Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

Camilla is a Royal Highness. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

See for example, featured article on Emma Watson. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

• No, I am not paid to edit this page.
• AFAIK, Vogue is not a tabloid. I would venture to say it is a reliable source. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

• Incorrect, I did not do that. In fact, you did yourself. I only did this. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

I agree, should be removed. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

@HardeeHar: She is on the IMDb at www.imdb.com/title/tt3475596/. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@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:

• Add 'lock' icon to this locked page
• Add source, re: engagement mentioned in lead; e.g.: Michael Holden; Guy Faulconbridge (November 27, 2017). "From blind date to Botswana's stars, Prince Harry charts love for U.S. actress Meghan Markle". Reuters. Retrieved 27 November 2017.
• Provide wikilink: [[Calligraphy|calligrapher]] 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5BE:8B3:6285:3518 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

I stand corrected! kencf0618 (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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 Harry 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)

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

The article is also wrong in that Edward VIII was never 'crowned'. The Coronation date was set in May 1937, but his brother George VI was crowned in his stead. I'm surprised this Canadian article should get this so wrong, particularly since Edward VIII was also King of Canada.Ds1994 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree; it made no sense to add Esquire. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, you are correct; she will not retire until after the wedding next spring. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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. - Eron^Talk 05:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This information was added by Lets go to the mall. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

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. - Eron^Talk 18:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Hi IP, your edit request is unclear. What part of the article do you want edited? NZFC^(talk) 01:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Great. Thanks! 32.209.55.38 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Support British English now in this case. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

Deceased royal consorts are standardly located at their maiden names. 68.2.95.244 (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there is no such convention, see WP:NCROY and Talk:Marie of Romania/Archive 1. PatGallacher (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It is worth pointing out that it is very unlikely that Prince Harry will not be given a title. He will one day be the younger son of the King, and successively the only brother of the King. Such close proximity to the Crown would suggest he will be given a title. The question really is whether he will be made a Duke or an Earl, and the territorial designation of the title. He may well be made a Duke, but there is pressure to keep the number of Royal Dukes to a reasonable level (we already have six Royal Dukes, which some consider to be enough). We shall have to wait and see.Ds1994 (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur. The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet. (I have added the Royalty portal inasmuch as she is engaged to a Royal, not to be jumping the gun.) kencf0618 (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No need to make decisions now. Harry would be the first married prince in something like 700 yrs not to be given a peerage so I think that unlikely! In regard to Royal Dukes - remember that every present one bar Cambridge will be extinct or cease to be a Royal Dukedom in our lifetimes.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel the article should not be renamed immediately upon the marriage, as is often the case (groundlessly or not). Given her long-standing independent notability and the fact that this article had existed for 9 years before she even met Harry (something unprecedented when it comes to royal brides), we should probably wait to see how things develop. For all we know, she might still consider herself Meghan Markle rather than "Meghan, Duchess of Suffolk" (or whatever). The sources will certainly need some time to catch up. Surtsicna (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

World Vision is evangelical. Did she become involved with them through her church?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"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)

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)

From vaguely Protestant to joining the Church of England because you're marrying a Royal is quite a shift, but presumably both she, Harry, and the institutions involved know what's involved. kencf0618 (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Paul Reed versus reed - brothers - or one and the same, methink101.189.160.184 (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Um... no. The Reeds are on opposing sides of the argument.

Also, my edits showing both sides of the debate were deleted in favour of Mr. Michael Reed's undocumented assertion picked up by the Telegraph. Fair two-sided treatment of "royal descent", both with documented secondary sources, has been removed. Two-sided is more than it deserves, frankly, but the numbers of secondary sources reporting the claim with no records are currently greater, so it must be mentioned.

In addition, Reed's assertion that the Bachiler chair at the Metropolitan Museum of Art belonged to Capt. Hussey and has Hussey's arms has been added. Even if it has the arms, the chair would not be solid evidence of the Dorking Husseys descent from Lord Hussey or the Bowes line. Even if we assume it is Hussey arms and Capt. Hussey is a descendant of that line, there is no proof the line is to Baron Hussey himself. It could be a brother's line or earlier. I will be restoring the edits when possible Satyadasa (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Sbernadette keeps reverting, claiming that journalists copying Michael Reed's argument are researchers (and the only ones who matter). I keep restoring a balanced view. There needs to be a decision on this. Satyadasa (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Satyadasa As you suggested, I have added as many of the books and articles that have been around for decades RE Markle And Hussey connections. It is all very interesting. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing it differently this time User:Sbernadette. You did not delete the other side. Now we can discuss this more civilly.

Your first source (The Plantagenet Connection, 1995), says on page 32 "This genealogy is considered proven up to the 11th generation. There is a weak connection between John Hussey who married Marie Wood and his father, George Hussey, wife unknown. According to the primary records in the Lincolnshire Pedigrees (a primary document of land and court records), George did have a son named John. This genealogy assumes that it is the same John who married Marie Wood, but there is no concrete evidence that he is the same man. This is where Paul C. Reed's research comes in.

Reed says "Turning to the Lincolnshire family, I checked the will of John Hussey, gentleman, who is given in the visitation pedigree [that's the one cited in 1995) as having had a brother named George who had a son named John. John Hussey, who had served as a Member of Parliament, left a very long and detailed will, dated 14 August 1583. He died without issue. Nearly half of the first page of his will was devoted to bequests to the poor. He mentioned [many people]... The wording of the will makes it clear that if John had had a brother with surviving issue that he certainly would have been mentioned, even if given a small legacy to keep him from disputing the terms of the will. I must conclude from this that John's brother George and his nephew and namesake John predeceased him without surviving issue.

This means that Paul Reed has nearly disproven the connection that your source already said was weak.

Your second source, the Kentucky Historical Society, does not seem to actually say that. If you search "The Husseys, who came from England via Holland with Governor Winthrop on March 9, 1632, were descended from Lord Hussey," you come up with WikiVisually's claim that the KHS Register says that. The claim that it was retrieved 22 November 2017 is false. As you can see, the link is to a book without full text available. Google Books does however allow a full text search. The term "Hussey" appears twice, once in the index, and once to a reference to Capt. Christopher. There is no reference to Baron Hussey of Sleaford. If you want, I'll go get the original at the NYPL. It doesn't say what the copy-paste genealogists say about it.

