Jump to content

Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yseult-Ivain (talk | contribs) at 11:16, 22 May 2018 (→‎Why is Meghan still in her name?: ex. Queen Victoria). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWomen in Red: Women in the world (2017)
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during the Women in the world contest hosted by the Women in Red project in November 2017. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Template:Vital article

Changing the title of the article

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

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

Making her the exception to the "Duchess of X" rule? not sure about. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such rule. Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could ask her publicist how she would like to be listed, and respect Meghan's views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.10.29 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that we could request move protection. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! I had not thought of that. Surtsicna (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is it lazy journalism that Yusuf Islam is still referred to as Cat Stevens? Possibly but I do not think it would be incorrect to keep the article about Meghan Markle at Meghan Markle, while noting the name change in the body of the article, until (and unless) the new title becomes the most common way to refer to the (former) actress. Surtsicna (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the case about royal figures is a little bit different than others. Obviously Diana and Catherine are both commonly known as Princess Diana and Kate Middleton (occasionally Princess Kate) in the press. Does it mean that we should have those incorrect forms as the titles of our articles? I'm not saying that we should immediately move Markle's page to the new title, and I'm open to discuss the possibilities, yet I believe it would be better to include the appropriate royal title in the title of the article as that's going to be her profession for the rest of her life. Keivan.fTalk 03:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't the case of Meghan Markle quite a bit different than those of Diana and Catherine? She was, by Wikipedia standards, a notable individual for a decade before she met her prince. She had a flourishing career as Meghan Markle. Furthermore, "Princess Diana" and "Kate Middleton" were never correct forms; Middleton never used the name Kate herself. On the other hand, referring to Meghan Markle as Meghan Markle will be as correct as referring to Queen Mary as Mary of Teck or to Grace, Princess of Monaco, as Grace Kelly (hint: another actress turned princess). Surtsicna (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually care about this stuff, but yes, I think there's a good case for keeping this article under the name she has always been known by. Grace Kelly is a salutary example. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. The Grace Kelly naming precedent seems to be the correct way to go. -- fdewaele, 12 May 2018, 22:04 CET.
Yes, it has legally never been right to refer to Catherine as Kate Middleton, but that was her common name for a decade during which she was dating William, and I guess that was the title of her article before becoming the Duchess of Cambridge. On the other hand, Grace was always known as a prominent American actress and had won an Academy Award for one of her roles. I'm not trying to say that Markle is not as prominent as Kelly, but the fact is that Kelly's career as an actress overshadowed her life as a royal figure. We just have to wait and see what Markle's case is going to be. Keivan.fTalk 22:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@82.26.137.48: If journalism, lazy or not, uses one or more names or titles for the subject then those can be mentioned in the lead or body of this article. This talk page section is about if and when the article itself should be moved from Meghan Markle to something else. For example:
That's just a short sample. Many commoners have married royalty[1], [2], [3] with some still being known by the name they used prior to their marriage, others taking on their spouses name, and still others becoming known per WP:COMMONNAME by their titles.
I support Surtsicna's suggestion that we use a proper move discussion though oppose "preemptively opposing" any name changes as Ms. Markle and her husband could soon start working actively towards establishing a new WP:COMMONNAME for her. Wikipedia should not take the lead in recognizing the new name but if reliable media starts using it then we can cite those articles to support moving the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This is neither here nor there and means nothing, but I strongly remember that while we were in the midst of a move discussion regarding Kate Middleton, Jimbo Wales himself swept in and moved the article to its current location. Again, this is neither here nor there, it holds no precedent, binds us to nothing, just an interesting anecdote on what occurred the last time around. Safiel (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimbo Wales actions regarding Kate Middleton notwithstanding, I believe that WP:COMMONNAME dictates that the article remain at Meghan Markle unless and until a majority of reliable sources refer to her otherwise, for example, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. So I would oppose any immediate move of the article. Safiel (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:BLP "We must get the article right" not trump WP:COMMONNAME? Her name is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (or potentially Rachel, Duchess of Sussex), not Meghan Markle. Will Bradshaw (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that Jimbo swept in, like the Kate Middleton article before, and unilaterally moved this article. Regardless of Jimbo's actions, any requested move discussion would have likely produced the same basic results as the one now currently underway, with the same people making the same comments as whether this article should be "Meghan Markle" or "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon marriage she became Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex so that’s how she should be styled Katie960 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

( Pipera (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC) )pipera See [1] for a clarification, she is legally Megan Markle her name by birth, she assumed the titles from her marriage, a redirection should be evoked.[reply]

She's titled ONLY in the United Kingdom. Simply because one country has bestowed a title on her, though worth a mention, does not bestow that title on her in any other country, and should not usurp her true name. I doubt her California driver's license or her passport will now read "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". If anything, the page should be headed Meghan Wales or Windsor or whatever her new last name will be. Donald Trump's page is not headed " President Donald Trump" because although he is that in the U.S., he is not president anywhere else. Jen Kinder (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The webpage of the British Royal Family styles the lady as "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex." As for the use of British titles by Americans visiting the United States, has anyone come across instances of the Duchess of Windsor (née Wallis Warfield) being referred to in the U.S. Press - or anywhere else - as "Mrs. Windsor"?Yseult-Ivain (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout a compromise - - -

Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex 2600:8800:785:1300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion . . . with a caveat! I like "Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex" as a good approach for historical figures, and it's already in use for historical figures: Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England or Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon Queen of the United Kingdom, are good examples. The trouble with using this approach for living women is, many people seem to become jittery when they encounter the name of any married woman listed under her maiden name; instances of these seem to generate ASCII-fests of epic proportions on talk pages. (I have thought of naming out the Wives of Henry VIII as "Catherine Tudor; Anne Tudor; Jane Tudor; etc., but have thus far restrained myself.)
I wonder whether one of the taxonomies discussed below might not work even better: The Duchess of Sussex, née Meghan Markle. (Née in the French, is born. This believe it or not is a very traditional, old way to refer to married women currently living with husbands currently living. If people don't like née, then perhaps born. And there are other possibilities. Yseult-Ivain (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage to the Duke means Meghan is no longer a Markle.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Her name isn't Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex. Making up a name isn't acceptable. Landbroke99 (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her title here is wrong. She would only be "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" if she and Harry divorce. Her actual title is "Her Royal Highness Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex." The article "the" is very important here. Lily.MJT (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

36?

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

No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just deny math? LDanielHolm (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one denied math. on 17 May 2018 she is 36. She will turn 37 on 4 August 2018. It seems like you do not understand how to determine age. ~ GB fan 14:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can see her age calculated here. ~ GB fan 16:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you are absolutely right. I have no idea how I came to this conclusion. I must have been very tired when I looked at this last time. Mea culpa. LDanielHolm (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

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

No - "...the claim is utterly false." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
cmt - She was married before, in Jewish fashion. She was (a) perhaps nominally Jewish for perhaps that day (B) wasn't but participated in a Jewish style wedding According to the WP article Interfaith marriage in Judaism (tho we know WP is not a reliable source): "The Talmud and later classical sources of Jewish law are clear that the institution of Jewish marriage, kiddushin, can only be affected between Jews. The more liberal Jewish movements—including Reform, Reconstructionist (collectively organized in the World Union for Progressive Judaism)—do not generally regard the historic corpus and process of Jewish law as intrinsically binding. Progressive rabbinical associations have no firm prohibition against intermarriage; according to a survey of rabbis, conducted in 1985, more than 87% of Reconstructionist rabbis were willing to officiate at interfaith marriages,[39] and in 2003 at least 50% of Reform rabbis were willing to perform interfaith marriages.[40]... ... ..." (C) Speculatively, perhaps that marriage is considered annulled by the Church of England, hence she's never been married before. ... ...--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Funny, she doesn't look Jewish. --184.248.15.94 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is of Catholic Religion, not Jewish.

She is now a baptized Anglican.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source? HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[4], [5] --Scott Davis Talk 06:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a secret ceremony. Wow. This is a silly aspect of religious labelling. I know many people who were baptised as Anglicans but are in no way Anglicans today. (If they ever really were.) The best description I could give them is apatheists. Meghan presumably had to go through such a ceremony in order to be allowed to marry. Does she actually believe? We will never know. Does everyone who was ever baptised as an Anglican actually count as an Anglican today? Obviously not. This is a very mysterious area for an encyclopaedia aiming to be precise to cover. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say the lack of baptism nominally would not have prevented the marriage. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't presume anything regarding anyone's religious beliefs or affiliations. What we know---at least it hasn't been disputed---is that our subject was both baptized and confirmed in a ceremony conducted for and by the Church of England. That our subject was recently baptized indicates, but not definitively, that she was not previously baptized in a manner acceptable to the Church of England. As an aside, one could well argue that baptism is not entry into a particular church, but simply acknowledgment of Christian identity. In my faith tradition, anyone can baptize another, lacking the availability of a priest. A military chaplain, for instance, even if Jewish or Moslem or Druid, &c., could baptize someone into the Christian tradition.

religion earlier

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

All children are atheists when they are born. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No,they're agnostic.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the reasonable presumption is that children carry the religion of their parents. Until they (the children) decide otherwise when they are old enough to do so. Safiel (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see it the other way round. To claim they have the religion of their parents is somewhat presumptuous. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parents get to "presume" for their children. I started life out as United Methodist, not of my own accord of course, but because that was my parent's religion. When I grew up, I subsequently chose non-theism for myself. But if I was, myself, the subject of a Wikipedia article, it would be most correct to describe my childhood religion as United Methodist. Children can't make those decisions, parents make that decision for them, until they reach the age of reason. Safiel (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I would be very interested to know where you read that. Because on the British Royal Family webpage, the lady is to be styled "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex." Without her given name.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

They are married,but "Markle" disappears from her legal name.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

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

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

Duchess of Sussex

Hi, should the infobox and article make reference to her new royal title of Duchess of Sussex as per [6]? Wagnerp16 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the link, "Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex". A reference has been added in the article body to the announcement, but as it's not her title it shouldn't be added to the infobox at this time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upon marriage (12:00 GMT) her title will change to HRH The Duchess of Sussex, as per protocol. Also, in the future the citizenship may need to be altered to ″American - British″ if she is going down the dual citizenship route. Wagnerp16 (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, the formal pronouncement by Justin Welby wasn't actually made until about 12:39 BST? The article was technically wrong for about 30 minutes? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend changing her title. Her title Baroness Kilkeel of Northern Ireland, not Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoosierguyaz (talk • contribs) 02:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kilkeel is in Northern Ireland,but the title is in the Peerage of the United Kingdom,there has never been a Peerage of Northern Ireland.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 May 2018

