Jump to content

Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.51.45.76 (talk) at 09:59, 29 November 2017 (→‎Question on WP:ENGVAR/WP:TIES issue). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Toronto

She seems to live in Toronto - but no info about that here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.165.22 (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added that today, with citation; and the fact that she recently moved out. Will live at Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German descent

MARKLE is a typical German surname, does anyone know, if she is of German descent? 91.65.17.77 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Markle is not a German surname. See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markle
Markel IS a German surname. See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markel--Achim Hering (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My guess, her ancestors came from Germany and settled down in the Netherlands. There is no big difference between Germans and Dutch people. Shhh don't tell them. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.190.121 (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Markle is not related to Mrs Merkel. The Dutch don't like the Germans. The Germans think Holland is part of Germany. Wythy (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, no German thinks Holland is part of Germany.--2001:A61:2085:9F01:4B7:795D:4475:3C63 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Prince Harry

The fact that she's Prince Harry's current girlfriend keeps getting removed from the introductory biography. Why? Chelsy Davy has a Wikipedia page on the sheer account that she was once Harry's girlfriend, Markle is the first of Harry's partner's in well over a decade the Palace released an official statement about confirming their relationship. It seems to me that this is significant enough to include the line in her introductory bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marser11 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several months later, I think it's even more clear that this should be mentioned somehow in the lede. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...especially as she would not qualify for a wiki-page otherwise. A notable actress she is not. Valetude (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with mentioning the relationship with Prince Harry in the lead. I will add it is not accurate to say she is not notable actress. She has had a Wikipedia article for 10 years, long before her relationship with Harry began. Knope7 (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Duke of Windsor" problem

As she's an American divorcee, something that's totally okay in other circumstances, will they get the full royal wedding treatment with tea towels and a formal parade to St.Someone's cathedral and a photo op on the Royal balcony? Will she become the "Duchess of Wherever" if HM decides to create Harry Duke of same?

Her stepmother-in-law-elect, the Duchess of Cornwall, is not an HRH, nor does she ever use her honorific "Princess of Wales" title. There was a bruhaha over whether or not she will be recognized as Queen Consort when the time comes.

This has been a problem for centuries. Now that it's public, there should be a section on it.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla is a Royal Highness. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Camilla does actually hold the style 'H.R.H'. If Harry is given a Dukedom (which is often given to British Princes when they marry, but not always) then his wife will automatically hold the female version of it. How a big a marriage ceremony they will have is partly up to the couple themselves. Princes Charles and Princes Anne are both divorcees who remarried, so it is much less of an issue for the British Royal family now. Part of the issue at the time of Edward and Mrs Simpson was that the Church of England (of which the British Monarch is Supreme Governor) strictly forbade remarriage for divorcees at that time - neither conducting or recognising them. That has now changed, a COE church marriage may be possible, or they could opt for a civil marriage recognised by the church (like Charles and Camilla). Basically, it's a non-issue now. Indisciplined (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British princes are traditionally given a title when they marry. The younger sons of the monarch are usually made a duke, although Prince Edward was just made an earl, so she has the serious chance of becoming a duchess or a countess. However, I have just looked into this, as a result of the exceptional longevity of Elizabeth II it seems to be completely unprecedented for the younger son of the heir apparent to marry. As Markle is a divorcee I don't think the Church of England would marry her, but the Church of Scotland would. They could go for a relatively low-key wedding in Scotland, like Princess Anne's 2nd marriage or Zara Phillips, or they could go for a big wedding in somewhere like Glasgow Cathedral or St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh. PatGallacher (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of England now permits divorced persons to marry in a Church of England church, this was voted and approved by the General Synod of the Church of England in 2002. There is however the caveat that the resident priest in charge of the church does have discretion to refuse the marriage if they so wish, dependent on 'individual circumstances'. In the case of Prince Harry and Megan Markle there will be no problems with the Dean of Westminster or the Dean of Windsor permiting the marriage, as both postions owe direct allegiance to the Sovereign. Both have approved, and indeed the venue will be St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. Ds1994 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that, although Prince Edward was 'only' made an Earl, it was announced by Buckingham Palace that Prince Edward will be made the Duke of Edinburgh, when that current title finally reverts to the Crown. This will only happen when the current Duke of Edinburgh has died, and the Prince of Wales becomes King. It remains to be seen if a similar approach is used again for Prince Harry, but at the moment it has been suggested he will be made Duke of Sussex of the second creation (the first creation also being a Royal Dukedom and is therefore considered a royal title).Ds1994 (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

humanitarian?