Citing what the journalists say or what Geni.com says is overkill, with all due respect. Given the wording, they are clearly referencing the sources that I just debunked above. Satyadasa (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for finding the Hawaii Husseys page. That's the first good evidence I've seen. The connection of the Husseys of Sleaford through the Stydorfs to Dorking could make it possible. Still not proven! I took the liberty to clean up the section, while still keeping all of your arguments. Someone else would go in and edit it--if it continued to look like "genealogists arguing about primary source documents". Wikipedia is strictly about secondary sources. Together we have chosen good ones on both sides. I also changed the Nixon reference to another Plantagenet Connection publication from that same document. Thanks! Satyadasa (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks for your hard work. I have added as a ref. - the 1962 book from the Kentucky Historical Society. Page 55 has a quote which indicates the society's acknowledgment of the Lord Hussey lineage and Captain Hussey's parentage as Mary Wood and John Hussey of Dorking. Another editor - User talk:Celia Homeford - has shortened your last edit saying that some of our sources were not allowed. I think the article works well and hope that you are happy; the article shows both sides. Finally - should we put a "paternal descent" in the opening line - so that it is clear that the first paragraph is to do with her father? Cheerio and thanksSrbernadette (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well. I think eventually the Ancestry section will require subsections. Right now I think it's OK. As the article currently stands, it only talks about 1/32 of her mother's side and 1/2048 of her father's ancestry. A more complete view will require more published sources. My own research, for instance, is not yet published, so I can't cite it. Satyadasa (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi - There is confirmation of both Markle's descent from King Edward III and her cousinship with Prince Harry. I have confirmed that she descends from Capt. Hussey and said that there is evidence of her descent form Lord Hussey. This is all well documented by the NEGHS - no need for any confusion. Great! Srbernadette (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I was excited about the confirmed royal descent from a reputable genealogist and went to the page to add it myself, and saw that you already had. Great!

Unfortunately, you also removed the doubts about the still unconfirmed (and probably forever unconfirmed) royal descent. You cannot be serious! One true royal descent doesn't make the false one also true. Satyadasa (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - I did not mean to remove any doubts RE Hussey line. I think that subsequent editors to this page, e.g. - User talk:Celia Homeford - will refer to the Hussey line briefly i.e. - as "albeit unconfirmed". I might try to do that myself. Cheers and thanks again for keeping me in the loop!Srbernadette (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"Alleged" is too weak. The descent is "unlikely." There is no reason to condense. I am reverting, and then I am also removing references to the self-published source and the tabloid. Satyadasa (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason for my reversion is two-fold. First, in service of the neutrality tag above the section. Please note "proper context". Second, because once the two of us have stopped paying attention to this page, others will come by. They will be more likely to undo our work (and just replace it with the Telegraph/Michael Reed research) if the sources are not fully summarized. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source that cites the relevant secondary sources. Also, in the future, let's edit with one goal at a time--i.e. link removal being separate from wording. I made that mistake too. Satyadasa (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

OK - but I really think that editors like User:Celia Homeford will scrap the "debate" aspect. Shouldn't we just have the term "highly unlikely" - with the ref from the NEGS when introducing the Hussey bit - it should only be 2 or so lines - not all the Leggitt stuff. By the way, Celia Homeford states that it is not Leggitt that queeries the Hussey descendancy - it is the magazine's editor, Kenneth Finton. Cheers - all interesting.Srbernadette (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right that the Plantagenet Connection / Leggitt / Finton sentence is not needed. I removed it. I have seen no evidence that User:Celia Homeford opposes the structure of the paragraph. Besides, Celia does not decide. Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia precedents decide, and both need to be cited here on the talk page. Celia needs to speak for herself and defend edits with policy and precedent, as we are doing. There are countless Wikipedia articles where the Ancestry section is rather lengthy on matters that are subject to debate. See Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Satyadasa (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC

Agree with you! I think you will like the current precise version which gives both "sides" RE the Hussey issue. Other editors are also happy with the length. Thanks again Srbernadette (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)::

One editor has removed the ancestry section altogether. This is appalling we think. The editor will NOT acknowledge that Markle's own family are aware of her descent from Captain Christopher Hussey (died 1686). Let alone her descent from British aristocracy and King Edward III - all published in major USA and UK newspapers and TV networks. Let's try to change the mind of this editor!Srbernadette (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

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. Jeanette Arnold (1929-2000) 30. 15. 31.

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

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)

Markle's uncle appears to have revealed her maternal grandmother's name--only a Daily Mail citation at this point. I added her to the (not ready to publish) pedigree chart. 158.222.230.40 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

I have (rather WP:BOLDly) removed this entire section. It's largely trivial nonsense. A person's 16th cousins are not notable by encyclopedic standards, even if a few genealogists do the work to claim that it is the case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I concur. There is a lot of borderline OR, non-RS, and non-notable stuff in there. Interesting? To some. Encyclopedic? Not really. - Eron^Talk 06:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It is standard practice to include proven descents in articles about people associated with current royals. It is absolutely encyclopedic. Check out the search term 1911 Britannica "descendant of". Google search results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyadasa (talk • contribs) 10:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Proven. There still seems to be a fair bit of speculation. And to be frank, highlighting that Markle is a 17th cousin of Harry? Given the math, half of North America and the UK can probably make the same claim. How is that encyclopedic? - Eron^Talk 05:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I actually added the connection with proven descents to half of North America in a sentence regarding the Gary Boyd Roberts NEHGS research. It got reverted, as other editors were only interested In the "royal" descent. In reality it should be called something more like "records leading to documented medieval ancestors." That's all that "proven" ever means in genealogy, and it applies to the link via Skipper. As far as any genealogy being encyclopedic, the precedent here on Wikipedia is clear. Satyadasa (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the fact that conjugal fidelity was rarely strictly observed in past centuries, especially among the rich and powerful, being of "royal descent" has little significance. If you go back far enough in history, you will most likely find a king or a queen in the ancestry of most people. Not being of royal ancestry could very well be exceptional.

This is 100% true. "Could very well be" does not go far enough. It can be shown mathematically that everyone is of royal descent. See research about MRCA and the identical ancestors point. However, it is standard practice in Wikipedia to include proven royal descents (and famous cousins) in pages about people marrying current royals. "Proven" here does not mean genetic. That is a modern conceit that has made its way into genealogy (like the racist concept of "being 1/2^n something). Genealogy is based on legal parentage, a concept derived from pre-modern concepts of kinship where assumed fatherhood and informal adoption did not affect kin ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyadasa (talk • contribs) 10:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

 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)

I think editors should follow the articles on Princess Grace or Prince Philip for the lead. She is far better known for being Prince Harry's fiancée rather than anything else so that should be prominent. It's not a feminist question at all, the article on Prince Philip doesn't start with his Naval career but with his marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.201.195 (talk • contribs)

But the sections on their naval and acting careers come before the sections on their marriages. So, by your own logic and examples, this article should remain chronological, with the section on her acting career before the section on her personal life. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"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)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017

Please replace Merkel to Markle in section Acting career "Early in her career, Merkel had small guest roles on the television" 195.228.139.232 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Celia Homeford (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexist format in "Ancestry"

No offense to anyone, but the maternal ancestry should be the first sentence in the paragraph on "Ancestry", not the last. It is both sexist and racist, and an insult to her mother to put it as an afterthought addendum to her ancestry:

Markle's maternal great-great-great-grandfather was a slave on Georgia plantations before being emancipated with the abolition of slavery in 1865.[76][77]

Thankyou -- Thomas Barlow.