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle – I do not have a firm view on this issue, but I think it is going to take a formal move request to settle this. I realise that it would be in keeping with most royal brides to move her immediately to her new title. However, unlike most royal brides she already had a significant profile, I have been slightly surprised at the way sections of the media are still referring to "Kate Middleton" so it's likely that the same thing will happen to Meghan, and we do have a precedent for leaving an actress who married into royalty at her maiden name, i.e. Grace Kelly. PatGallacher (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, of course. According to the talk page consensus reached in the month preceding the marriage, this article should not have been moved without a discussion. It is very disappointing to see that strong consensus ignored without any explanation, without even an edit summary. A discussion should be held for a move from Meghan Markle (the title for the past 11 years) to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, not the other way around. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that there wasn't a consensus for the name change, she is now Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, therefore shouldn't the page be changed? EncodedRainbow (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So? Since when is consensus trashed and thrown into the bin under the excuse of "she is now..."? I don't recognize this brazen nonsense. What is even the point of debating moves if the result is ignored completely and instantaneously? --Loginnigol 18:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The subject was notable by Wiki standards for a decade before becoming associated with the royal family. She built a career under the name Meghan Markle. There is absolutely no indication that she will become better known as the Duchess of Sussex than as Meghan Markle, as required by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Self-published name changes for a move to be warranted. In fact, past precedent indicates that she will remain best known as Meghan Markle. The move was premature not only because the subject had not become commonly known as the Duchess of Sussex, but also because it was performed before she even became Duchess of Sussex. Surtsicna (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The career she built as Meghan Markle has ended and future reference should reflect changed realities.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
News in U.S. said the Queen dubbed her "Duchess of Sussex" before the wedding occurred, as part of formalities. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misinterpretation.Her husband-to-be was named Duke,and it was explained that therefore marriage to him would make her Duchess.12.144.5.2 (talk)
By the same logic, though, we wouldn't have renamed the article for the Duke of Cambridge and kept it at Prince William of Wales, given that he was notable by Wiki standards for almost three decades before gaining that title. In reality, the reason why we change it is because we have enough reason to expect the new name to become the most well-known. In the Duchess of Sussex's case, I find the issue is that her maiden name might remain most popular in the U.S., but I expect (and I don't think it is unreasonable to do so) her new title will be how she is referred to in the U.K. and likely the rest of Europe from now on. Given that her new residence is indeed in England, and her future work will be based there, it seems appropriate for this article to be named as it is now. --EU (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is no different to, say, the renaming of Jorge Bergoglio to Pope Francis. Yes, Bergoglio (like Markle) had some notability before his new role. At the time, Bergoglio was of course the common name over the (never before heard) Pope Francis. But keeping the article title at Bergoglio? No, editors used their common sense and moved the article. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources used Pope Francis instantly; not the case here, even years from now sources (like with kate middleton) are likely going to heavily use Meghan Markle Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not true at all. The vast majority of reliable sources call the Duchess of Cambridge by her correct name. As an example, see the BBC page for the birth of Prince Louis: not a single mention of 'Middleton'. (Edit: Perhaps, though, there might be a difference betwen British and American sources. It's definitely not something a decent British source would mess up. Maybe Americans are more ignorant of titles (understandably) and therefore more likely to be using an old, superseded name.) 87.210.99.206 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't accept that any spouse is ever just a side-note in their partner's life. And here we have a woman who's given up her home, her career, her proximity to long-time family and friends, and takes on together with her new husband an entirely new career - as official representatives of the head of an intergovernmental organization of 53 member nations to those same nations. (My head is spinning just thinking about the changes this woman has been going through, and still has yet to face.)Yseult-Ivain (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is exactly what I wanted to avoid when I started the discussion last month: the article would be moved to a new title without discussion or explanation, there would be a request to move it back (which is not how WP:BRD works), and then editors would flood in to point out that "Meghan, Duchess of X" is her current name, all the while ignoring the Wikipedia:Common names policy and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Self-published name changes. This policy and this guideline specifically deny that the article title should be based on the individual's current name. But of course, this, much like the previous consensus not to move the article without a discussion, means nothing when mere voting prevails. Surtsicna (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for consistency, and due to the fact that she'll be known by that title for the remainder of her life. I wouldn't compare Grace Kelly to Meghan, as Kelly's career as a Hollywood actress completely overshadowed her life as a princess, while in Meghan's case she received more attention following her engagement and subsequent marriage. Keivan.fTalk 12:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an American born after Grace quit acting and married Prince Rainier, and I heard of her as "Princess Grace" before I ever heard she had been an actress as Grace Kelly.LE (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: rules are needed, but sometimes exceptions have to be made, and it would be absurd and curmudgeonly to go on using the name of an actress after she has become a royal duchess. We can review this again after the divorce. Moonraker (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: it’s her name now. WoodyWerm (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's now her new name, and a name she'll be called and referred to from now on. Kidsoljah (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: She's the Duchess of Sussex now.[7] 82.18.67.217 (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Just like the title of the article on Mohammed Emwazi is Jihadi John, the name he is more commonly referred to, the title of the article on the Duchess of Sussex should be Meghan Markle, the name she is more commonly referred to. IvanCrives (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I made the move primarily because I made the similar move of Kate Middleton to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. It was fun to do so, and in similar circumstances in the future, I hope to do it again. If we can't have a bit of fun in Wikipedia without a lot of hand wringing, we're going in the wrong direction. Now, as to some of the particular arguments for moving it back, I will leave that to everyone else but note that there already appears to be strong consensus to oppose moving it back. I think there are good reasons for that consensus, and not very many good reasons to move it back. One thing I would point to is the question "what is the most notable thing about this person?" and look at the Google search and news trends for her: [8]. As compared to today, she was a virtual unknown before she got engaged to Prince Harry. As Keivan.f said up above, this is not really comparable to the case of Grace Kelly, a legendary actress who married into a minor royal family. WP:COMMONNAMEis an important policy, and yet it should not be assumed that we have to wait until the majority of sources shift, and nor do we usually wait for that. And it is not the most important policy in Wikipedia in any case - in general for articles relating to the peerage, we use the formal title even in (most) cases where the peer is more known otherwise. See, for example, List of elected hereditary peers under the House of Lords Act 1999. Indeed, check out most (but not all) life peers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you do not mean to say that it was fun to override weeks of discussion on the article talk page without any explanation. This is both disappointing and embarrassing to me as a Wikipedia editor. Why bother discussing anything when an administrator can do what he or she pleases? And why have policies and guidelines when comments contradicting those policies and guidelines without any explanation ("it's her name now") are called "good reasons" and "strong consensus"? Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lighten up, Francis.50.111.48.95 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No way did Jimbo "override weeks of discussion on the article talk page". If there had been consensus back then for retaining the Meghan Markle name, or if the current discussion showed such a consensus, I would have had no problem asking for and getting a revert of Jimbo (for technical reasons there are special steps needed to make a move over a redirect), and if past behavior is any indicator Jimbo would have been fine with this. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Noting first that a large portion of the above !votes are WP:OFFICIALNAME arguments unsupported by policy or guideline, and thus a strong closer would or may find a no consensus from this (and thus a move back). I barely find her being referred to duchess of sussex (except in articles specifically about what her new title is), sources still exclusively using Meghan Markle, and she has been referred to that for years, making it not certain or perhaps even likely that she will be called the the duchess of sussex (considering kate middleton). Per WP:NAMECHANGES we wait for the sources to change first. Meghan Markle is still per the WP:CRITERIA, vastly more recognizeable, most importantly, and also natural, and concise. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The procedure should have been followed; consensus, then discussion before the change. This is exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia currently - armies of authoritarian self-appointed guardians of this or that subject, article or genre, make changes without consultation, then build walls to defend their position, zealously patrolling the battlements, squashing any hint of dissent within micro-seconds of edits. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open and collaborative effort. While this particular issue may not have attracted quite that level of controversy or acrimony, it is in the same spirit. Bennycat (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support She is notable before marrying into the royal family.--118.107.129.1 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not call her by her title now? Is she not worthy of it? Why? Because she is from the USA? If we don't call her by her title, then by precedent why call any of them by their title? 71.173.19.150 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why is she, or would she be Meghan . . ., instead of Rachel, Duchess of Sussex? Does anyone know? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because that's her common name. The official website of the British monarchy referred to her as Meghan Markle before her marriage, and she took her marriage vows using that name. She has never been known as Rachel, not even during her career as an actress. Keivan.fTalk 15:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is now her official title, so we should go with that. Having said that, I checked out Grace Kelly and see she is still known by us as Grace Kelly rather than Pricess Grace of Monaco, which of course was her title for many years. This is Paul (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (I think - I believe the title should be Meghan, Duchess of Sussex). Responding to "Why not Rachel?" - because the wedding service called her Meghan every time it used a short form of her name. Yes, I expect that like a number of other royal wives, the popular media (more often television than print) will use the name she had immediately before her wedding. However, I think even then, it will usually acknowledge her title/current name as well. WP:COMMONNAME --Scott Davis Talk 15:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: although this move did override a previous agreement, I think User:Jimbo Wales is right to argue that she is considerably more notable now as the wife of Prince Harry than she was as a television actress. Opera hat (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment statements about "legal name" are wrong. She is not a British Citizen. She's still American, and her U.S. passport does not and will never say "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her title is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex or at best the Duchess of Sussex. She will never be called Meghan Markle again. To change it back would be distortion of facts.BabbaQ (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - If she has received or chosen a new name, that's good enough for me. We shouldn't be in the business of highjacking someone's personal identity. Isingness (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And yet hijacking someone's identity seems to be exactly what's been done here. The article title was changed before the marriage itself, and I've not seen anything here on what she herself might choose: mostly commentators dictating what she must now be called. Is it too much to wait to see what she chooses to use? Bradypusedinae (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's her official title now. We've all seen how quickly articles are changed to reflect elections in the US. I don't see how this is any different. Sedriskell (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - For the same reason as for Grace Kelly. It is kind of cool to see her with her new name, but the most recognizable name she ever went by should stay, with redirections for things like Duchess Megean or whatever else would be used to look her up at this point.jbl1975 (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - WP:COMMONNAME and the high-handed overriding of previous consensus mean I strongly support keeping the page at Meghan Markle until consensus confirms a change, possibly as common use is observed to shift. For arguments about this being a "real" name now: I don't believe the Queen has the authority to change the name of any US citizen, even if she might award titles; and once we're into archaic British tradition then isn't it “Duchess Henry of Sussex”, as with Princess Michael of Kent ? Bradypusedinae (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A rude and unnecessarily racist comment. For your final point, no, it is not 'Duchess of Henry of Sussex': Princess Michael is a completely different case. Perhaps you would know this if you treated it with a little more respect. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No intention to be racist: the British tradition I was brought up in had that the correct form of address is to refer to a married woman by her husband's given names; to do so was a mark of respect for her marriage, and to use instead a given first name or initials indicated that she is a widow. It's now largely gone; but I still use this to address my own older female relatives, as they were the ones who taught me. Other countries may have similar or different traditions, but this article is specifically about a British title. Princess Michael of Kent is the most notable example of this tradition that I could locate for reference on Wikipedia; another would be Lady Randolph Churchill. Wikipedia on UK titles reports the convention of using a peeress's given name only should they become divorced, as with Sarah, Duchess of York who did not use that style during her marriage. Bradypusedinae (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Princess Michael of Kent is similar to Mrs Michael Kent, because Mr and Prince are not titles of peerage. --Killuminator (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just like with the AfD for the Duchess mother Doria Ragland those who are "for deletion" or in this case revert of the name seem to mix "I don't like it" into the mix. Anyway, I see that a consensus for returning to Meghan Markle is far away.BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the stable title is Meghan Markle so no consensus would result a move back Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Her correct style is HRH The Duchess of Sussex and so she should appear. In the words of The Transvision Vamp, she's the only one. There is nothing whatsoever to discuss. Live with it. Let us all wish them health and happiness and hope fervently that there should be no change in the style of either of them while they live.
  • Oppose - I agree that there should have been a discussion first (and if there is no consensus it should be moved back) but this is her name now and will be used almost exclusively going forward - i.e. it is the common name as of today, 20 May. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - She is the Duchess of Sussex; this is her title and how her name is to be styled. This is her name; her style. Leave it be. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just an observation here as I am unsure of any precedent, but since she was born as Rachel Meghan Markle (taking her middle name as her stage name) then surely, if arguing the point of her new name, the article name should actually be named Rachel, Duchess of Sussex - otherwise, still using Meghan in the title in any form would still be following WP:COMMONNAME to an extent, no? Buttons0603 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose moving back to "Meghan Markle" as well because, firstly if anyone is looking at the official website of the royal family https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex , which has been updated, it says: The Duchess of Sussex, born Meghan Markle in the first line. It doesn't say anything about her full name. Plus, we all know that Meghan is her preferred name. So the right title should be, just like Catherine's (Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge) and Camilla's (Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall). So, please keep it as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.Mirrorthesoul (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by this: for the women, many of your example pages actually don't use the official royal styles — I expect because those routinely ignore their distinguishing personal name. For example, the article on Charlene, Princess of Monaco confirms that her official style is Her Serene Highness The Princess of Monaco. Which is not used as the page title. I'm strongly for following policy in WP:UCRN and WP:OFFICIALNAME, that editors should work with what becomes common use, and not just in the UK.
  • Strongly Oppose This is an irrelevant discussion. Her name is now Meghan, Duchess of Suffolk. Any attempt to undo the change of title of this page would be anti-British prejudice. The name, by which any member of the British Royal Family is officially known, is not a matter for discussion by editors of Wikipedia. Pftaylor61 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pftaylor61, that's a very extreme view. I don't see any inherent prejudice in taking one view rather than another, if we even can't discuss such matters without opponents being called prejudiced what kind of world are we living in? You need to accept other people's good faith. Moonraker (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support - move performed without discussion, against the consensus reached in a discussion held throughout April and May, and against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (primarily WP:COMMONNAME, seemingly at the urging of a tiny coterie of Anglophile lickspittle toadies who worship "royals" and follow these topics obsessively. Pftaylor61 and others: we don't care a goldplated rat's turd what "the name by which any member of the British Royal Family is officially known" happens to be! That matters to Wikipedians no more than what the North Korean state press office says about their dictator, or what official titles Zog I of Albania granted himself. According to our rules, we use the common name for the subject, which in this case is Meghan Markle. And hell, yeah: this is most surely "a matter for discussion by editors of Wikipedia": any other path leaves to servile obeisance. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Your personal views about the monarchy or the UK are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Her legal name according to British law is the one granted to her by Her Majesty the Queen as the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy regardless of whether you like it or not. Her legal name according to US law is also not Rachel Meghan Markle anymore, it is likely to be something more like Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor as the last time I heard the US recognises marriages in the UK as valid. Markle is her maiden name. I'm not sure if you did so, but it would be quite offensive to suggest that US law is somehow above British law, and the fact that she is still (for the time being) American doesn't mean she should be treated differently as if US law is something holy or universally recognised. She is currently in the process of acquiring British citizenship and there is no lack of clarity over her intentions to fully invest herself in her new role as a member of the British Royal Family. However, I also recognise that her legal name is not the only thing to be taken into consideration when choosing the title for this article. Contributors who claim that she should still be known as Meghan Markle because of WP:COMMONNAME should probably read the guideline (and it is just one guideline) a bit more carefully. The bit about name changes is most relevant to this discussion and specifically these parts :
"Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, per COMMONNAME."
"common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English language sources."
The only sources still calling her Meghan Markle are tabloids by the likes of Daily Mail (which by the way is not an accepted source for Wikipedia) and similar others. Respectable sources such as the BBC say that she should (along with her husband) now be "known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" [2]. This is not only happening in British news outlets but also American ones such as the CBS (see: What will Harry and Meghan's lives be like in their new roles as Duke and Duchess of Sussex?. Moreover, yes she has made a quite successful career as Rachel Zane on Suits, but no one can surely honestly say that she is more famous for her acting role rather than being a royal. There is no question that she is far more famous now than she was when she was an actress especially outside of the United States. Furthermore, Grace Kelly has been referenced here multiple times as a comparison, but in reality its like comparing apples and oranges. Award winning Grace Kelly was a far more established actress before her marriage into the minor royal family of European microstate. WP:COMMONNAME is not the only guideline in Wikipedia and indeed there are others which are very relevant to this such as the more specific guideline about royals (see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)). It would be entirely inconsistent to name her as just Meghan Markle, as the only other similar British case would be Wallis Simpson who was never actually a part of the Royal Family. Wallis Simpson was not styled as HRH but by the non-royal style Her Grace despite being a Duchess which would suggest that she was not an actual royal but rather just a member of the nobility. In addition, she lived practically in exile in France, which most definitely is not the case with Meghan, who has been accepted into the Royal Family. I am not sure why I even think your comments about "Anglophile lickspittle toadies" should be honoured with a response, but I would just like to say that it would be nice if everyone would conduct this discussion within the spirit of collegiality and kindness. As for your other comment about the North Korean state press office and the Royal Family, I cannot even become to fathom that someone would think the Royal Family is as unreliable as a source as the North Korean state press office. When for example the Princess of Wales died reliable news outlets did not confirm that she was dead until the Palace had confirmed it or when Harry and Meghan got engaged the official announcement was treated as the only legitimate confirmation by the media. Of course no source is entirely unbiased, but to compare the Royal Family's and North Korea's reliability as similar is completely frivolous. --Ransewiki (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The move was made at 11:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC) and this RM was posted at 11:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC) — a lightning-fast response to the move — but Jimbo Wales had the accurate instinct and timing for his action. It is done and that is how it should remain.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is very lightning-fast!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gateshead001 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: per WP:NAMECHANGES we need to keep the original article name until we see what becomes the consensus amongst reliable sources following her marriage and new title. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per preceding reasons and noting that such policies as WP:COMMONNAME are guidelines and not entrenched law. While we should acknowledged that though (and perhaps because) the move was disappointing in light of the previous consensus, the outcome of this new discussion should be considered valid and the resolution of the matter – previous consensus irrelevant. Rustic / Talk 21:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the reasons given by DeFacto. --76.69.47.55 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She will quickly be known as the Duchess of Sussex in the UK, which is now her home. She has left America and her acting career, which was where she was known as Meghan Markle. MightyWarrior (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the return to the heading "Meghan Markle." This, the original heading, and despite today's royal wedding, best addresses the five goals of a Wikipedia article title. These are Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. As an aside, I think that many people are confused by the difference between one's name and one's titles and styles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Firstly, the page should not have been moved in the first place, when a move discussion had already taken place, and page protection was applied to prevent an undiscussed move. That needs to be reverted, even if Jimbo was the person to do it: "Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think" —Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. We should wait and see if the current title (or even Rachel, Duchess becomes the most commonly-used one, and leave the article at Meghan Markle meanwhile. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 00:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose If I person was knighted, then from that day onward they are Sir. XYZ not Mr. XYZ even if he had a 100 years of being addressed as Mr.XYZ. She is royalty now and she is a princess, deal with it!Kanatonian (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. She's the Duchess of Sussex, absolutely no reason to move her page back. 185.203.122.9 (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: She is already being called by her new name by multiple sources. How stupid would we have to be to user her maiden name after she marries into royalty and becomes a duchess? If they ever get divorced or he abdicates we can revisit this, but as of now Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is here name. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Some of the people supporting this move seem to be implying that the title shouldn't be changed until the US media start calling her The Duchess of Sussex but considering 7 years after The Duchess of Cambridge gained that title they are still calling her Kate Middleton (which personally I consider very disrespectful), that is not likely to ever happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.189.66 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • 84.9: where does "disrespectful" come into it? These people are really just actors playing silly roles, and deserve no more respect than the King of the Cats in a Christmas panto! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: User:Jimbo Wales made the move - you can't argue with that! Jokes aside, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is now her official title. There is absolutely no reason why it should go back. Even for those who argue in favour of WP:CommonName, Meghan Markle was never a very well known celeb of some sort before her engagement - only a minor actress who starred as a main character in Suits and small, one or two episode roles in other series. --Gateshead001 (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - She is now the Duchess of Sussex after her marriage with Prince Harry. Hansen Sebastian 03:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: It should stay at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Yes technically this is the style for a divorced peeress, but it's consistent with how Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Diana, Princess of Wales (as well as Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall). Alphaboi867 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. She is now the Duchess of Sussex, per WP:COMMONNAME for the English royalty. --B dash (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Her marriage has changed her name and this should be reflected.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ....... Common Sense should always apply.--Moxy (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current title sounds autistic lmao. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 2606:A000:ED02:A200:B529:76BB:8F53:F7C0 (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:COMMONNAME: we don’t name people article’s after their ‘legal’ name, we follow what WP:RS commonly refer to them as. As of this morning, a review of newspapers shows she’s primarily still referred to as “Meghan Markle”. This will probably change, but it hasn’t happened yet. Too early to make the change. WP follows not leads. DeCausa (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support: Whatever the article title is, it should NOT be 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex' which is NOT her official title, and not a valid title at all. Please either use her personal name - Meghan Markle - or her title - HRH Duchess of Sussex - or some combination eg 'Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex' but please NOT Meghan Duchess of Sussex which is so wrong (as it's the title of a divorcee) as to be offensive.
So... Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is wrong as well? StAnselm (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support What gives this so called Jumbo or Jimbo the authority to preemptively move an article bypassing the prior reached agreement to come to a consensus on whether to move the article or not, and then request the article be moved back only if a consensus can be reached here? Is Wikipedia his personal property now? And what makes him an expert on peerage? This discussion is utterly pointless. This article should immediately be moved back to undo the controversial move. Then we can discuss and try to reach a consensus on moving back the article, if at all. SissyFitz (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's the founder of Wikipedia. KaiKaiD (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does this Jimbo person actually own Wikipedia? JLJ001 (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's Jimmy Wales, the co-creator of Wikipedia and Founder of Wikimedia Foundation. Which owns Wikipedia. KaiKaiD (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He deserves and gets no special editing privileges. But he has been awarded a Jumbo fish, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most have already said my thoughts, this is her title now. As others have pointed out, also consistency with the other royals. This is her official title now. However, a talk should have occurred beforehand 100%.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Reasons why have been clearly articulated by several others. Surtsicna, seriously, arguing with the founder of Wikipedia over the appropriate editing of Wikipedia is hubris. And any argument that your concern is in protecting the democratic consensus of the community is undermined by the great number of responses you've posted to the 'Oppose' votes of others. Speaking only for myself, I'm left with the impression that you're not so much interested in consensus as in convincing everyone else that you're right. You've made your case. Now let the community decide. KaiKaiD (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, your very sixth edit (and the first since August 2017) is to launch a personal attack on another user in support of the unilateral decision of "the founder of Wikipedia"? You commenting on me rather than the issue at hand perfectly captures the quality of the "oppose votes" here. Grounded in no policy or guideline, they are mostly mere shouting. Now, even attacking. Disgusting. Surtsicna (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personal attack? Stating the impression your comments have made on me? Your response only furthers that impression: you're right, everyone opposed to your position is wrong, and consensus is irrelevant. The irony of you attacking my lesser-than-your Wikipedia editing experience while simultaneously arguing against an edit made the literal founder of the site kinda says it all. And what's with the quotation marks? He's not 'allegedly' the founder of Wikipedia, he IS it's founder -- or co-founder if we want to be pedantic about the point. KaiKaiD (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Commenting on editors is frowned upon in a civilized Wikipedia discussion. Both your comments revolve around your impression of my character, which is despicable. In fact, you have not mentioned Meghan Markle in any of the comments you left on this page so far. All you have done is invoke the argumentum ad Jimbonem. What kind of an impression is that supposed to leave on me? And what merit does that give to your comments? Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The very first sentence in my initial 'Oppose' comment expresses that my thoughts re:Meghan Markle have already been expressed by others. Why should the same points be repeated? My issue with this discussion is your continuing to argue against nearly every 'Oppose' voter along with the multiple snide comments you've made about the quality of "most" of those objections. What merit do my comments have? Well, I'll let the other editors following our little back-and-forth be the judge of that -- but I find it difficult to believe that the tone of your commentary is very persuasive to any 'swing' voters. KaiKaiD (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PonyToast, 87.210.99.206 and QueerFilmNerd. While I'm not a monarchist, it's a consistent policy that we should implement consistently here also. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest Wikimedia foundation investigate the possible collusion between user: Jimbo Wales and the British government. What is his motive for single handedly changing article titles of people as soon as they get married to high-profile British royals? -- 43.250.242.91 (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Meghan Markle" was her name both before and during her engagement. It is well established and recognisable. Her married name is presumably "Princess Henry of Wales" now, but without a deed poll, it is not her official legal name (as in what is on her US passport now, or what goes on her UK passport when she gets it). Her full formal title is "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex". The form "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is just one of many correct and incorrect ways the media will contract these proper forms for their own purposes. There is no evidence or indeed reason to believe it will become the most commonly used form, let alone become so prevalent it airbrushes "Megan Markle" out of existence. Strictly speaking, simply "Duchess of Sussex" is the shortest, most accurate way possible for an encylopedia to uniquely identify her, if it wants people to think she has somehow stopped being "Megan Markle", or no longer sees it as her own name. Nobody here has any real reason to assume this couple are going to slavishly adopt royal convention and stop using her maiden name in public or private. Indeed they have already done things which suggest they will not so easily conform to the old order, where women cease to be independent beings once married, especially when marrying a Prince. So it is rather unseemly for Wikipedia to be seen to be assuming they will. Monkey Bar Freak (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Actually if you followed the ceremony there was a part before the singing of the national anthem when Harry and Meghan disappeared to sign the register which officially recognises their marriage and the name change. It's a bit complex what the legal name actually is because senior royals in the UK never use a surname (and the law in the UK recognises their special status in that regard) and depending on if you mean US law or British law, but it is legally now either Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or HRH (Rachel) Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. --Ransewiki (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A marriage register does not legally change a bride's name. It doesn't even record her married name, she signs it using her maiden name. As such, if the document being signed wasn't a deed poll, which becomes legally binding the moment she signs it, and I don't think it was, she has not legally changed her name to anything simply by getting married, least of all "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". I will repeat, nobody here has any clue what this clearly very progressive and independently minded couple intend to do regarding their married names, let alone now they intend to refer to themselves in their public or private lives. And they will certainly never be in a position to know what it says on their passports, unless they choose to make to known. Monkey Bar Freak (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept of a "legal name" doesn't really exist in English law and Scots law seems to follow much the same principles in regards marriages (the information of the Northern Irish page is not as clear). A person can go by whatever name they like so long as it is not for fraudulent purposes and they do not need a deed poll to legally change their name on marriage; instead they can use their married name already and the marriage certificate is usually sufficient evidence of a name change. Most deed polls in such circumstances are either because a spouse didn't realise it wasn't necessary to waste time & money or because some little jobsworth wouldn't update their name without one. Many other common law countries have a similar approach. Timrollpickering 10:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this one Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