I didn't realize she worked with AIDS patients in Africa, served soup to the hungry in L.A. and brokered peace between Israel and the Palestinians. She's an actress, not a humanitarian. She has done absolutely no notable work in that regard at all, aside from a shambolic (and honorary) title from the U.N. She's a minor, second-rate actress playing supporting role in a cable TV show and current girlfriend of a British prince, nothing more. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A private company is continuously editing this page to paint her as a humanitarian. She is clearly known for being and actress and model. Being a good will ambassador is her using her fame in acting and modelling to promote the work of IOs and NGOs. This does not change her profession nor what she is know for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.94.10 (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this addition - which is relatively recent and smacks of promotion of the subject. I agree it is entirely inappropriate for the opening sentence. She is known primarily as a model and actress, not for philanthropy/humanitarian work. We wouldn't include that role in the lead sentence of Cristiano Ronaldo or Bradd Pitt, despite that being citable for both. Most famous people do some form of this work. 89.242.253.34 (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was genuinely rejoicing for the youngish couple until I saw the word 'humanitarian' here and skepticism set in. If the editors who insist on including this term here think they are burnishing her public image they should think again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.206.130.180 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian, Calligraphy, Model Comment

Can we please get some consensus on this? I can kind of under stand her being a humanitarian as she is using her image as a star to work for World Vision, but even that is a bit of a stretch for her to be known by. I don't agree with User:193.138.94.10 adding that she is known for calligrapher and modelling, those are hobbies same as the business she is running for her clothing. NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is clearly most know for being an actress. Modelling seems to be the second-most important factor in her fame. Humanitarian is as much of a stretch as calligraphy, so I suggest to remove both. Neither have contributed to her fame before she was famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.94.10 (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that, not sure how much modelling she has done so others can debate that stay there. NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 09:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The logical move would be to move it out of the lead. Simply mention calligraphy in her early life and humanitarian as part of her later career. She is the most known for her acting and modelling so leave those in lead. We should not delete content for which there are reliable sources. Giving them due weight or reducing the weight given to them is an organizational concern. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with removing it from the infobox. She maybe well-known as an actress but that is obviously not all she does there is a full subsection on her other works. The infobox and the lead to the most part should summarize the entire article not just the parts she is well known for. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See for example, featured article on Emma Watson. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::Humanitarian is sourced from a WP:RS. We should not remove it because it our WP:OR say it is the second or third most important factor in fame, or that is i just a hobby. However if it is WP:UNDUE please prove this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)

I have just noted your comment here. IT is entirely inappropriate to include humanitarianism in the opening sentence, as this mislead the reader into believing this is a significant role for the subject - it is not. IT is included in the info box and this suffices. You wouldn't include this in the opening sentence for Cristiano Ronaldo, so why here? 89.242.253.34 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WIKIPEDIA:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or rather in this case doesn't exist is not an argument. What sources do you have saying that her role as a humanitarian is less significant than others? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janweh64, are you paid to change this wikipedia page?

Your arguments make no sense. Because a tabloid celebrity magazine consider her a humanitarian does not mean that this is the reason why she is famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.94.10 (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that there is a reference also makes no sense, since you have deleted the referenced facts that she is a calligrapher and a model — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.94.10 (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I reinserted the Sun reference then for model and calligraphy work. I think the box is fine like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.94.10 (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun is a tabloid.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I have removed the mention of humanitarianism in the lead sentence - which is relatively recent addition and smacks of promotion of the subject. I agree it is entirely inappropriate for the opening sentence. She is known primarily as a model and actress, not for philanthropy/humanitarian work. We wouldn't include that role in the lead sentence of Cristiano Ronaldo or Bradd Pitt, despite that being citable for both. Most famous people do some form of this work, as does this subject. 89.242.253.34 (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, should be removed. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

change: She has been in a relationship with Prince Harry of Wales since June 2016

to: She has been in a relationship with Prince Harry since June 2016

why: Prince Harry is NOT prince of Wales. Only number 1 in the line of succesion is prince/princess of Wales! 91.198.168.8 (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Harry is correctly referred to as Prince Henry of Wales, he remains so until he receives his own title (normally on the eve of marriage). However, it is unusual to refer to Prince Harry as Prince Harry of Wales, it is normally either Prince Harry (informal and common use) or Prince Henry of Wales (formal). White&BlueWasp (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have removed the Prince Harry of Wales in the lead, feel free to re-add it, if it is correct. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Film anti social