@Thomas Barlow: Are you her mother? I find it very hard to see that phrase and its placement as sexist...TJH2018talk 17:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It is only logical (and scientific) within a society claiming to be non-sexist, non-racist, and scientifically-oriented. There is no other way to construct that paragraph without it being both sexist, and possibly racist. And, yes, it is an insult to her mother, the matriarchal lineage, and women in general, whether her mother thinks that or not. Kindof like saying Barack Obama is African, thereby judging him by his skin-color only, when in fact he is Irish through the more stable lineage of the x-chromosome. Tiger Woods is Thai. Markle seems to be African through the matriarchal lineage. Y-chromosome is unstable, harder to trace historically, less certain (and apparently receding from humanity). Of course, some people might say that a slave's history is not as historically significant, but that would be an insult to all African Americans, many of whose ancestors built and sustained America (and Britain). As if to say a slave's history is inferior to the Bowes' and Hussey's of English aristocracy. I beg to differ. -- Thomas Barlow

I can't believe you're serious. Having her father's ancestry last would be sexist and an insult to her father, using that logic. Firebrace (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No offense to anyone, but the maternal ancestry should be the first sentence in the paragraph on "Ancestry", not the last. It is both sexist and racist, and an insult to her mother to put it as an afterthought addendum to her ancestry:

Markle's maternal great-great-great-grandfather was a slave on Georgia plantations before being emancipated with the abolition of slavery in 1865.[76][77]

Your sexism thinks the male lineage goes first. You are currently a sexist, and in the future a humanist. But not yet.

It is an insult to the matriarchal lineage, and women in general. The Y-chromosome is unstable, harder to trace historically, less certain (and apparently receding from humanity). Of course, some people like you might say that a slave's history is not as historically significant, but that would be an insult to all African Americans, many of whose ancestors built and sustained America (and Britain).

It's as if you are saying a slave's history is inferior to the Bowes' and Hussey's of English aristocracy. I beg to differ. -- Thomas Barlow

I would go even farther than that. Her father's side is far more than the 1/131072nd of his ancestry that is royal, or the 1/128th or so (estimate) which is English landed gentry who have provable royal descents. A German or English peasant is not inferior to the British aristocracy either. However, if I put information about the proportions of her ancestry that go to various European regions and classes, it will be reverted as non-notable or OR. Similarly, if we include a line like "Markle's maternal ancestry, being African American, is derived from the coastal regions of West and Central Africa between Senegal and Angola" it will also be reverted. Unless she takes a mitochondrial DNA test, in which case there is Wikipedia precedent for including a sentence on someone's matrilineal haplogroup. My own research is on her direct maternal line, but it's unpublished and can't go here on Wikipedia (yet). Satyadasa (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well, tough one. There is no good reason for the father to go first (but I know nothing about chromosomes), besides the cousinship, I suppose, which is a poignant detail--but perhaps we're all each other's 17th cousins. Given how little information there is about the mother's lineage, one might as well put that one first, so it appears less to be an appendage, an afterthought; I wouldn't have a problem with it. BTW, I'm removing a short paragraph about all the presidents--the sourcing is lousy (a website) and apparently she shares this with millions of Americans. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Done. Doesn't seem like a big deal--the paragraph appears better balanced to me. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is better this way. My own research is on her mother's side--and there are notable descents and cousins there too. However, it is unpublished OR at the moment, so cannot be cited on Wikipedia. When it is, the article will be more balanced. Until then it absolutely makes sense for the mother to go first just because there is more information on the father. Satyadasa (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Early life and family

@Alanscottwalker: Could you be more specific about this edit? We don't have separate articles for her siblings, thus it's logical to include some background information about them, especially since she's getting married to royalty and her family and relatives automatically become relevant, just like the relatives of other British princesses. On the other hand, I can't find a reason as to why that part violates BLP. It was already sourced with reliable sources. Keivan.f^Talk 16:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note that you need to be careful about using the term 'British princess(es)'. Meghan Markle will not be a 'British princess' when she marries Prince Harry. The wives of Princes of the United Kingdom simply adopt any styles of their husbands by courtesy. So if Prince Harry does not receive a peerage title, Meghan Markle will become HRH Princess Henry of Wales - the insertion of Harry's first name indicates that any royal style is derived from him, and him alone. Similarly if Prince Harry receives a peerage title then Meghan Markle will be styled HRH The Duchess/Countess of 'X'. Again, the territorial designation is derived from Prince Harry alone. Also the style 'HRH' does not denote that Meghan Markle will be a princess in her own right - it is a style or form of address that does not indicate the substantive possession of princely status. The most recent and famous example of this was HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, who was given the style 'HRH' on the eve of his wedding to Princess Elizabeth in 1947, but this did not make him a Prince of the United Kingdom (this did finally happen by Royal Warrant in 1957). For further information on this topic, please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_princeDs1994 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No. That we do not have any article, means they are not notable to the encyclopedia. The details of their lives don't become relevant to encyclopedia biography about someone else, its just WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTTABLOID, as to Markle's bio. Moreover, whenever we talk about tangentially related living persons Wikipedia:NOTPUBLICFIGURE applies, and whenever we talk about rumored crime WP:BLPCRIME applies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong. Letters Patent issued on 30 November 1917 by King George V clarifies that, and I quote, "the title "Princess" and the use of the style "Royal Highness" has generally been restricted to the following persons: 1) the legitimate daughters of a British sovereign, 2) the legitimate male line granddaughters of a British sovereign, and 3) the wife of a British prince." Thus Meghan, and all of her predecessors (Diana, Camilla, Sarah, Sophie, and Catherine) are considered British princesses by marriage as they have all been married to British princes. They may or may not receive a title; an example would be the current Duchess of Gloucester, who was styled "Princess Richard of Gloucester" before her husband's subsequent accession to that title, but she has been a Princess of the United Kingdom since her first day of marriage. The only difference is that princesses of the blood can use the style "Princess" before their given names, just like the Princess Royal who can also be called Princess Anne, but princesses by marriage do not have that right; that's why the term "Princess Diana" is technically incorrect. The case about the British princes is totally different as the same Letters Patent that were issued in 1917, and remain in force today, limits the usage of that title to the princes of the blood. Prince Philip's case was entirely an exception, and the way that title was bestowed upon him doesn't apply to the case with the British princesses by marriage; thus it was an irrelevant example. Keivan.f^Talk 03:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes I accept the points you are making, it is all perfectly clear in the various Royal warrants previously issued. The point I was making is that Meghan Markle and all others marrying into the Royal family are princesses 'by courtesy'. They are not substantive princesses of the Blood Royal, and they are not in succession in line to the Throne. This is why I respectfully used the phrase that we need to be 'careful' when using the term 'British princesses'. Also, I merely used the example of the Duke of Edinburgh to illustrate that the style 'HRH' does not automatically confer princely status on an individual. It is I agree strictly not relevant to the topic, rather an illustration of the complexities of this particular subject.Ds1994 (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see what you are trying to say but you are not correct. While MM will not be a princess suo jure she will be a princess by marriage (Jure maritus if you like). This is a substantive title (As is harry's) - not merely one of courtesy. [What legal status princely titles have is a discussion not for this thread]Garlicplanting (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course, you can call it what you want: "by courtesy" or as Garlicplanting said "by marriage", but that won't change the fact that they are all British princesses. An example would be Prince George and Princess Charlotte's birth certificates, on which their mother's occupation has been mentioned as "Princess of the United Kingdom". Also, remember that all of the past queen consorts like Alexandra, Mary, and Elizabeth were also queen "by courtesy or marriage" unlike Victoria and Anne who were queen regnants (in their own rights), but the term "British queen" can somehow be used for all of them. Keivan.f^Talk 20:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Keivan What I was trying to avoid was the misuse of Courtesy_title. It has a very particular meaning in the UK. A title gained from marriage to a prince (or indeed a peer) is not a courtesy title.[Fwiw, at least at present, the children of H & MM would have a courtesy title ie Lord/Lady.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully, because they're legally entitled to that position, thus it's not just a courtesy title. Keivan.f^Talk 01:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hussey's ancestry