Here: [9] it clearly says "On her marriage to The Duke of Sussex, Ms. Meghan Markle will become known as Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex." Period end of discussion. Eric Cable  !  Talk  15:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, she certainly won't be known by that name in the title of this article! She'll still be Meghan here, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC) stupid voters are people too, you know.[reply]
Yes, it clearly says "HRH The Duchess of Suffolk". It does not say "Meghan, Duchess of Suffolk". The Palace would never have issued a statement giving the bride the title of a divorced woman. Try again. Surtsicna (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if someone were to open up a page move request at the Duchess of Cambridge's article. I wouldn't be surprised at all. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIW, I think the no-consensus close should be returning the page to the AT in place prior to the undiscussed move. After all, if anyone but Jimbo had made the move, it would be back there already. Guettarda (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But now it was Jimbo who made the move. Why should be return the page name of Markle only to have a short discussion about it and then move it back again. To ease some huge egos? Meghan will never be announced as Meghan Markle again. BabbaQ (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean apart from all the news sources using Meghan Markle.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it was performed without discussion, against the consensus reached in a discussion held throughout April and May, and against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The subject has been referred to in the past 24 hours as Meghan Markle by the most reputable British media, including BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph; so much about your prediction. And your personal attack on those who disagree with the undiscussed move is reprehensible. Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yeah. The coverage of the wedding used the name Meghan Markle, because Meghan Markle didn't become Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, until after she and the Duke of Sussex wed. The wedding was between Meghan Markle and the Duke of Sussex. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and because the very recent move was moved out of process. We shouldn't even be discussing this while it sits at the current title. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Regardless of Meghan's past, she is now a member of the Royal Family and is no longer known as Meghan Markle. All members of the British royal family have articles named by their official titles and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is now her official title. Commyguy Talk 21:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Diana, Princess of Wales is known almost universally as Princess Diana and yet her article remains named Diana, Princess of Wales. The need for a commonly used name must be balanced with a need for accuracy. Her name is not Meghan Markle any more. The wedding was a highly publicised event that will remain in the public consciousness for considerable time, given that her husband is a senior member of British Royal Family. It is not reasonable to think that people will be unduly confused to see the title as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The Wallis Simpson thing - she was primarily known for the events leading up to and culminating in her marriage. Following her marriage (when she was Wallis, Duchess of Windsor), she largely faded from the world stage. Her notability came about when she was Wallis Simpson. If Meghan continues to exist in the public consciousness as Meghan Markle then I would probably support moving it back, but I think we need to start off with the expectation that her new title will be the one that sticks. §
  • Comment I also like to add that I hope you haven't forgotten that Princess Christina of the Netherlands uses Christina as her name instead of Maria, Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands also uses Laurentien instead of Petra, Princess Carolina, Marchioness of Sala uses Carolina instead of Maria. Just as Meghan uses Meghan instead of Rachel. Mirrorthesoul (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She is a member of the Royal family and will be for life. Just like Pope Francis immediately became Pope Francis in Wikipedia, the Dutchess of Sussex should immediately become Dutchess of Susses in Wikipedia. Explorium (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: Whaaaaaa? We didn't retitle the Trump article when he became President; so your argument is almost surrealistically self-rebutting! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment: Whaaaaaaaaa?... Baa Baa Black sheep. Thank you for taking the time to help me further strengthen my opposition and enhance my analogy... I duly corrected my error. You make a good helper.Explorium (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is the subject's current name and title. She is a member of the royal family. (Sellpink (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose For consistency - we changed Camilla Parker-Bowles name to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, yet she was REALLY well known as Camilla Parker-Bowles for nearly two decades. 110.147.205.88 (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. It may be that in the future she becomes more known by her title amongst the media. If that is the case, we should move the article then - but not now. The out of process move shows again the disrespect for other editors and the community that certain admins posses. I also remind editors that we are a global encyclopedia, with servers and offices in the United States. We are not the Court Circular and we have no obligation to follow decrees from the British royal family. The level of deference being shown by some editors would make a poodle blush. I'd also point to Grace Kelly as a good comparison here. Her article is titled simply Grace Kelly, not Grace Kelly, Princess of Monaco. AusLondonder (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for consistency with other women who similarly married into the Royal Family, including the Duchess of Cambridge and the Duchess of Cornwall. Her prior acting career does not seem more significant than her new role as a royal, so I'm hesitant to use Grace Kelly as an example to follow in this case. Edge3 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is clear from the text of WP:TITLE that WP:COMMONNAME, which is given a lengthy and forcefully stated section of its own, is a more compelling consideration than consistency, which receives only a brief bullet point in a list of several considerations to be taken into account. Even the specific naming convention guideline for royalty and nobility (WP:NCROY) defers to WP:COMMONNAME, stating that "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English". By its own account, WP:NCROY is intended to give us a reasonable convention for royalty and nobility where the choice is not obvious—not to overrule WP:COMMONNAME.
Aside from consistency arguments, there have been attempts above to argue that WP:COMMONNAME itself favors the title as Duchess of Sussex, because she will henceforth be referred to that way. Not only Grace Kelly but also Sarah Ferguson (whose article is wrongly titled) indicates otherwise. Though we all know that Sarah Ferguson is Duchess of York, we also all still know her surname, which has constantly been used in the press: see this Google search on "Sarah Ferguson".
The right way to honor consistency is not to double down on misnaming this article, but to change all the other misnamed articles likewise to conform to WP:COMMONNAME—starting with Sarah Ferguson. Until that is done, name this article correctly, consistency considerations to the contrary notwithstanding.
—Syrenka V (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support title "Meghan Markle" The article name seems to have been preemptively changed, opposing Wikipedia's guidelines for name changes, and she is still the most well-known by this name. Human-potato hybrid (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Currently the second-highest Twitter trending topic in London right now is "Meghan Markle". Not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". Just a factoid which shows the "official title" may not be what she is known by the public as. AusLondonder (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose — She is no longer Meghan Markle. She is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. I haven't heard the former Kate Middleton (aka the Duchess of Cambridge) referred to as "Kate Middleton" since her wedding to William. The Markle name will fade into obscurity, just like the Middleton name, the Spencer name, the Parker-Bowles name, etc. For those using Grace Kelly as an example: Grace Kelly was an international superstar before she married, and she is arguably more famous for her acting career than her life as the Princess of Monaco. Meghan Markle was on a middling television show that wasn't even on any of the primary television channels in the United States, a channel that mostly airs reruns of Law and Order: SVU and Modern Family. Her acting career will be a small footnote to her career as a royal. This entire conversation is ridiculous.

MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: As per the obvious fact that this article is never going to get reverted back to its original title. Using Wikipedia to force consolidation of a title (heinous as it may be), which seems to have been the objective of the person(s) who moved the article in the first place, seems to have been achieved. So this whole exercise is a waste of time and effort. However that does not mean I think the arguments for reverting back the article aren't strong ones. -- Michael'sCurries (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Now that this is her title, referring to here as the Duchess of Sussex or Meghan [Markle], Duchess of Sussex in news articles, social media, and royal family communications will be common. Above all else, I oppose this change because of consistency. Blue jays (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is her correct title now, and the article already says "born Rachel Meghan Markle". This is correct, and enough. David G (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: Isn't the British Royal Family institution enough for Wikipedia of all things to respect its traditional proceedings? Surely any arguments about WP policy and even user consensus, frankly, are irrelevant when faced with such historic officialdom. Basically, the Queen's vote wins. 109.148.98.191 (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: Amen. KaiKaiD (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read that British Monarchy website and you'll find the bio refers to her by her title throughout while mentioning her birth name once in passing.LE (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And your point? Unless you are arguing, we should title this article "Duchess of Sussex" , which you are not, you are promoting your own invention and something the royal website never uses. It does however use, "Meghan Markle," so it certainly seems fine with the name, and that you'll get who that is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policies are guidelines, and where there is a consensus that compliance is inappropriate it should not be insisted upon.LE (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although in my view Jimbo Wales, should not have jumped the gun, I've come round to the view that she should be given her title on the grounds of WP:CONSISTENCY with other royal brides, not to do so could open a can of worms in relation to other royal duchesses etc.. In my view there is too many of these disputes on Wikipedia between 2 names where everybody accepts that the other name should be a redirect. There ought to be a presumption in favour of moving a newly married woman to her new name without waiting for sources to catch up (assuming she has decided to change her name). There will be exceptions, but Grace Kelly, really is an exceptional case, IMHO we should also give Wallis Simpson her title as Duchess. PatGallacher (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per COMMONNAME, which may take some time to settle down. Not only should there be no deference to Jimbo, there should be no automatic deference to Queen Liz or the UK titles system or 'marriage conventions'. A year from now, we will have a clearer picture of how she is going to be referred to. She had an established name before getting married and her previous notability should not be automatically ignored just because she's married into a better known family. Pincrete (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • People can claim COMMONNAME should prevail but the reality is that no one will ever call Meghan, Meghan Markle again. Her title is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, should Wikipedia be the only source where she is called Meghan Markle. It makes no sense.BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well as of today what you say is untrue, "Meghan Markle" is still being referred this very day. It's fine to make up your own thing but it's good to admit it, and really, you know, deal in sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia seems to have made the form of the name of divorced wives of British peers and princes, the form of the name to be used on the title of these women's entries within Wikipedia. "Diana Princess of Wales," for example, was the form used by that lady after her divorce; before her divorce she was "H.R.H. the Princess of Wales." I have suggested as an alternative to use the form of the name "The Duchess of Sussex - formerly known as Meghan Markle" or "The Duchess of Sussex (from birth, Meghan Markle)" or the most traditional way, "The Duchess of Sussex, née Meghan Markle." (Née is the French form of born, and many, many people will have already been accustomed to seeing women's names presented in this way. But many others will not have seen it.)
There's nothing in the world wrong with Wikipedia settling on a way of referring to married women that may be new to many readers; it's certainly better than settling on a way of referring to divorced women as Wikipedia's way to refer to married women.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My two cents: precedent strongly suggests she will be known as the Duchess of Sussex. Kate Middleton may not have been independently famous, but she was an infinitely more familiar figure in her home country prior to marriage than Meghan Markle. People were use to calling her Kate Middleton, or simply Kate. Now she is primarily referred to by her title. And when she becomes Princess of Wales, she will be known as the Princess of Wales, and when she becomes Queen, she will be known as the Queen. This is how it works in Britain. This debate may fall the Markle side of the fence now, but give it six months, a year, it will be abundantly clear that she is mostly commonly referred to as the Duchess of Sussex. 217.42.255.108 (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The whole argument that she is better known as 'Megan Markle' is entirely wrongheaded. Her noteriety as an actress is mostly limited to the US & Canada. Internationally, she is known as a member of the British royal family (Sellpink (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Mild Oppose On the one hand, the fact is that she will probably be familiarly called 'Meghan Markle' in the press, especially in America, much as Kate Middleton is still often called Kate Middleton. But in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, there is no comparison to Grace Kelly (an immensely more famous actress) or Wallis Simpson (whose status in the royal family was the subject of great controversy). Markle was notable by Wikipedia standards before her relationship with Prince Harry, but it is the engagement and marriage that has made her internationally famous. For that reason and for consistency with the pages on Camilla and Kate, I'd say leave it as Duchess of Sussex. Proserpine (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, makes more sense to change Wikipedia:COMMONNAME to include an exception for British royalty. Landbroke99 (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: Same situation as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. "Meghan Markle" should redirect to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although WP:COMMONNAME would suggest it should remain Meghan Markle, WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT should prevail, IMO. Shadow007 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Shadow007 above. Title should remain consistent with other nobilities, as for Grace Kelly and other exceptions they were much well known even before their marriages for WP:COMMONNAME to prevail. To say that she is popularly known as an actress would be incorrect as the Google Trends data clearly shows that she became better known as a member of the British royal family rather than actress. Gotitbro (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a source that establishes she is no longer Meghan Markle? I ask as I find it difficult to believe that's the case. We have had no RS reporting she has petitioned for a name change in the United States, the jurisdiction in which she is a citizen and I feel as though such a petition would most likely receive wide coverage. It seems that "Meghan" (no surname) is simply an alternate name she is currently using in her country of current residency and that that country has extended some legal status to that alternate name. But to say the name "Meghan Markle" has been legally extinguished the whole world over is a monumental claim that would require supporting RS. Chetsford (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rockhead126 (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on procedural grounds (consensus already achieved precluding this move) and also per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. At the risk of this being a WP:VAGUEWAVE I'll just leave it there as many of the Oppose !votes - which seem largely based on feudal custom and the preferences of the British state, rather than WP policy and the preferences of our previously established consensus - are slightly impossible to logically rebut, such as: "Isn't the British Royal Family institution enough for Wikipedia of all things to respect its traditional proceedings? Surely any arguments about WP policy and even user consensus, frankly, are irrelevant when faced with such historic officialdom. Basically, the Queen's vote win." Huh? Chetsford (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The Duchess has risen above the ranks of the plethora of female actresses. Rovingrobert (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:NOTAVOTE. Is there a WP policy you are citing? Chetsford (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been here before but I'm going to keep battering away until you idiots get it straight. Wikipedia is about rules and facts, not about fun. There are other places to go for fun. As of this moment, the title of the article is simply WRONG. The lady's correct style is HRH The Duchess of Sussex. She would only become "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" (the implication being 'a' rather than 'the' and note the lack of an HRH) in the case of a divorce, which God forbid, may they live happily ever after. Compare with "Sarah, Duchess of York" and "Diana, Princess of Wales". Do not get me started on "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" which is completely, utterly and egregiously WRONG on account of that lady and her husband remain happily married.

