. When the article gained GA status, she was called Markle before the royal marriage and the Duchess after. Surtsicna (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@User:Векочел Thank you for responding. MOS:SURNAME states:

• "a person should generally be referred to by surname only"
• "if their most commonly used name includes their earlier surname, and you're discussing a period of their life before the surname change, ::refer to them by their prior surname
• "in other words, when discussing the early lives of Hillary and Bill Clinton, use "Rodham met Clinton while they were students at Yale", referring to Hillary using her then-current surname."

With these guidelines, I don't understand why Simpson's article is formatted that way (I can haphazardly guess the fluctuation of surnames was a factor); additionally, I believe Diana had a title before marriage. The debate centers around where WP:NCNOB comes in, which staunchly states that royals should be referred to by first name or title - however, before her marriage, she wasn't royalty. I'd also like to reiterate the aforementioned factor of notability established under the name "Meghan Markle", used commonly during her previous career.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Bettydaisies, Diana did have a title before marriage. She was Lady Diana Spencer, being the daughter of an earl. Do you think this means we need to change the naming in the articles of Diana and Sophie so that we have their last names? Векочел (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe (?) that since Diana had a title, her first name is understandable, but since Sophie had none and a "normal" surname, Rhys-Jones, this discussion is also applicable to her page in terms of usage and style.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

In other articles married women are referred to by their maiden names before marriage. For example Hillary Clinton (nee Rodham) is referred to as Rodham. And having a title of nobility makes no difference - surnames or the title name are used. In this case that would be Sussex. First names are only used for royal titles (King, Queen, Princess). In this case the married woman assumes the first name of her husband, e.g., Princess Michael of Kent. But it would be confusing to refer to her as Princess Henry of Wales. TFD (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I also concur with the Rodham logic. MOS:SURNAME states that "Generally speaking, subjects should not [...] be referred to by their given name; exceptions include royalty, e.g. Prince Charles or Charles". Her husband's peerage is a royal dukedom, not dukedom of nobility, and she is a British princess, so I think referring to her by her first name/title is fine for content post-2018. WP:NCNOB states royals with such titles are referred to by (first name), (title); she hasn't used "Princess Henry" officially or commonly.--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason people refer to Charles and other children of kings and queens by their first names is that they don't have last names. Surnames developed long after the establishment of the royal houses from which they descend. It's only when the descendants of royalty come to lack royal or noble titles that they are assigned surnames. TFD (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

archie popadopoulos

1. English Royal family...not British 217.137.147.124 (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

See British royal family. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

69.6.32.55 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No longer duchess

 Not done as she still retains the title of duchess. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

Change "In 2003, Markle earned her bachelor's degree with a double major in theater and international studies from Northwestern's School of Communication.[25][23]"

To: ".. earned her bachelors degree in Communications from NWU"

She didn't double major. And International relations isn't offered at the school of comm its offered at the school of poli Sci. The NWU 2003 yearbook shows her in the graduating class of the school of communications with a major in COMM. 85Rose (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Your claim is contrary to the sources and unsupported. IR was offered as a second major in the School. This has already been discussed.[10]. Double majors always get one degree, while fulfilling the requirements for both (double) majors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have photos of her yearbook proving her major. How do I post that as proof? 85Rose (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The sources for the original text of double majors in IS and theatre are not proper sources. Her NWU yearbook stating her degree would be the reliable source. 85Rose (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it would not, not only do we use secondary sources (so, you are wrong about what a proper source is), but nothing about the year book changes or challenges anything, you just misunderstand it, or read into it, your own personal conclusion. And as noted in the prior discussion, the University, itself, has contradicted your unsupportable conclusion. A year book is not a transcript. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

A primary source would be considered more reliable than a secondary source. Yearbooks are primary source. How is what I've seen in the NU yearbook, my "own" interpretation?? I have a masters level degree, I know how to research. Theres also this: In the Spring 2013 edition of the Dialogue, the quarterly magazine put out by Northwestern University’s Department of Communications, she is mentioned on Page 22 in the “Class Notes” section with this:

Meghan Markle (C03) is a cast member of the USA show Suits.

(X)

The ’(C03)’ indicates she graduated from the school of communications in the year 2003.

This data is independently verified by the University’s Department of Alumni Relations and would include the school and date of graduation. See page 20 of the magazine for this (copied here):

Class notes are selected from alumni submissions to Northwestern magazine at www.northwestern.edu /magazine, stories of alumni featured in the media as identified by the University’s Office of Alumni Relations and Development, and updates sent to Dialogue by mail or by email at dialogue@northwestern.edu.

Where has the uni actually contradicted her degree in comm? I didn't see that source listed. 85Rose (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how detrimental continuing to publish this false information about her degree is? Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased, factual accounting. It's also a slap in the face of those whom actually have earned their degree in IR, it's not an easy degree to attain. I question why you refuse to submit the real degree she has, instead relying on secondary sources, when primary sources are plentiful. 85Rose (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

Meghan was born 1976 not 1981 75.90.27.69 (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)