Currently her wiki page says she had a part in 2015 film anti social. But Anti social was made 2013. Sequel Anti social ll was made in 2015. I'm not sure if the date is wrong or the film, whether it should say anti social ll. I've looked at both films in IMD but ahe isn't mentioned. Maybe shes uncredited ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ HardeeHar (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HardeeHar: She is on the IMDb at www.imdb.com/title/tt3475596/. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Emir of Wikipedia: yeah you're right. Sorry I got the film mixed up with similar named film: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_(film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardeeHar (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

Please:

Done, though the third request was already done when I got here. Thank you for helping to improve this article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 United Service Organizations Tour Photo

Could this photo add to the encyclopedic content of article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thsmi002 (talk • contribs)

@Thsmi002: I am not really sure where it would be relevant. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Emir of Wikipedia: I thought perhaps in the "other works" section where a mention about her involvement in the tour could be included. I did not feel strongly either way which is why I decided to put it hear and let other editors evaluate. I am not sure what her level of involvement was with USO or how notable it truly was.
Former Chicago Bears middle linebacker Brian Urlacher, actress Meghan Markle and Washington Nationals pitcher Doug Fister address the audience during a USO show for U.S. service members and their families stationed at Rota Naval Air Station, Spain, Dec. 6, 2014. (DOD photo by D. Myles Cullen/Released)
Agree that relevance needs to be stronger, otherwise this is just one of countless random "snapshots". 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5BE:8B3:6285:3518 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Succession to the British Throne

In terms of succession to the British throne, Meghan Markle would have to have at least four people to die once she marries Prince Harry, including her husband, if I understand the citation correctly. https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145991/spectator-opposed-meghan-markle-marrying-prince-harry kencf0618 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not understanding it correctly, or the source is wrong but it is worded oddly, or you have made a mistake in your comment. Markle will become Queen (consort) only when her husband is King, when he dies she doesn't become a Queen of her own but a widow. The four people in line are Prince Charles, Prince William, and the two children of Prince William (soon to be three with the recent pregnancy of Kate Middelton). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected! kencf0618 (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan is not and will not be in the line of succession, her future husband is. He is currently 5th, and will be 6th after the Cambridge's royal baby is born. Arg Matey (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct Arg Matey Someone who marries into monarchy does not get into the line of succession. And Harry is a LONG way down the list.

Here's the line of succession to the British throne

1. The Prince of Wales 2. The Duke of Cambridge 3. Prince George of Cambridge 4. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge 5. Prince Henry of Wales

and the list goes on and on. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/27/heres-line-succession-to-british-throne.html Peter K Burian (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is divorced and in England that is still an issue for older people

ABC News: Any true royal watcher or fan of "The Crown" is well aware that the engagement of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle is not the first time an American divorcee has vied to become a member of the British royal family. The last time this happened, the king abdicated his thrown and the United Kingdom was launched into a constitutional crisis .... Times have changed. Markle, an American actress and philanthropist whose first marriage ended in divorce, apparently received the blessing of the queen and royal family.http://abcnews.go.com/International/meghan-markle-divorced-american-marry-member-royal-family/story?id=51407232

Is Markle’s status as a divorcée that big a deal? An article in Mcleans, Canada's national news magazine says: 

  Divorce is a touchy subject for the royal family. Markle divorced from a previous marriage that ended in 2013. The last time a royal thought about marrying an American divorcée was in 1937 and it became an international scandal. King Edward VIII tied the knot with American socialite Wallis Simpson, a two-time divorcée, but the two never had an official engagement. The royal family refused to accept Simpson as the next queen, and some Brits suspected she was a Nazi spy. Stung by the disapproval, Edward renounced the throne within a year of being crowned and later married Simpson. Less dramatically, Harry’s father, Prince Charles, remarried in 2005 after his divorce with Princess Diana in 1996 (his bride, Camilla Parker Bowles, now the Duchess of Cornwall, had divorced 10 years earlier).