Why is improbable speculation about the ancestry of Hussey, Markle's ancestor, relevant in this article? I refer to the following: "For some decades, researchers have suggested Captain Hussey is descended from John Hussey, 1st Baron Hussey of Sleaford, a descendant of King John, and this descent was widely reported in the media. Lord Hussey was beheaded in 1537 at the order of King Henry VIII. In the publication of the Skipper descent, the NEHGS say that the Hussey descent "seems highly unlikely"."

Fine for the article on Hussey, but really a bridge too far here. Clean Copy^talk 21:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I see that the editor who added this back explained why he did so in his edit summary: "Christopher Hussey is not noteworthy on his own. The reason for his inclusion in this article is the disputed/debunked royal descent he brings to Meghan Markle. Editors are likely to create a mess, adding it again, if it is not explained here." That seems reasonable, but I wonder if including the information in a comment, so that editors would see it but not users, might not be sufficient. Not a big issue, however. Clean Copy^talk 23:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I see it as "defensive editing", especially in the early stages of a person's notability when people are likely to copy-paste every sort of garbage from the tabloid media and the genealogical fan fiction that is produced. I get your point about putting it in a comment, and would concur with you at the point that the section stabilizes. Satyadasa (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If needed, this "defensive editing" for newcomers could more suitably be noticed in hidden text comme-il-faut. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

One editor has removed the ancestry section altogether. This is appalling we think. The editor will NOT acknowledge that Markle's own family are aware of her descent from Captain Christopher Hussey (died 1686). Let alone her descent from British aristocracy and King Edward III - all published in major USA and UK newspapers and TV networks. Let's try to change the mind of this editor!Srbernadette (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

opening sentence

Surtsicna

Whatdo you disagree about ? that she is has become much more noteable since her engagement? of if you accept this, that the reason for her increased noteability should not feature in the opening paragraph? How would you like the article to begin as and when the marriage has taken place? Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that Meghan Markle is notable as someone's fiancée. Wikipedia has had an article about her since 2007. That's 9 years before she even met her current fiancé, before she even married her first husband. She has been considered notable as an actor by Wikipedia standards for at least 10 years, and I very much doubt that in the past 6 days she became just as notable as a prince's fiancée. The marriage will not take place for at least half a year (if ever, for all we know). When appropriate, we will probably define her as a former American actress and member of the British royal family or something like that. Grace Kelly might be seen as a precedent. Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the page view statistics on the day the engagement was announced. I think very few people in Britain had heard of her before she became involved with Harry, now she is on the front page of every newspaper. You accept that there are degrees of noteability. As a British citizen and part time dweller in Great Britain if I had to quantify matters I would estimate that she is at least 10,000 times more noteable amongst the 60 million odd people who live here than she was before her involvement with Prince Harry. She may have been a noteable woman in her own right but she has become vastly more noteable through whom she has become involved with. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Markle is not British. This Wikipedia is not British nor written exclusively or primarily for British people. Markle so far is nothing but an American actor (and Wikipedia, for what it's worth, is owned by an American organization). That said, I do not see why it matters so much how many people in the UK had heard of her. Certainly it has no bearing on who she is. The page view statistics for Prince Harry also spiked on the day the engagement was announced, yet I would not say that he became more notable through his involvement with her. Would you? Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Engish wikipedia should be for all speakers of English. The article should reflect the different reasons for noteability in different countries. If there are five times as many Americans as Britons but she is ten times as noteable amongst Britons the article should refelect that. Google 'Meghan Markel' news and you will see why she is noteable. Being engaged is a formal step and she now has a formal status in Great Britain and has started to undertake royal duties. I'm not for one moment suggesting that anything from her previous life be removed from the article, it will in fact be very helpful for british readers, but if it doesn't reflect her changed status it is going to seem strange to many readers, including, I would imagine, in the USA. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not news reports. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Of course the most recent, breaking news about a celebrity will top Google news. But that is only the last 6 days out of a decade or more of independent notability. One could argue the exact same thing about Harry. Why should we not define him as the fiancé of the American actor Meghan Markle? We can argue about how formal a betrothal is (it's certainly not grounded in law) but she definitely has no formal status in the UK. Where do you get the info about royal duties? The Duchess of Cambridge was not given any work that soon, so I'm a bit skeptical. Anyway, I am completely in favor of Wikipedia reflecting her changed status once it's actually changed - and that won't be at least until May. Surtsicna (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the opening of the Grace Kelly article is just right "Grace Patricia Kelly (November 12, 1929 – September 14, 1982) was an American actress who became Princess of Monaco after marrying Prince Rainier III, in April 1956." It would seem that the only difference with Suratscina is when is 'appropriate'. I'd say now, what do you think Suratscina? Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say now, because Markle has not become anything by marrying anyone yet. Why rush these things? Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

She has become someone's fiancee by becoming engaged. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

And she previously became someone's wife by becoming married. Yet neither of that conferred a royal role or changed her occupation. Surtsicna (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, this engagement has conferred a royal role and led to a change of occupation. Suggest you read some UK newspapers. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Suratiscina re your previous statement above this is from the Guardian, a UK newspaper known for its feminist credentials. "Little more than two weeks after arriving in the UK, Meghan Markle has dived straight into her new role as Prince Harry’s fiancee with an introduction to that royal staple, the walkabout." . Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Who is the 'we' in 'we will probably define her'?