BTW, word is, the artist formerly known as Meghan Markle is now the *only* Duchess of Sussex *ever* on account of the son of George III who previously held the Dukedom was not lawfully married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4601:6428:804E:318F:869B:FD87 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moral support. It is indubitable that Mr Wales's action has resulted in the wastage of time of a large number of editors in a futile debate over several pages and that by imposing his own view, ignoring the previous discussion and the page protection, he has disheartened other editors by making them feel that their contribution is unwelcome and unwanted. This was not his intention, but it was the result. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali
  2. ^ "Royal wedding 2018: Royal Family thanks public".

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

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

 Not done: From what I can gather we don't include this information in infoboxes (I'm simply going by the fact alma mater isn't on other articles (Prince Harry, Prince Charles and Elizabeth II). –Davey2010Talk 12:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Changing Name

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

Title and name

This is the proper title. She's the Duchess of Sussex now, and I don't see any need to change it now. The name is factual. RobPrider18 (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is wrong. Firstly, someone is only described as "[First Name], [Title]" when they are divorced (e.g. Sarah, Duchess of York). I understand that Wikipedia requires first names to be included in the descriptions of titled royals, which is understandable, but the Duchess's first name is Rachel. She is "Rachel, Duchess of Sussex" or "Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". She ceased to be "Meghan" today upon her marriage. Being previously known as "Meghan Markle" is irrelevant to her new name and title.

I propose that the article be changed to reflect this. I have no strong views on whether it should be "Rachel, Duchess of Sussex" or "Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", but it shouldn't be "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", which is completely incorrect.