What it does not mention is that Prince Charles wanted to marry Camilla Parker Bowles when he was a young man, but the Queen rejected the plan because Camilla was already a divorcee. So, instead, he married Diana. After Diana died, he did marry Camilla since by then, the Queen was willing to allow it.

The article doesn't and shouldn't mention that because it's wrong. Camilla was divorced in 1995, the year before Charles and Diana divorced. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Camilla Parker Bowles: Overall, the majority of royal biographers have agreed that even if Charles and Camilla wanted to marry or did try for approval to get married, it would have been declined, because according to Charles's cousin and godmother Patricia Mountbatten, palace courtiers at that time found Camilla unsuitable as a wife for the future king. In 2005, she stated, "With hindsight, you can say that Charles should have married Camilla when he first had the chance. They were ideally suited, we know that now. But it wasn't possible."[…][55] "it wouldn't have been possible, not then."[…][56] Peter K Burian (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hussey, Esquire

"Esquire" is neither a substantive title nor an honour. It's a courtesy title, an honourific, used at the time as an unofficial title for a person with a high social rank (but lacking a substantive title). As for a US context, I cannot find any such reference that he was involved in the legal profession, other than being of the council of New Hampshire, but even if he was it would not warrant it to be included. It is worth noting that Hussey was a soldier. As a result of all of the above, I have removed it. UaMaol (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it made no sense to add Esquire. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hussey and his other colleagues are clearly described as "Esquire" in Robertson's 1834 book which is referenced. This was an automatic title if you were an "officer of the crown": Hussey was appointed by King Charles II to "...govern Hampton, New Hampshire...". The courtesy title is evident in the historic resources describe Hussey. Leave in of course. Srbernadette (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a commonly used term in 1834 and if you are using it in a quote from the book, that's fine. But since it is no longer commonly used, and since we are writing this in 2017, the term should not be routinely dropped into a sentence. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian as an occupation

I don't see how one can call "humanitarian" an occupation. Looking through some of the articles listed in Category:Humanitarians I couldn't find one person for whom "humanitarian" was listed in the infobox as an occupation. Nixon Now (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this a little odd too. The fact that it's probably the most criticised topic on this talk page and it's a stay is a bit of a joke really! UaMaol (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too; if that content is in the article, revise it so it says retired/volunteer work. That is not an occupation either per se, but closer to accurate. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the fact that she is/will be a humanitarian gets stronger and stronger. When originally added it was sourced and after discussion was decided as keep. At the time it wasn't that strong, now in the latest information with her retiring from acting she states that "They talked about forging a new role for themselves as a couple, focusing on the humanitarian causes over which they first bonded." [1], I think like Catherine Middleton, you will see her doing more and more charity work. As for being in the infobox, I don't really mind either way but I do think people can distinguish the difference as an occupation and years active from her acting career. NZFC(talk) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I revised it to Volunteering; in truth she is already retired and doing nothing but volunteer work from now on. What was Princess Diana's "occupation"?? Peter K Burian (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other exists isn't an argument for what you do here. Saying that, I had a look at what can be included in the Infobox Person and there is a field for "known_for = " I would suggest we add the humanitarian work there as an also to her acting. NZFC(talk) 21:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone agree that "humanitarian" should be in the occupation section?? If not, please say so here. User:NZ Footballs Conscience just reverted my good faith edit so humanitarian is back under Occupation. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter K Burian, I do beleive it should be in the infobox as it is from two WP:RS, however as above your post, I have given another option that I think helps it fit better. I'm happy for it to be taken from occupation and have a new field with known for. NZFC(talk) 21:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at #humanitarian?, #Humanitarian, Calligraphy, Model Comment, and #"Humanitarianism" in the opening description. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:NZ Footballs Conscience ... the problem is that she currently does have an occupation; she will transition out of it after the wedding in spring 2018. So, dropping Occupation now would be premature. It's just that some of us cannot understand how "humanitarian" can be an occupation. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter K Burian, I'm not suggesting taking out the occupation field, it should stay with her occupation of acting and modelling. What I'm suggesting is to take out Humantarian out of occupation and create an extra field using the Known As field and putting it there in the infobox. NZFC(talk) 22:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good idea User:NZ Footballs Conscience. Known for: Humanitarian endeavors. Can you make the revision? Every time I try a major edit like that in an info box, the entire formatting gets screwed up; so I don't want to try it again. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Humanitarianism .. is an active belief in the value of human life, whereby humans practice benevolent treatment and provide assistance to other humans, in order to better humanity for both moral and logical reasons. It is the philosophical belief in movement toward the improvement of the human race in a variety of areas, used to describe a wide number of activities relating specifically to human welfare. A practitioner is known as a humanitarian. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as per everything added to Wikipedia, it is what a reliable source says and both sources provided state that she does humanitarian work. NZFC(talk) 22:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She does volunteer work for humanitarian agencies. We all agree. I don't really consider Volunteer as an occupation but I could live with that. I just don't see how Humanitarian (someone who practices a belief) can be an occupation. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All good, thanks for the discussion. I have changed it from occupation and put it in the infobox as known for now. NZFC(talk) 22:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I too would spell it "endeavours" but she is American so I suspect it should be spelled "endeavors". Well, in truth, someone will probably revert your edit. That is common in this article. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't think about American spelling, you are right. Will change that since she is American. NZFC(talk) 22:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we are both from a Commonwealth country; I often need to remind myself to use American spelling for certain articles, and "commonwealth" spelling in others. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does Markle have ANY occupation