The "we" refers to Wikipedia community. Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you refer to them in the third person. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why? I'm part of it. So are you. Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Using 'we' sounds like you are part of a group of editors who hold sway over this page and I am not part of it. Anyway I shouldn't have got into that because it distracts from the more important question above. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, in January people will again see her acting in Suits for the rest of the season [5] maybe more people around the world will now try to watch her as an actress -- at any rate, she is not married yet, and although it seems like a sure thing, and we all I am sure, wish them the best, as encyclopedists we should not CRYSTAL it as fiat accompli. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a moot point as to whether she is still an actress. If an actor has died I'd expect to refer to them in the past even if some recently recorded work was still to be premiered. She is engaged to be married regardless of whether the marriage takes place.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't be silly -- she has not died, and no engagement is not death, at least to most people, and she is still being professionally paid as an actress. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I was expressing myself briefly in response to your previous remarks, maybe too briefly for my meaning to get across.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the Grace Kelly approach, mentioning that she was an actress and her connection to royalty, in the opening sentence. Months ago I added that Markle was one of the most searched for women on Google in 2016 which coincided with her relationship with Harry becoming public. While I can see why that would have been removed (we can't put everything written about Markle in the article, I do think it is indicative of how her fame has changed. She was a successful actress before her relationship with Harry, but her relationship with him has brought her a different kind of fame. I think it's informative to mention her relationship in the opening sentence. Knope7 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

But how do we mention her relationship without redefining her in a rather demeaning way? We have a section further down where users claim that mentioning Markle's paternal ancestry before the maternal is sexist, and here we are discussing whether to redefine an accomplished actor as an actor-and-fiancé. Once (and if) she actually marries Harry, we will easily define her through both her acting and royal role. But if they never marry, would we still describe her as an American actor and former fiancé of Prince Harry? We should bear in mind that notability is not temporary. Surtsicna (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

For now, I think, having Harry in the lead section is quite enough. Mentioning him in the lead paragraph could be sensible too, I guess. But lead sentence - that seems like an overkill. Surtsicna (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Make the first sentence short and mention her engagement in the second, that way it will show up readily in google searches.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Surtsicna wrote 'But how do we mention her relationship without redefining her in a rather demeaning way?'. We should be reporting objectively, not worry about whether we are refining her in what might appear to some editors a 'rather demeaning' way. Sorry this suggests a hidden feminist agenda. By all means debate about whether you put female before male, or actor/actress, but her notability just has to reflect the world as it is not as anyone would like it to be. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Why would anyone hide a feminist agenda? Sorry, I'm European. :/ Surtsicna (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

References

NPOV surely means editors should strive not to have any agenda when editing an article. IMO anyone admitting to having an agenda in editing hasn't even grasped this basic principle. The article reflects its North American origins, but the centre of gravity of interest in the subject may have shifted rather. Of course the current balance of the article might also suit European feminists :-) Try Denis Thatcher, Prince Bernhard and Guy Ritchie for some comparisons. Having said all this it's not worth spending too much time on this as everyone knows who she is. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Knope7 I'll certainly support you and others who want to change the opening sentence. As it stands it is in my view just plain silly and doesn't reflect the realities of this world. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Who admitted to having an agenda? Your last two comments are riddled with a rather irrational suspicion, to the point of being incoherent. Surtsicna (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You appear to think there is nothing wrong with having an agenda and appear to me to have one with comments like "No, it is up to you to discuss this. This version has been stable for years, and you changed it yesterday, suddenly redefining a woman who was very much notable for many years before meeting her fiancé." I will change the lead again. She may have be notable for many years but through her own choice has become far more notable and has been redefined. I trust other editors who agree with me will support this edit, otherwise we should put this to a vote. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you did not implement bold edits that have been reverted before, per WP:BRD. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have implemented the consensus we reached above. Surtsicna (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You have certainly through your edit proposed a compromise that I accept, for the time being at least Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A bit of reflection and 'the time being' lasted about three hours. It's better because at least her engagement shows up on a google search now. But using the articles for President Trump and Sophie Countess of Wessex as examples the opening should read along the lines 'Merghan Markel is the fiancee of Prince Henry of Wales with whom she undertakes Royal duties. Prior to her engagement she was...' If the notability in the current role is greater than that in the previous role then the current role should be mentioned first, as in two articles mentioned: The converse may be true in the case of many retired sportspersons. She has definitely retired from all her previous activities, there are abundant references to support this. To my knowledge it is unprecedented that anyone should undertake royal duties whilst engaged to be married to a full member of the Royal family but that is the case here, and the article should reflect this There is no point in my amending the lead if its going to be reverted and there is a majority against it, but this is consistent with other articles. On the day she became engaged everything changed and the structure of the article should reflect this, when she is married the changes may be relatively minor. All her previous life has to remain in the article, and new sections will document her life as a royal, and the body of the article should be chronological. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

That suggestion is drastic and uhelpful. All your arguments here have been based on the assumption that Markle is more notable now (in the past 7 days) as Harry's fiancée than she had been as an actor, model and activist (in the past 10 years). I would appreciate if you could justify this assumption and provide evidence supporting it. The evidence you mentioned so far (Googling news) suggests just as much that Harry is more notable now (as Markle's fiancé) than before; obviously the references in the past 7 days concentrate on their recent engagement and future together. But Wikipedia does not define people by their future endeavors. If the example of Donald Trump suggests anything, it is that the compromise reached here is the way to go. See here how we defined him after he was elected, but before he was inaugurated. His situation then (president-elect), not now, can be compared to Markle's present situation (engaged, not married). For what it's worth, Markle accompanying Harry while only engaged is not unprecedented; Middleton did the same. Surtsicna (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's reasonable to assume that on a worldwide scale Markle is far more famous than she was before she met and became engaged to Harry. To ask for a wiki reference on that would be like asking for one that the Sun shines in the sky. If there is some subtle difference between fame and notability I don't know it, please enlighten me. Few in Europe would have heard of her before, now everyone knows. The extract you give me from Trump is an edit on one particular day, I looked at another which had President elect in the first sentence. There is a difference, Trump had to give up his other interests before inauguration. Markle gave up hers on engagement. I've read that Markle is unique in going on royal engagements,, but whether unprecedented or not doesn't matter, it is her new role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nine-and-fifty swans (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

or to put it another way, do you accept that if she had previously had only a humble job and was not notable enough for a wiki article that following her engagement she would be noteable enough for a wiki article? If yes the engagement must have conferred notability on her.Therefore she must be more notable now than before. The proper question is whether the additional notability from the engagement is more than that she enjoyed before, ie is she twice as notable now. Well I should think she is several times as famous but I'm not sure there is some notability index. Here is a ref that she has quit acting