Vabadus91 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is the first Duchess of Sussex in hundreds of years, but if she gives birth to a son, the title will be carried by her descendants and their respective spouses, thus it's not possible to have this article titled "The" Duchess of Sussex, and it will cause further problems in the future. On the other hand, she goes by the name Meghan. The official website of the British monarchy referred to her as Meghan Markle before her marriage, and she took her marriage vows using this name. She has never been known as Rachel, thus the current title is fine. Keivan.fTalk 14:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that she is not the only Duchess of Sussex in history, so for the purposes of Wikipedia, an "incorrect" description has to be given. But "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is more incorrect than "Rachel, Duchess of Sussex" or "Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". Rachel is her first name. Usage of "Meghan" is only correct insofar as it relates to her as Meghan Markle (i.e. before her marriage). Now she is married, she is Rachel, Duchess of Sussex (where it is impractical simply to call her HRH The Duchess of Sussex".
Vabadus91 (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, she is not known by the name "Rachel", not even among her family. During the marriage, she said "I, Meghan, take Harry as my husband," not "I, Rachel, ..." Why should we refer to her with a name she doesn't even use? Keivan.fTalk 17:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She is the only Duchess of Sussex in history. The two marriages of the only previous Duke of Sussex were not legally valid. Opera hat (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. When I talked about moving the page to "The" Duchess of Sussex might cause further issues, I was actually referring to the potential successors in the future, not the predecessors who have actually never existed. Keivan.fTalk 20:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She should be referred to as "Rachel, Duchess of Sussex" because that is the closest variant of her name acceptable to Wikipedia. Her full name and title is (without commas) "Her Royal Highness Rachel Meghan Duchess of Sussex". She isn't referred to as "Meghan" any longer because she is now the Duchess of Sussex. If "The Duchess of Sussex" simpliciter is not acceptable to Wikipedia, the next "best" version is "Rachel, Duchess of Sussex" or "Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex".
One of the clergymen addressed them as "Henry Charles Albert David" and "Rachel Meghan" at the ceremony, too, for what it matters.
Vabadus91 (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The law to make it a valid marriage requires the full legal names of both parties at that point in the formal proceedings - quite interesting if the person getting married never uses that name - I've been to one where most of the guests would not have known that name referred to the groom. --Scott Davis Talk 04:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's felt that "Meghan (or Rachel) (or Rachel Meghan) Duchess of Sussex" isn't quite the right title for the page, because of the confusion with the usage for divorced women, then what about "The Duchess of Sussex, née (Rachel) Meghan Markle" . . . ?Yseult-Ivain (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, correctly it is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. This is a peerage title and so [given name], [title] is used - the suggestion about divorce is incorrect. Additionally, the House of Windsor have consistently referred to her as Meghan and have the perfectly legitimate option of discounting 'Rachel' if they so choose, which only means that she can't use it officially as her name again, not that she probably cares since she hasn't been using it for years. 109.148.98.191 (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the Wikipedia article on "Courtesy Titles in the United Kingdom" in the section "Divorced Wives":
"A peeress retains her legal right to the peerage style following divorce . . . [3] A convention has developed whereby her Christian name is added in front of her title to distinguish her from any subsequent wife of her former husband. Hence, "Her Grace The Duchess of London" becomes "Mary, Duchess of London". In written forms, she is not entitled to the use of the address "Her Grace..." but may be addressed as "Duchess". "The Rt Hon. The Lady London" becomes "Mary, Lady London" and may be addressed as "Lady London," or "My Lady".
"On 21 August 1996 letters patent changed titles of divorced wives of British princes, depriving their former wives of the style of Royal Highness. For this reason Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales after divorce became Diana, Princess of Wales. The same happened to Her Royal Highness The Duchess of York who became Sarah, Duchess of York."Yseult-Ivain (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That may be very interesting, but it is irrelevant as she has no intention of becoming divorced again. --Scott Davis Talk 12:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What new bride - or groom - marries with the intention of becoming divorced - ever?Yseult-Ivain (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And it is consistent with all the other articles on living wives of Royal princes with peer:ages - Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, Katharine, Duchess of Kent and Sophie, Countess of Wessex. The style "[Forename], The Duchess of [Place]" was in use in the mid 2000s but was changed following this discussion on the naming conventions. Timrollpickering 13:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is consistent with the erroneous titles currently being used on Wikipedia entries for living current wives of Royal princes. Because on Wikipedia's own page "Courtesy Titles in the United Kingdom" under the "divorced wives" section, it indicates that it is divorcées who use the form "Meghan Duchess of Sussex" or "Catherine Duchess of Cambridge." Until her divorce from the Prince of Wales, the officially correct name and title of his wife was "H.R.H. The Princess of Wales". It was only after her divorce that she became "Diana Princess of Wales." And the same is true with "Sarah Duchess of York," which was the style by which the former "H.R.H. the Duchess of York" became known after her divorce. If you refer to the above-mentioned page on "Courtesy Titles," I think you'll agree that this is the case.
Why would not these women be known as "H.R.H. the Duchess of Sussex (née Meghan Markle)? Or "H.R.H. the Duchess of Cambridge (née Catherine Middleton)? Which would give each woman's complete name, without giving an erroneous form of her title.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having the personal name in there for both better identification and disambiguation was a key concern when the naming conventions were thrashed out a good many years back, including (if I remember correctly) users contacting the Palace to check some of the detail. The early part of Talk:Sophie, Countess of Wessex seems to have been the main discussion on having both the personal name and title in article title. Timrollpickering 15:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition from me to composing titles for Wikipedia entries that are unambiguous and do a good job identifying the subject. However is the only way to accomplish this to rely on technically incorrect titles, and thus misleading titles? Cannot as smart a bunch as Wikipedians figure out a way to identify a subject well without relying on an already existing and officially incorrect form? It seems a shame to settle for doing this, when with a little creativity, it may prove not necessary. Yseult-Ivain (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Identifies Bi-Racial She is NOT African American

Obama is Mix heritage but identifies as African American aka Black. She is bi-racial and identifies as bi-racial. She did not say she was African American. She is in the middle. She may have African American heritage but she does not identify as African American like Obama, Berry or others. --169.0.4.102 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-racial means being and identifying of two races, in Meghan's case she is white and African-American. She is just as much African-American as she is white, Bi-racial is just the technical term. -Brocicle (talk)
The key point is that in the absence of her identifying as "African-American", she should not be categorised as such. Just as we would not add her to Category:White Americans. StAnselm (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be trying to attach a racial label to her at all. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I identify as a Martian, ack ack! Believe me? 71.173.19.150 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also am identifying as a martian. Such racial profiling should be avoided except perhaps to note that almost every news station on the planet is doing it. Also noting the ethnic origin of her mother is reasonable. JLJ001 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every news station on the planet? Hardly. Around where I live I have heard some media comment that some Americans are obsessed with the matter. They make no mention what race the other 95% of the world's population thinks she is, nor whether they even care. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no statement in the text that she identifies as "African-American". She identifies as mixed-race or bi-racial, and that her mother is African-American. As such, I have removed Category:African-American actresses until a reference is found to confirm it. --Scott Davis Talk 04:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

Interesting discussion going on here. I hope those opposing the name change on the basis of Meghan having her own identity before this marriage realize they are crying more than the bereaved. The argument about her having a career before this marriage does not hold because on her own she left her fate and that supposed career to enter a marriage that comes with a lot of traditional trappings. Meghan as a college educated woman knew what she was getting into when she took all those decisions. I hope people recognize that the beauty of the royal family is that people in this family continue to live with long abondoned traditions that anchor the sanity of this world. Duah, A. K. (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Duah, A. K.: If you wish to vote on this matter, please do it above in the appropriate section, so that your vote and comment will be taken into consideration. Keivan.fTalk 14:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

The intro sentence is bad. It should read:

Rachel Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex (born August 4, 1981) commonly called Meghan Markle and styled Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is an American former actress and a member of the British royal family.

-- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request denied while a move request is open, see above. MilborneOne (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The intro sentence has little to do with the title move request of the article. In any case, this requested sentence contains both options. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Seems to be a question with a wide range of answers (see below). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"is an American former actress " --> "is an American-born former actress"

The Duchess had to take up British citizenship before the wedding. There seems to be some doubt whether she has also given up her American citizenship. Regardless, as a British royal, her primary allegiance is Britain; and born in America is true regardless. As such, I propose to change to American-born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambarutan (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She can't legally be British: she doesn't meet the legal residency requirement. DrKay (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay: Firstly, I think there are certain allowances for the fact she's just married a member of the Royal family. Secondly, British nationality law states that "Naturalisation as a British citizen is at the discretion of the Home Secretary, who may grant British citizenship to anyone they "think fit"." Alssa1 (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At some point I supposed there will be facts enough to include a section on past and present citizenship(s). For now, I would suggest that we can all agree on "American-born" which is true in all scenarios. Agree? Sambarutan (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the broader WP:COMMONNAME principle applies here, and she is popularly known as being American. Alssa1 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are no allowances, BBC, CNN, etc covering the wedding all stated that she will not be a British Citizen for some time -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She's definitely not yet a British citizen - it is not permissible to expedite the process, even for royalty. The application has been submitted and is unlikely to be denied, but is yet to be approved. Additionally, she is NOT required, nor has she indicated intention to, renounce her American citizenship. There's every possibility of her holding dual citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucd13 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Trump will convinced enough states to pass the Titles of Nobility Amendment Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Achives moved to new name, archiver updated

Jimbo neglected to move the archives when he moved the page, so I did. :) I have updated the archiver for the new page name. Safiel (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction style

The introduction style keeps being changed, with no consensus on how the article should be presented. Here are several options. Please !vote and discuss on the best option or add an alternative option to avoid the style from changing each minute. CookieMonster755✉ 21:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 1: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981), is a member of the British royal family...
This is similar to the introduction of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
  • Option 2: 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981), is a member of the British royal family...
This is similar to the introduction of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
  • Option 3: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (Rachel Meghan; née Markle; born August 4, 1981), is a member of the British royal family...
This is similar to the introduction of Diana, Princess of Wales
  • Option 4: Rachel Meghan Markle (born August 4, 1981), known as the Duchess of Sussex, is a member of the British royal family...
This is similar to the introduction of Wallis Simpson
  • Option 5: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (née Rachael Meghan Markle; born August 4, 1981), is a member of the British royal family...
This is similar to option 1 but uses née instead of born.

Please discuss. Having edit wars on the introduction is not productive. CookieMonster755✉ 21:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally support option 2 or option 3 for consistency. CookieMonster755✉ 21:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support Option 1, but adding the line "Better known as Meghan Markle"). Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for consistency and MOS, I think we need to bear this in mind. Just like the American phrase The Constitution is not a suicide pact, the MOS is not a suicide pact. We should make exceptions, wherever needed, for the sake of accuracy and ease of reading. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the last option since nee is pretty much means born in the same way but different language. I personally feel that the second one is a good option.Mirrorthesoul (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981), better known as Meghan Markle, is a member of the British royal family..." would be batter than any of the numbered options above. Call it option 6. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like option 2. I like when the introductions are similar to each other, makes it look more clean and tidy Hannek01 (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 2 or Option 3 for the sake of consistency. Keivan.fTalk 23:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. The semicolons punctuating Option 3 look wrong and why use "née" when "born" means the same thing? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 or 6 Well, I bolded the name in Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, dunno whether it'll get reverted or not, not sure how conforming it with one article is "consistency" when say Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall uses option 1 format - in fact I do believe most articles the birth name is bolded, as being a significant alternative name bolded, and in this case it'd ease recognizability. In 6 maybe unbold Rachel Meghan Markle. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 or 6 I like both, though I'm leaning towards 6, as it mentions her being known as Meghan Markle, which is probably how most people know her.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't an option 6. Option 5 contains a misspelling. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 or 6: Assuming the title remains 'Duchess of', The arguments for the others just seem to be trying to hide Meghan Markle, which is bizarre for readers and information providers, who are forever going to be seeing "Meghan Markle", somewhere in the 1000s upon 1000s of reliable sources that say it (including, it should be noted in parts and in future archived parts of the royal website, itself, and including at present like 100 times in the source titles on this page). Or we could begin the second paragraph "Meghan Markle was born and raised in Los Angeles, California". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alanscottwalker: There is indeed a disturbing tendency of users trying to obscure Meghan Markle's most common name and indeed anything connected to it, including her career,[10] her signature, and her personal life before her marriage.[11][12][13] Several users on this talk page have suggested that Meghan Markle and the Duchess of Suffolk are not the same person (example). She has already been defined in the lead paragraph as a wife and as a daughter-in-law, with her husband's name preceding any mention of her career and the names of her parents-in-law preceding the names of her own parents (who are now argued to be notable themselves, thanks to her marriage).[14][15] The treatment the subject of this article is getting on the account of her gender is worrying. Surtsicna (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, someone also tried changing the short description to "wife of Prince Harry" or something like that, which is just.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for some, but for others it seems to be tied to their strong desire for the title, so they have to make it seem like Meghan (Markle) is a woman of no account -- to both groups, we have to say, no, regardless of the article's title, we cannot distort history and do that with or to her biography. This is not the biography of someone who from late teens on was the friend/girlfriend of the future king, or the biography of someone who for decades from youth was romantically connected to the future king (even through their marriages to others). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also support, whoever changed it to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981) is an American former actress and a member of the British royal family.", per the bolding-of-redirect policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 or Option 2 best fits with the advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Changed names, which was the result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2018 archive#"Maiden names" to "Surname changes". DrKay (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 per WP:COMMONNAME. This isn't a personal letter addressed to her, but an encyclopedia article. The other options would be fine for a tourist pamphlet produced by HM Stationary Office, however, within the confines of a WP article the preferences and conventions of the College of Arms wither in the face of Wikipedia policy. Further, to say "née Markle" is unsupported by RS. We don't have a reliable source that indicates the name "Meghan Markle" has been extinguished the world over, only that a new name has been adopted in the realms of the House of Windsor. If Meghan Markle had petitioned the California Department of Motor Vehicles or the U.S. Passport Office to have her documents changed, I feel like this would be the subject of wide reporting, but can't find any evidence that is the case. This seems to be the case of different jurisdictions recognizing a woman under different names. Chetsford (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor detail