As I see it, she is a retired actor who is doing volunteer work for humanitarian causes. She completed filming the last episode of Suits and moved out of her apartment, for London. Is there other acting work she will still be doing?

Although, technically she will not retire until her marriage. Then, he occupation should definitely not include acting.

Meghan Markle will quit acting following engagement to Prince Harry Markle told the BBC she will be "transitioning" out of her acting career, confirming she will not be returning to the eighth season of "Suits." Experts told us it is expected that Markle will follow in the footsteps of Grace Kelly, who had a successful acting career but gave it up to become to Princess of Monaco when she married Prince Rainier III in 1956. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/27/meghan-markle-will-quit-acting-following-engagement-to-prince-harry-royal-experts-say.html Peter K Burian (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would keep her occupation even though she has (or is) retiring, you would just have an end date for years active. NZFC(talk) 21:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct; she will not retire until after the wedding next spring. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, posing in front of cameras all day with a smile regardless of how you feel isn't acting is it? At 36, if we assume the couple wants children, she'll be/they'll be trying to get a bun in the oven a.s.a.p., imho. If I sell a single photograph, then I'm a professional photographer until either I announce I've "retired" or I die. At least, technically. (Even if I'm not ACTIVE in that profession.)75.90.35.157 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer to your question is "Yes. Socialite." Just like Wallis Simpson. Eric Cable  !  Talk  00:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early life edit

The article claims that her father's profession resulted in her visiting a TV sit-com set. This is at best an extremely awkward way to say that she visited the set her father (apparently(?)) worked on. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of professions which might be found on a set of a show, claiming it was his profession rather than his specific work seems wrong-headed to me.75.90.35.157 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm .. I read it again; seems fine as is, IMHO. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

There was a line about her and Prince Harry breaking up, probably by someone jealous of their relationship. 128.62.16.200 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just vandalism, has been reverted and user warned. NZFC(talk) 23:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to Wallis Simpson

It's in the news. It has four cites. It was deleted without reason. Eric Cable  !  Talk  00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it the first time, but I did remove the Wallis Simpson comparison after it was added back to the lead. I don't think it's appropriate for the lead this time, and a one sentence comparison without context didn't feel like it fit in personal life. I do think a short paragraph explaining that recent changes in British laws make Markle's status as a divorcee and her Catholic upbringing less of an issue now would be appropriate in the body of the article. Knope7 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's just tabloid stuff here (and in no way belongs in the lead in any event - its not lead material for her biography) -- curious why one would put that stuff here in any case, instead of in Harry's biography - he is the royal. Moreover, there are multiple couples (including his own father) and ways in which the situations are contrasted -- not just compared, so it cannot be phrased like it was, regardless (and then all that would need explanation), so not worth it -- but perhaps someone wants to create an article of Divorce and the Royals. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other work (Apache HTTP Server)