which I presume is later than any of your saying she is still acting. And here is another, apparently with footage saying she has given up acting Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not "on one particular day" but the result of a consensus achieved following a long discussion, as can be seen here. There is no difference there. Even though Trump gave up his other interests before inauguration, as you say, those other interests were still defining him between the election and the inauguration. This suggests that Markle's occupation should still define her between the engagement and the marriage.
Allow me to quote JFG from Talk:Donald Trump: "You are correct that Trump has been quasi non-stop "politicking" since he launched his campaign, however that still amounts to 18 months of his 70-year life. Not the dominant thing for his overall biography page. As an encyclopedia, we should not overly focus on current circumstances, no matter how overwhelming they sound." (emphasis mine)
The fiancée-of-Prince-Harry thing amounts to 7 days of Markle's 35-year-long life, the last 10 of which she has had a biography on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump didn't give up his other interests on election, Markle has effectively given up hers upon engagement. And the first sentence of the article on Trump focuses very much on present circumstances, even if the rest of the lead and the article as a whole do not do so to the same extent. Trump doubtless had his own article before he was elected president so is a perfect example of someone whose notability increased and whose article was adapted accordingly. However Markle's life may have changed more on engagement than Trump's did on election. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

In your previous comment you said: "Trump had to give up his other interests before inauguration." Now you are saying he did not? First you brought up the article about Trump as an example of how to treat this case, then after being shown that the Trump precedent favors the current solution, you suggest that they should not be compared because "Markle's life may have changed more on engagement than Trump's did on election"? Not only are you making a lot of unsubstantiated claims, one after another, but you are also drastically changing your own views and opinions from one comment to the next. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No contradiction at all, Trump did not have to give up his other interests upon election, he had to give them up before inauguration. No contradiction whatever, it is difficult to discuss if you don't read what I write. Trump as it stands is a pretty good model for Meghan Markle now, especially that she has made more of the transition upon engagement than he did on election.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No, Trump as it stands is not a good model because Trump is now a head of state while Markle is not yet member of a royal family, and "fiancée of Prince Harry" is not her occupation or her main claim to notability throughout her life. That Markle "has made more of the transition upon engagement than he did on election" is your original research and opinion, nothing more. Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Every editor has to interpret facts. We have to decide what is her main claim to notability. To say that I am indulging in OR when I make an interpretation is just fatuous. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC) I agree the first sentences should reflect her transition state and that some lessons may be learnt from the Trump article as it was when he was President Elect as well as the current article. If she is billed a currently an actress it should also be said that she has announced her retirement. I used 'currently' (which I wouldn't do if I were in the pay of Kensington Palace) in the hope that it will satisfy you on the issues of the relativity brevity of her new status and that engagement doesn't always lead to marriage. (I wouldn't dare to describe anyone as 'currently married to...' though) It feels right to use it this morning but I may change my mind though. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Actually 'currently engaged' is okay because engagment is not meant to be permanent, ie lifelong. It gives the lead a transitional feel, which is something we appear to agree on. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No the opening isn't perfect and I'd prefer an alternative to 'British Royal family' but we need to defined Harry. The engagement needs to be stated directly, not in passing, due weight as now been given to her other previous activities. Please explain all changes here. All this 'becoming a member of the family' seems formal and redundant,it was maybe applicable a generation ago, de facto she is already a member of the family. I am every surprised nobody else seems to want to edit the opening on such a widely-read article. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing will ever be perfect but the lead paragraph is certainly better without blatant misspellings, poor orthography and simply bad wording. It is becoming apparent that you are simply opposed to everything I suggest, even if you initially agree to it. It is becoming rather disruptive. Formality is what royal families are about, especially the British one. She may be seen as a member of the family by Harry, but there is surely a reason why she is not listed at Template:British Royal Family or at the official website, for that matter. Being a member of the British royal family, as defined in that article, does not mean just being invited to a Sunday lunch. Surtsicna (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually I like many of your suggestions and you have accepted some of mine. I think it should be mentioned that she has started to carry out royal engagements This source says she has already carried out two 'Harry and Markle visited Nottingham where they are carrying out two separate engagements.' And you shouldn't be deemphasising the engagement, I've actually restored all the things she did previously so it should be balanced. I'm trying to make the lead, accurate, concise and comprehensive, I'm sure you'll be able to make it read smoothly. It's worth it because so many people are looking an the article. I'm up to my limit for reverts for today. And if you weren't so much into saying I am into OR, misreading what I say and claiming there is nothing wrong with having an agenda maybe things would go a bit smoother.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If you read the article linked in the opening British Royal Family you find this 'The British royal family comprises the monarch of the United Kingdom and her close relations. There is no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member of the British royal family and, apart from Queen Elizabeth II herself, different lists include different people. Those who at the time are entitled to the style His or Her Royal Highness (HRH), and any styled His or Her Majesty (HM), are normally considered members, including those so styled before the beginning of the current monarch's reign. By this criterion, a list of the current royal family will usually include the monarch, the children and male-line grandchildren of the monarch and previous monarchs, the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, and all their current or widowed spouses.' It could be extended that by this criterion Meghan Markle will not become a member of the British Royal Family. Because it is blurred, and because in the public mind I suspect (oh gosh you are going to call that OR again) she is already seen as a part of the family I think we just should mention them in the lead at all. You haven't claimed to be British, I am British and hence may have a particular feel for these things. Of course she is now a world-wide phenomenon so Britons shouldn't have a monopoly on this at all, but they may have some insight. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, you are reading it wrong, it seems. According to that, she will be a member of the royal family ("... the current royal family will usually include ... male-line grandchildren of the monarch ... and all their current or widowed spouses"). I agree that we should mention her participation in the royal duties if we are not to mention her becoming a member of the royal family (as recently removed). Those two basically mean the same thing and put her engagement into context, i.e. outline why her (former) occupations are mentioned alongside something that at first seems to pertain only to her private life. Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal life

I'm proposing to change the relationship section mentioning Prince Harry in the title part to "Personal life" since that is the proper way of describing it. Any thoughts? Conspirasee1 (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I also suggest "Early relationship" be changed then to "Relationships" since the section mentions her ex husband as well as her fiance. Just a thought.... Conspirasee1 (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks better Surtsicna. Thank you for your collaboration. Conspirasee1 (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Ancestry Section

Should the article Meghan Markle have a section on her ancestry? More specifically, should the details of her ethnic background be included? Should discussion of her ancestors who lived in the 17th century be included? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't forget about her white ancestor from the 17th century - Captain Christopher Hussey (died 1686). He is a direct ancestor of Markle's grt grt grt grandmother Mary Hussey Smith (died 1908). His chair is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

Markle's OWN family - for 20 years - have been well aware of this family connection as the respected UK Daily Telegraph tells us on 18th November 2017.