point duplicated and expanded in section below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Instead or saying "August 4, 1981" it should be without the comma between "August 4 and 1981, like on the other royal pages. I understand that this is a very ,very picky request, but it’s really annoying me.Hannek01 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean 4 August 1981, Hannek01? Because August 4 1981 is not a valid style, according to MOS:DATES. The D M Y style, although I personally prefer it, is normally a British and European date format, not used on primarily US topics (except military topics). The use of M D, Y indicates that this is, or at least was, a primarily US topic. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should change it then to the correct one. And the comma thing. And yes I mean 4 August 1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannek01 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:RETAIN. Her article has been stable for years using American spellings and mdy date formats. I'm thinking things are fine the way they are.Canuck89 (Talk to me) 23:22, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

Date of birth change

Instead of "August 4, 1981" it should be 4 August 1981" Hannek01 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no current clear direction for Brit or US English? One might assume it should be US, which would be dates with month first. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Her article has been stable for years using American spellings and mdy date formats. I'm thinking that per MOS:RETAIN, things are fine the way they are.Canuck89 (Converse with me) 23:13, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
See also MOS:DATERET. Any such change would require consensus, and would not be automatic. Let's at least get done with the debate over the article title first, Hannek01. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping it American style as she is, at this point, an American citizen, as she has been since birth. If she renounces her citizenship, then let's discuss then.Stereorock (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we hold off on making changes to anything describing our subject's signature?

At present, the signature presented is that of a Meghan Markle. Already someone seems to be attributing it to a duchess. I think it best that we wait and see how our subject will sign her name beginning tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of a Meghan Markle? Are you too suggesting that Meghan Markle and the Duchess of Sussex are two different persons? Comments like this, abundant on this talk page, are going to get the article in the news for Wikipedia's treatment of women. Surtsicna (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: they are using an official language style common to British English, nothing more or less. 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:108:ECBB:3535:421E (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer we left the signature out completely. I cannot see what it adds to this global encyclopaedia. Is it an American thing? HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our subject is not a princess.

I'm despairing of any sense or rigor being applied to this article. Our subject is not a princess, though many will call her as much. Additionally, I see someone has identified our subject as once being Mrs Trevor Engelson. Do we know this to be true? (I may be rather old-fashioned, but I still try to keep up with the times. Many married women do not take on the name of their husband or wife.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to British princess, Since George V's Letters Patent of 30 November 1917, the title "Princess" and the use of the style "Royal Highness" has generally been restricted to the following persons: the legitimate daughters of a British sovereign, the legitimate male line granddaughters of a British sovereign, [and] the wife of a British prince.Bolding added. Citations omitted, bulleted list converted to prose for easier quoting.. The article says that its subject was awarded the style of "Royal Highness" officially. That equates to "Princess" as I understand it. Can you cite sources that say otherwise, IP Editor? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your question. I see I was not clear. Our subject will not be addressed as princess. I hate to reference popular media, but I think this will do: https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a13029009/meghan-markle-royal-title/. Again, thank you for getting me to clarify the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding to the confusion---I suppose---our subject might be addressed as HRH Princess Henry of Wales, but I don't think this would be done now that "Prince Harry" has been made a duke.
  • She is technically a princess. Her formal title is "Her Royal Highness Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • To emphasize---and my apologies if I have confused matters---our subject would never be addressed as Princess Meghan. Whether or not our subject is a princess isn't really my point. (I personally don't think that issue is all that clear, but it doesn't concern me.) I can imagine circumstances in which our subject could become Princess Meghan, but the idea of it is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop claiming that "Princess Henry" could ever by correct while ignoring all requests to explain why you might think that. In the meantime, do you mind if I call you "Princess 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8"? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, to whom are you speaking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To the person who wrote the words "our subject might be addressed as HRH Princess Henry of Wales". I believe that would be you. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is theoretically right per royal convention - see this BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42150762. But in practice wives of British princes are rarely called per this formula (mainly because it’s hopelessly archaic) except, for some reason Princess Michael of Kent, who always goes by it. DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most British princes have a peerage and that style is used instead, with the result that their wives are "HRH The [Peeress] of [Somewhere]". However Prince Michael of Kent doesn't have a peerage (there seems to have been a conscious decision to cut back on peerages for Royal cousins and grooms in recent decades but he's now the only married prince without one) and so his wife's style is what it is. Timrollpickering 10:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the peerage makes no difference. See citations 94 and 95 in our article on Sarah, Duchess of York - she was theoretically “Princess Andrew, Duchess of York” on marriage. In the BBC article you’ll also see reference to “Princess William”. DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary 95 is pretty clear that the possibility of the style "HRH The Princess Andrew" being used was swept aside by the announcement of the peerage before the ceremony and she instead became "HRH The Duchess of York". (94 is not freely accessible online but it's Fergie's own book.) Most of the speculation on "Princess [Husband'sFirstName]" invariably comes before the wedding because the peerage hasn't yet been announced. Timrollpickering 11:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