The article currently incorrectly states that "Markle is an early investor in Apache HTTP Server, and that her work on Suits are still hidden in the lines of code". This is unsubstantiated by any known source, and the currently cited source (Apache Server 2.0: A Beginner's Guide) was published in 2001, making it impossible for the author to know or state that there are references to Suits in the source code, since Suits started airing a decade later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewbutton (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I can't find any references to this online. (Though it's not an easy thing to check - given Harry's previous occupation as an Apache helicopter pilot there are a TON of hits for a search that includes that term.) The sentence has a citation but it is to a user manual - not sure why such a book would talk about investors. On the whole this seems extremely fishy. I'm going to remove it until and unless a more clear and definitive source is provided. - EronTalk 05:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This information was added by Lets go to the mall. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I saw that. Their contribs show ten minor edits (just enough to get around semiprotection) and three instances inserting this same passage in this article. Like I say, fishy. - EronTalk 18:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

...was an man of African descent who was trafficked and forced to work as a slave on Georgia plantations before being emancipated... 2610:20:2018:100:0:0:100:4 (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, your edit request is unclear. What part of the article do you want edited? NZFC(talk) 01:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

It's Prince Harry, not Prince Henry under Ms. Markel's photograph. 14.142.23.34 (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User is talking about in the info box under partner, it lists Prince Harry as Henry. However he is formally known as Prince Henry so that is correct and shouldn't be changed. NZFC(talk) 03:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding a short explanatory footnote? I think this has already come up multiple times on this talk page today, and a lot of readers might also question the Prince Henry/Harry distinction. Knope7 (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Donama (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did she and Prince Harry meet?

The article should touch on this. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This came up in today's interviews. I agree it makes sense to add this to the article, so it's there now. Knope7 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks! 32.209.55.38 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question on WP:ENGVAR/WP:TIES issue

Since Ms. Markle was a notable actress before ever meeting Prince Harry, this article has been primarily written in American English, per WP:TIES. After all, she is an American, and has primarily acted in American television and film. But once she marries Prince Harry and becaomes part of the royal family, would that be enough justification to switch this article to British English? I ask because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also crosses my mind because this seems to be in a unique situation: Markle is an actress like Grace Kelly (currently written in American English) was, not primarily a socialite like Wallis Simpson (currently written in British English) was? Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has cross my mind too, before they were even engaged. I think the best thing to do for nor is to just wait. As well as spelling their is the smaller issue of date order, but again we can wait and see what happened. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article existed long before she became involved with Prince Harry, when she was only American, so the article was written in American English. Thus, it should be written in American English. Unlike Wallace Simpson, who was not widely known prior to her involvement with the King, Markle was a widely known celebrity first. The original non-stub version of the article uses American, so US English is the way to go. "Wallace" should probably be in British English, while Princess Grace should be in American English, because Monaco is not part of Britain, and Grace Kelly was a widely known celebrity as an American before ever becoming a princess. Grace Kelly would never have a good reason for being written in British English.
I will note that WP:TIES is being violated in may articles on Wikipedia, like International Space Station where Britain banned human space funding during its construction and had little to do with the station until recently, but the article is for some reason written in British English. The station was built out of mostly U.S. components with mostly U.S. monies, using mostly U.S. and Russian launches, operated by mostly American and Russian astronauts, so that's an oddball (Russian topics do not automatically get written in British English)
-- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question on possible future page move

Although it is probably WP:TOOSOON or WP:CBALL to speculate, I'm sort of curious what community consensus should be once Ms. Markle is given a royal title. It is understandable that we moved the Kate Middleton page to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge back in 2011. However, unlike the former Ms. Middleton, Markle was a notable actress before ever meeting Prince Harry. (Compare the very first version of this article, created ten years ago,[2] versus the first ever version of the Kate Middleton page.[3])