Survey

• Sure, why not? Royalty is all about ancestry, and Harry’s BLP has long contained such a section. Just make sure it doesn’t get so big as to be undue weight. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

All royal "people" have pages that have their ancestry. Her 17th century ancestry and shared cousinship with her finance is interesting. 2001:8003:4FE9:1B00:7418:F491:EF9A:E098 (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support if reliably sourced No need to not include this sourced reliably. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• We are rushing things. Anythingyouwant says that ancestry is commonly explained in articles about royal people, but Markle is not royal yet. If the marriage were to never take place, the ancestry section would look out of place in the article about an actor. If the ancestry is relevant when the subject is royal, let's include it when Markle is actually royal. Surtsicna (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• She herself has spoken on the record about her ancestry (both paternal and maternal). As the fiancé of a royal, her "New England (American)", noble and royal ancestry has been confirmed and published widely. Her family has been familiar with some of this research according to the UK Daily Telegraph. Yes - it should be included.203.132.68.1 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Literally everyone with English ancestry is descended from Edward III, including Markle. Funny how that needs to be highlighted only if/when the person becomes engaged to a modern royal! Never mind that it's also true for literally everyone else. Surtsicna (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Poor us - our family PAID MONEY to get proof of our New England ancestry (hoping too, for proof of noble and royal links!) and the professional geneaologists could not come up with ANY proof beyond 4 generations back. Lucky Meghan.
• I believe there is undue weight being paid to her ancestry, particularly to tenuous links to English nobility. The current version here is better than some previous, but there is still extraneous detail. She is a 17th cousin of Prince Harry? So is most of the population of North America.

Ancestry is important for royals as it establishes their legitimacy as royals. The most interesting aspect of Markle's ancestry, with respect to her status as the future wife of a prince, is that she is a commoner. I would suggest we consider the articles of other commoners who also married into royalty, e.g. Grace Kelly (no ancestry section) or Wallis Simpson (a simple chart back to her great-great-grandparents). See also another commoner who married one of QEII's grandsons, Autumn Phillips - not a word about her ancestry.

Put another way: Markle was notable for her own accomplishments long before she became the future Mrs. Harry Windsor. Was her descent from Sir Philip Wentworth notable then? And if not, what makes it notable now? - Eron^Talk 05:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Markle has some confirmed ancestors who have had their own Wikipedia pages for years. So does Sophie Rhys Jones and Sarah Ferguson. Autumn Phillips does not have any significant ancestors with their own Wikipedia pages. It makes absolute sense to link Markle's notable ancestors into her own page - especially as her ancestry has been confirmed and is connected to her fiance's. I would place the ancestry section towards the end of the article.2001:8003:4FE9:1B00:CC2F:2627:E756:1D2F (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That Autumn Phillips has no significant ancestors with biographies on Wikipedia is demonstratively false. I have cited articles which explain in detail that every person of English ancestry is descended from Edward III. Furthermore, every person of European ancestry is descended from Charlemagne. In fact, every person from the 9th century or earlier who has surviving descendants is an ancestor of every living person of European ancestry. Genealogical research of celebrities is a fad that provides no meaningful information. There is no sensible reason not to consider this more trivial than the subject's dietary habits, height and weight, style choices, workout routine, etc; the availability of information does not necessarily mean the information is encyclopedically relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Yes. General media coverage reflects public interest in the subject in her public role as royalty. Wikipedia ought to cautiously mirror that. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

But she is not royalty yet and her 15th century ancestors have nothing to do with her public role. They do not have anything to do with any aspect of her life, actually. Surtsicna (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As reported, Markle's grt grt grt grandmother is landowner Mary Hussey Smith (d.1908), the descendant of founding Hampton, New Hampshire councillor Christopher Hussey (died 1686) - (this is in the 17th century - not the 14th century!). This ancestor has a fair bit to do with the life of Markle's family. It is not for you to say that it is not important. The Markle family themselves are reported as being aware of their own ancestry - see UK Daily Telegraph article. Why should Sophie Rhys Jones have an ancestry section (her grandmother was Patricia Molesworth - a descendant of Lord Molesworth) and not Markle - whose grt grt grt grandfather Jacob Lee Merril was a descendant of the Rev. Skipper who first came to New England in the 1630s. It is not for us to say that that these people are of no importance to the Markle Family or historians Srbernadette (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

And how exactly is "landowner Mary Hussey Smith (d.1908)" or "Christopher Hussey (died 1686)" or "Jacob Lee Merril" or "Rev. Skipper" relevant to Meghan Markle's acting career or royal future? It is not for us to say what's relevant to Markle's family or historians, but it is for us to say what's relevant to Wikipedia. See WP:ONUS: not every sourced piece of information belongs to an encyclopedia. That is why we do not deal with Markle's gym routine or dietary habits here and why we should not dedicate an entire section to trivia about distant relatives. Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree - I HATE Markle!!!! I agree with you that only nice, upper-class, white "gels" should have their nice, white, ancestry sections on the their Wikipedia page because it's "relevant to them". Markle's nice, white, notable ancestry can go to hell! Stupid, elitist Washington Post and UK Daily Telegraph for publishing it on page 5. Their many readers will NEVER be interested in Markle's nice, white aristocratic background. Cheers Srbernadette (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Defacing this article to make a point, as you did here, is not going to help you convince anyone. Please keep your editorializing about the content of the article on this Talk page, where it belongs. - Eron^Talk 22:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Markle herself says that "I have come to embrace [this and] say who I am, to share where I'm from... " - but on Wikipedia we will NOT be going into any detail as to "where she is from". NO ANCESTRY SECTION ALLOWED FOR MARKLE. Of course, YES to an ancestry section for fellow White commoner ( and soon to be relative) Sophie Rhys Jones. Cheers Srbernadette (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Holy cow. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's all just a bit of fun here on Wikipedia! Srbernadette (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You may find this essay relevant. - Eron^Talk 23:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. She is formally associated with royalty, and there has been significant media attention regarding her ancestry. People may come here to get an overview of these reports. If the engagement were to end, we can always consider removing the section. I agree with others that the section shouldn't be too long (focussing on a few notable ancestors, preferably somewhat recent ones) and near the end of the article. Gap9551 (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

But how does being associated with royalty make one's ancestry more relevant, Gap9551? Harry's ancestry is relevant because it makes him royal and confers a constitutional position on him. Markle's ancestry did not lead to her being associated with royalty. Harry did not fall for her because she was his 17th cousin or a descendant of a William Skipper. And notability is not temporary; we cannot now decide that an entire section is relevant, only to change our minds if things don't work out the way we expected, without looking like fools. Why cannot we cover her ancestry briefly in the Early life section, mentioning her notable and recent ancestors (per your suggestion) and without going into undue detail? Surtsicna (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

True, Harry's ancestry is more important than Markle's, even when they are married. But I think her ancestry is important enough to discuss here in more detail than before, due to her engagement to a royal (of course the sources only appeared after the relationship became known). Ancestry is an important concept for royalty, and through her engagement to a royal, I feel hers become more notable too (I admit I cannot argue this better, and if many disagree I'll happily accept that, but several media outlets clearly think her ancestry is more relevant now, too). I believe The section in the GNG you link to via "notability is not temporary" is about notability of standalone articles, not subtopics within articles, but apart from that, inclusion of any topic in Wikipedia can in principle be re-evaluated at any time. Wikipedia wouldn't look like a fool if we ever decide to change content. I'm ok with one or two paragraphs in her Early life section about ancestry instead of a separate section (actually I had misread the first few words of this RfC, I thought it was about including her ancestry at all, not just about a dedicated section. But in the current version ancestry isn't covered anywhere, apart from her parents.). Gap9551 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that we do not have any major disagreements then; I am definitely not against covering the basics of her origin (see the featured article on fellow actor Angelina Jolie#Early life and family for example). What I oppose is dedicating four paragraphs to it and bringing up random people from the Middle Ages. Surtsicna (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - the 17th century ancestor that this RFC is specifically asking about has no due WP:WEIGHT in coverage. I think the above replies that say support were *not* advocating for that either, but instead are support for general ancestry remarks. By basic Google that has some minor weight - Markle gets 70M hits, her ancestry gets 1M. But 17th century -- seems only 6 thousand hits, which makes it not significant enough percentage to mention. Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I am not sure that King Edward III is a "random" person, or John Hussey, 1st Baron Hussey of Sleaford for that matter. The more these confirmed direct ancestors are discussed and highlighted in major global newspapers (see above), the more likely it is that Wikipedia will have to record the major global newspaper's reports and place the information in a formal ancestry section - similarly to the ancestry section of another commoner who married a royal - Sophie, Countess of Wessex. Stay tuned Srbernadette (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Great that user:Surtsicna has now "lowered her standards" enough to almost contemplate Markle's white notable aristocratic ancestors - who have their own Wikipedia pages. Good news!Srbernadette (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The derision in your comments is obnoxious. Surtsicna (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Lighten up!!! I'm just muckin' around Surtsicna. The reliable UK and USA broadsheets and TV networks will continue to publish for the benefit of their readers Markle's white aristocratic ancestry for the rest of her life - regardless of what we put down on Wikipedia pages! Surely you know that.

FWIW - do you understand that Autumn Phillips would indeed, as you correctly say, be a direct descendant of Edward III but that any research done on Phillip's ancestry failed to PROOVE this? That's why it is not on her Wikipedia page. If Burke's Peerage researchers or any other reputable sources had such "facts", the information would be available for to read as it is with Sophie, Countess of Wessex; this is the case with most other royal wives. Markle is no longer an actress - so PLEASE do not compare her Wikipedia page with actress Angelina Jolie!!!! There is evidence that Markle is now a working royal - and will remain as such for some time!!

N.B. Markle's publicity and all media attention now relates and personifies her as a royal - NOT as an actress. We can absolutely categorically state that as a fact. Cheers Srbernadette (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It has been proven that Autumn Phillips is a descendant of Edward III. I have cited the research. I won't even attempt to address the rest of your gibberish. Surtsicna (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support To be honest, I think such section should be included in the body of the article. She is expected to become a high ranking member of the royal family, and one of the elements that is associated with royalty is their heritage. My opinion may be biased, but one of the first things that I was interested to learn about Markle after the announcement of her engagement was that whether she had any royal ties or not, and it seems that some users have found information on her ancestry noteworthy. I suggest that we should keep that section. Keivan.f^Talk 03:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please help me understand this, Keivan.f. Markle is to become royal by marriage, not by birth, is she not? So what does her heritage have to do with that? And do you support covering the heritage in detail in a separate section or within the Early life section? Why? Surtsicna (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Keivan.f makes his reasons for his decision very clear in his above response to you Surtsicna - please re-read them and LISTEN to your fellow editors! Attached is family tree as published by the UK Times on December 3rd, 2017 - only days before Surtsicna decided that the Markle family tree was of no interest to Wikipedia readers - the information being dismissed by this editor as "irrelevant" to Markle's own family too! https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meghan-markles-jonesboro-roots-q2pkszld.q The UK Daily Telegraph also has done a feature article by Hannah Furness (18 November 2017) - complete with family tree of the paternal side of Markle's family. Wikipedians will never see it or read about it - also decided by Surtsicna Srbernadette (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I just want to make it clear that we are not arguing over something here; this is supposed to be a constructive discussion, so please calm down and respect the users that have different opinions. Surtsicna, you're right. She's not royal by birth, but she's the first person of mixed race to marry into the British royal family, thus information on her family background and ancestry could be interesting. I usually prefer the ancestry section to be separated from other sections, but as she's not a royal figure yet, I think we should follow the most appropriate form for non-royals and include it as a sub-section within the "Early life". Keivan.f^Talk 03:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I would certainly support including details of her background and ancestry as a person of mixed race. The fact that she is a descendant of American slavery is far more interesting - and I would say, encyclopedic - than her more remote (and in some cases unproven) links to English nobility. The notable thing about her ancestry is that she is a commoner of mixed race marrying the grandson of the Queen; that should absolutely be included in this article. - Eron^Talk 04:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support

User:Surtsicna - Please explain why a "commoner", Sophie, Countess of Wessex and the other royal wives including commoner Camilla are deemed suitable for their own Ancestry sections on their pages.

You say NO to presenting any of the detailed ancestry for "half-caste" Markle on her page. You are aware - as we all are - that Markle's noble and notable ancestors have been very well-publicised and authentically researched in major newspapers around the world. I simply do not understand your logic. Even for Wikipedia! Srbernadette (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on article section order: ancestry, filmography, and humanitarian work

Should the section on ancestry be moved to after the sections on humanitarian work and/or filmography? Thsmi002 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Doesn't ancestry usually go with the early life section? In the rare cases where we have this information, it considered an extension of her parents. I don't know of any MOS clarification of this, but this is how we usually see it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Attached is family tree as published by the UK Times on December 3rd, 2017 - two days before Surtsicna decided that the Markle family tree was of no interest to Wikipedia readers - the information being dismissed by this editor as "irrelevant" to Markle's own family too! https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meghan-markles-jonesboro-roots-q2pkszld.q Very sad.Srbernadette (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

Good day! My question is: is she African American or not? In Wikidata ethnic group African American. This correct? Thanks for the answer!--91.210.109.220 (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

She considers herself biracial. Surtsicna (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

pregnant

Sources say Megan Markle is pregnant with harry's baby this could make another royal air to the throne creating a longer generation to the throne equaling an american line in the royals making america more connected to United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankiebean13 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Those are all tabloids at best. Also, William has two kids and one on the way. Barring anything really crazy, Harry and his heirs will never see the crown. Eric Cable  !  Talk  18:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)