But if we also "follow in the footsteps of Grace Kelly", note that the article is currently still at Grace Kelly and not at Grace, Princess of Monaco, per WP:COMMONAME since many sources still refer to her as the former. On the other hand, Markle has never been an A-list celebrity film star like Kelly was. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased royal consorts are standardly located at their maiden names. 68.2.95.244 (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated in the above section we should wait and see what happens. This situation may be more complicated though as for whatever reason Markle uses her middle name and not her first name Rachel, but when she is married she might be referred to as Rachel, Duchess of X. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, the page will move to "Meghan, Duchess of X" assuming past custom is followed and Harry is made a Duke on the eve of the wedding. Meghan Markle may have been a notable actress - but she was a fairly minor one, unlike Grace Kelly. She's much better known as Harry's fiancee and will be better known as a royal than she ever was as an actress. Nixon Now (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, but as this may not be totally uncontroversial it might be better to put forward a formal move request after the wedding. We don't even know for sure that Harry will get a title, in which case her formal title would be "Princess Henry of Wales". PatGallacher (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Does anyone know what religion she is if she has one? In marrying a member of the Church of England in a Church of England chapel or church, is she to be received in the Anglican Communion prior to the wedding or not?WPF2008 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News reports state that she will be baptised and confirmed by the Church of England prior to the wedding, which suggests that she was not previously baptised. PatGallacher (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baptized *into* the Church of England, which means she's converting to Anglicanism. She may have been baptized in the past but not as an Anglican. Nixon Now (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
World Vision is evangelical. Did she become involved with them through her church?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Markle, who attended a Catholic school as a child but identifies as a Protestant, will be baptized and confirmed into the Church of England before the wedding, Harry's spokesman said."[4] Nixon Now (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only will the baptism and confirmation into the Church of England be fast tracked, her application for British citizenship will be fast tracked as well. It should also be noted that the Church of England does not regard itself as 'protestant', rather reformed catholic. The worldwide Anglican communion is a wide church, and the Church of England sits well to the right of the spectrum.Ds1994 (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Engelson

There are now lots of RS about Trevor Engelson. Shouldn't his article be re-created?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just in regards to his former marriage, or independent notability? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry

Hussey link Despite the fact that there are multiple secondary sources on the Hussey link, every single one goes back to the research of one Australian amateur historian whose conclusion has been disputed on soc.genealogy.medieval: His answer to the people who have done the primary source research? "True until proven wrong." This is not how genealogy works. Wikipedia should not be like the tabloid media who treat genealogy as an accessory to celebrity gossip. Multiple sources doesn't necessarily mean reliability... GIGO

Source for the dispute: look for posts from D. Spencer Hines quoting Paul Reed, the primary source researcher, versus reed.michael@edumail.vic.gov.edu, the one who is quoted by the DailyMail, etc. Satyadasa (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Reed versus reed - brothers - or one and the same, methink101.189.160.184 (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex
16. George B. Markle (1864-1923)
8. Isaac Thomas Markle (1891-1972)
17. Mary Jane Mangle (1867-)
4. Gordon Arnold Markle (1918-1979)
18.
9. Ruth Ann Arnold (1892-1963)
19.
2. Thomas Wayne Markle (1944-)
20.
10. Frederick George Sanders (1873-1944)
21.
5. Doris Mary Rita Sanders (1921-)
22. George David Merrill (1861-1924)
11. Gertrude May Merrill (1887-1938)
23. Mary Bird (1862-1925)
1. Rachel Meghan Markle
24. Jeremiah Ragland (1885-)
12. Steven R. Ragland (1903-1963)
25. Claudie Ritchie (1885-1939)
6. Alvin Azell Ragland (1929-2011)
26. James Cunagan Russell (1885-)
13. Lois Russell (1914-)
27. Virginia Lee
3. Doria L. Ragland (1956-)
28.
14.
29.
7. not known
30.
15.
31.

Icairns 2 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone able to find a reliable third-party source to confirm or deny that Jeremiah Ragland (or his parents) worked at Stately Oaks please?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you have some responsibility to explain your revert, but at the very least there is no need to include the category "American Protestants" twice. PatGallacher (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017

Reorganize this article so her relationship with Prince Harry is under "Personal Life," NOT as the second section of her article. She was an actress and a celebrity before her relationship, and there's no reason this article should be organized (deviating from the norm) with her relationship as the most important segment of information. It's not even a real category, unlike Personal Life, Career, Awards, Philanthropy, etc. 65.112.8.194 (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. While I can see how it might be important that this article be chronological, it's also hard to accept that she'd be nearly this visible if not for her engagement. You made mention of "the norm." Can you link me to the policy or guideline this refers to? CityOfSilver 05:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Known for"

The listing at "Known for" says humanitarian work, but that's not what the newspapers are calling her, they are saying she's "Rachel Zane" (Suits), so shouldn't that be what the entry says? -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex&oldid=812697702"