Meghan's formal name is "Her Royal Highness Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex." Please change the name to reflect this. 2601:240:C401:41BA:D0EE:2CAD:A8E:BE32 (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Henry? ~ GB fan 01:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Harry's first name is actually Henry. Harry is a nickname. --173.129.63.209 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, see WP:COMMONNAME. MB298 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely stating a real-world fact in answer to someone else's question, not advocating that Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex be moved to Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. --184.207.116.64 (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that Meghan Markle is now Princess Henry? I didn't realize that a wife took the husband's first name when they married. ~ GB fan 01:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that is Henry's first name but why would Meghan's name now be Princess Henry? ~ GB fan 01:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Duchess of Sussex has the first name as given to her, or modified by a legal change. I understand that she has used the name "Meghan" for nearly all of her life. (I imagine "Harry" calls her Meghan.) Her name is different than her title, however. As she is not a princess of the blood, the Duchess cannot be known as Princess Meghan but could be known as Princess Henry, I suppose. Lady Diana, as an example, was given the courtesy title "Princess of Wales," but never formally addressed as Princess Diana. (The courtesy title came as she was married to the presumptive heir to the throne.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop claiming that "Princess Henry" could ever by correct while ignoring all requests to explain why you might think that. In the meantime, do you mind if I call you "Princess 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8"? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/09/duchess-of-cambridge-kate-middleton-name-title Guy, you might enjoy reading this article. It explains the same issues in terms of the Duchess of Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Vanity fair claims that there is someone named "Princess William of Wales", then Vanity Fair is an idiot. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also, Princess Michael of Kent and VicarsCat second post below, same custom as Mrs. John Smith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. There is no such person as 'Prince William of Wales' for there to be a Princess to - at least not yet. The confusion may arise because both Prince William and Prince Harry were identified as 'William Wales' and 'Harry Wales' respectively on their service uniforms (please don't ask me why). TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the general principle is entirely correct. In Britain when a man takes a wife, the wife formally takes her husband's name. So when (say) Miss Jane Brown marries Mr Richard White, her formal name becomes 'Mrs Richard White'. The couple are formally addressed (on letters etc.) and introduced (at royal garden parties etc.) as 'Mr and Mrs Richard White'. The wife on her own would be introduced as 'Mrs Richard White' but in modern times, letters would rarely be addressed to 'Mrs Richard White, though in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, it would have been quite unacceptable to address a letter to 'Mrs Jane White' unless you knew her closely. However: Informally she will still be known as '(Mrs) Jane White' (including on her passport) or more usually just 'Jane' to close acquaintances. If Mrs Richard White becomes a widow, she formally reverts to her original name and formally becomes 'Mrs Jane White'. Informally, nothing changes.
I know that the same principle applies in many other countries. For example, Russia does much the same thing with the exception that when the wife is referred to alone she uses a feminised version of her husband's surname (Russian has no equivalent of 'Mr' and 'Mrs'). Thus the President of Russia and his wife are together formally referred to as Vladimir Putin and Putinya. In isolation her formal name is Vladimir Putinya (the feminine surname in both cases specifically identifies that we are talking about the wife (and taking the place of the non existent 'Mrs' in Russian)). If her husband pre-deceases her she formally reverts to Lyudmila Putinya.
On marriage to HRH Prince Henry, Meghan Markle would formally follow the convention and became 'Her Royal Highness Princess Henry, and the pair together would be formally introduced and addressed as 'Their Royal Highnesses, Prince and Princess Henry' (or 'Their Royal Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex' or most likely the full monty of 'Their Royal Highnesses, Prince and Princess Henry, Duke and Duchess of Sussex', depending on the circumstances). In practice in the 21st century, she will seldom, if ever, be referred to as 'Her Royal Highness, Princess Henry' in isolation and WP:COMMONNAME suggests that we do not do so either. TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. NeilN talk to me 03:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While "Princess Henry" has become her formal title it has not become her name...had she become Mrs. Henry Windsor or Lady Henry Windsor she would still have her own first name.12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the United Kingdom, a woman has the right to her husband's name and title. Thus any woman married to a man bearing the UK style and title "His Royal Highness" and "Prince" prefixed to his forename, has the right to the feminine version of the same, i.e., "Her Royal Highness" and "Princess" . . . prefixed not, however, to her own forename, but to his, just as it was explained above (Mrs. Joseph Wright, the wife of Joseph Wright; Mrs. Luis Garcia, the wife of Luis Garcia.) Therefore, the British Royal Family has among its extended members H.R.H. Princess Michael of Kent, the wife of H.R.H. Prince Michael of Kent, whose name before her marriage had been Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz.
British usage is different from the usage of some other countries; in the U.K. only women born princesses are known by the title Princess prefixed to her own forename: (such as Princess Mary or Princess Anne). H.R.H. Princess Beatrice and H.R.H. Princess Eugenie, daughters of H.R.H. the Duke of York and his former wife, Sarah Duchess of York, are styled in this way because they are princesses born.
When a male member of the British royal family has been granted a royal or noble territorial title, (e.g., the Prince of Wales; the Duke of Edinburgh, etc.), he retains the right to use title of "Prince" prefixed to his forename, but in general usage, the use of the designation "Prince" together with his forename is subsumed under his territorial title. Thus, H.R.H. the Prince of Wales is always referred to as H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, even though from infancy to young adulthood he was always referred to as H.R.H. Prince Charles.
In many cases, once the royal man marries, he is granted a peerage title to use instead of being referred to by the title "Prince" with his forename. Thus, on the eve of his marriage, the young Lt. Philip Mountbatten, R.N. was created H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh. And then the Princess Elizabeth, elder daughter of King George VI, upon her marriage to that duke, acquired the right to be known as H.R.H. the Duchess of Edinburgh. And in the newspapers of the time, prior to the present Queen's accession, Prince Philip and the Princess Elizabeth were referred to as "Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh."
The present Queen's only daughter actually began her life as H.R.H. Princess Anne. When The Princess Anne married her first husband, Capt. Mark Phillips, the Queen's daughter was referred to in royal Court documents as "H.R.H. the Princess Anne (Mrs. Mark Phillips)." Because a woman has a right to her husband's name and title, which in this case, was "Mr./Mrs." and "Phillips." (Her Majesty did not require her daughter to give up her royal titles when she married a titleless commoner, as sometimes happened in the Scandinavian royal families of the time.) And thus, this British princess born retained the right to the style and title "H.R.H. the Princess Anne." Technically, yes, H.R.H. the Princess of Wales (born the Hon. Diana Spencer, whose subsequent title was the Lady Diana Spencer) had the right to the name and style, "H.R.H. Princess Charles." But as a man with a territorial title of his own to use, the Prince of Wales was always referred to by his Welsh title, never by his name. And so it would have been unsuitable ever to refer to Diana as "Princess Charles," when her husband always used His Welsh title. Similarly, when he was created H.R.H. the Duke of York, the wife of The Prince Andrew (the former Sarah Ferguson) technically had the right to be known as H.R.H. Princess Andrew . . . but to use this title would have been unsuitable in situations in which her husband the Duke used his York title. Therefore the only suitable title for Sarah to use during the period of her marriage was H.R.H. the Duchess of York. And, similarly with Their Royal Highness the Earl and Countess of Wessex; whereas the former Sophie Rhys-Jones is technically entitled to be known as "H.R.H. Princess Edward," she is never so referred to. And H.R.H. the Duchesses of Gloucester and of Kent, the Queen's aunts by marriages, might have been known as "Princess Henry" and Princess George," but never used these names, when their husbands had their territorial titles to use.
The reason that the wife of H.R.H. Prince Michael of Kent is known as H.R.H. Princess Michael, is that the Prince has no other titles or styles to bestow on her. If he had been given a territorial title of some sort - Viscount Bolingbroke, for a just made-up example - then, they might be referred to together as Their Royal Highnesses the Viscount and Viscountess Bolingbroke. And instead of the title "H.R.H. Princess Michael," that lady might call herself "H.R.H. the Viscountess Bolingbroke." But it was not made so. And so, "Princess Michael" she remains.
Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex is the duchess' full and complete title, since her husband will always be known as His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex. On the British Royal Family's own website appears the announcement "On her marriage to The Duke of Sussex, Ms. Meghan Markle will become known as Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex." https://www.royal.uk/wedding-duke-and-duchess-sussex Yseult-Ivain (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a tl;dr for other users' explanations -- she can be legally and correctly referred to as any of Prince Harry's official names and titles, because Britain. However, as the article is about Meghan herself, it should use her own "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" (see all the other discussions). 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:108:ECBB:3535:421E (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The website of the British Royal Family states that after her marriage, the former Meghan Markle will be known as "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex," not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex." Within the pages of this very publication, on the page "Courtesy Titles in the United Kingdom," under the section on "Divorced Wives," it currently reads as follows:
"A peeress retains her legal right to the peerage style following divorce and even upon her remarriage to a non-peer.[3] A convention has developed whereby her Christian name is added in front of her title to distinguish her from any subsequent wife of her former husband. Hence, "Her Grace The Duchess of London" becomes "Mary, Duchess of London". In written forms, she is not entitled to the use of the address "Her Grace..." but may be addressed as "Duchess". "The Rt Hon. The Lady London" becomes "Mary, Lady London" and may be addressed as "Lady London," or "My Lady".
"On 21 August 1996 letters patent changed titles of divorced wives of British princes, depriving their former wives of the style of Royal Highness. For this reason Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales after divorce became Diana, Princess of Wales. The same happened to Her Royal Highness The Duchess of York who became Sarah, Duchess of York."
Should Wikipedia contradict itself by explaining the current usage of names and titles for titled divorcées on one page, and then on another page, present the style of a newly-married lady - still on her honeymoon - according to that very usage, i.e., that of a divorcée? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yseult-Ivain (talk • contribs) 12:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would at least be consistent with our articles on the Duchess of Cambridge and the Countess of Wessex. We do not make a representation that the article's title is the correct form of address per royal protocol; instead, the title must balance accuracy concerns with other priorities, such as conciseness and recognizability. Such compromises are imperfect, but necessary. Powers T 14:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, not only are all the relevant articles' titles not in accordance with royal protocol, they are being used in conflict with royal protocol, and are thus misleading, and will likely perpetuate among the reading public the mistaken notion that the wife and the divorcée of a British prince or peer are correctly referred to according to the exact same form.
If Wikipedia would like to use a form not in accordance with royal protocol but which does not conflict with official Royal protocol, and is thus not misleading, then why not let us create such a form, instead of misusing an existing one? Implementing such a form wouldn't be that hard, as the universe of British titled ladies is rather limited. The hard part would be agreeing on one.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

Has Meghan been granted a coat of arms yet ? Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 10:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge had to wait over two years for hers, after marrying William? So it seems a little unlikely. I have no idea what the protocol may be for such an award. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really?? Catherine Middleton's coat of arms is depicted on pages 25 and 28 of the official order of service for her wedding to Prince William. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So what is the protocol? I must have been looking in the wrong encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're not actually Catherine's arms: they're her father's. Thomas Markle may not be eligible for a coat of arms if he's not British or of provable British descent. I believe the College of Arms/Lord Lyon only grants arms to British citizens or their descendants. See http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/granting-arms: petitioners for arms must show "their descent from a subject of the British Crown. This may be a recent forebear such as a parent or grandparent who lived in the same country under the British Crown; an emigrant from Britain, Ireland or anywhere else where the British monarch was Head of State; or a more distant ancestor such as inhabitant of the north American colonies before the recognition of American independence in 1783." DrKay (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blowed if I know, but I do know that a coat of arms was allocated to her father[1] about two weeks before the wedding and Catherine's own was derived from it in the usual manner by adopting a lozenge shape as opposed to a shield shape. Her lozenge was depicted hanging from a blue ribbon to symbolise her unmarried state. Once married Catherine's coat of arms was impaled with that of her husband, and the lozenge shaped one transferred to her sister, Pippa, until she, in turn, married. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nearest two comparable cases (non-armigerous foreigners marrying into the royal family) are the duchesses of Gloucester and Windsor. Birgitte van Deurs was granted a personal coat of arms by Royal Warrant. Wallis Simpson didn't have one. DrKay (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are just going to have to wait and see. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the original question: there appears to be no record of any coat of arms at present. It has been stated that her father will not receive a coat of arms so there will be nothing to impale with her husband's. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's not going to receive a coat of arms, that's true, which means that a coat of arms will not be created for the whole Markle family, but they always have the option of granting Meghan a coat of arms which exclusively belongs to her and not her family. Keivan.fTalk 17:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a heraldic relief. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
A good place to watch for any news about the granting of arms: The College of Arms website www.college-of-arms.gov.uk. So far, there has been no announcement about arms for the Duchess.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If he's not receiving them because he's ineligible, is Meghan's mother eligible? Because if she isn't, I don't see how Meghan would be going by the above quote. Maybe when she obtains British citizenship although the above quote sort of suggests only her children would be (independently of Harry) but maybe it's missing something. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above blazon, "Per pale Azure and Gules, a chevron Or, cotised Argent, between three acorns (etc.)" describes the armorial bearings of H.R.H. the Duchess of Cambridge (née Catherine Middleton), which were granted to the then-Miss Middleton several days before her marriage to the-then Prince William of Wales. (Please see http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/grants/item/8-arms-of-catherine-middleton)
...and...? My above post already states that it is the Middleton Blazon. And please sign your posts. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ If you are interested it is "Per pale Azure and Gules, a chevron Or, cotised Argent, between three acorns slipped and leaved Or".

Titles before marriage

She seems to have used Ms before marriage not Miss, and I don't see any sources for her using her first husband's name whether unofficially, legally or professionally. I also don't understand the dates. Why would she call herself Mrs Engelson in 2014 when they divorced in 2013? And if they married in September 2011, why is she calling herself Mrs Engelson the previous month? DrKay (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly, why should any unsourced claims remain in this BLP? Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous marriage to Trevor Engelson

This entry doesn't mention Markle's previous marriage to American film producer, Trevor Engleson[1]. It should be included in an article about the Duchess as it represents a significant change in British protocol, as referred to in this article in Town & Country Magazine. Roy Scherer (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see her previous marriage is already mentioned. as for "significant change" you may need to explain that as I cant see any significant change. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I need to read more closely. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Scherer (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do your cause no favours by offering that particular tabloid source in support. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Sun

Title of Duchess of Sussex

Support "Meghan Markle" or recommend the title heading "Duchess of Sussex".

"Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" implies that she is divorced from the Duke, as is "Sarah, Duchess of York" or "Diana, Princess of Wales" for that matter. This is established usage in the British peerage and should be respected. The reasoning is that there is only one actual Duchess of Sussex at any time and inserting the Christian name leaves room for another lady to be simply "the Duchess of Sussex". On the same basis, this usage is also favoured by some widows of peers who prefer not to be known as the Dowager Lady X or Duchess of Y. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.83.129.124 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to change Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge & other such articles, as well? GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look at this section where I clearly explained why this article cannot be titled "Duchess of Sussex". Keivan.fTalk 17:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The website of the British royal family, on her biographical page begins with "The Duchess of Sussex, born Meghan Markle . . ."
(https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex). Maybe "The Duchess of Sussex (née Meghan Markle)" would be a good title for this article.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't hold British Citzienship yet, so it should use her American name, and not all this anti-American bias in the article naming -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting there's "anti-American bias" is remarkably extreme nonsense. But, for an American comparative, how about we look at the fact Donald Trump's page was immediately reformatted to fit that of a President, ignoring his long previous career. 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:108:ECBB:3535:421E (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to restrict ourselves solely to the former Ms. Markle's American name, then wouldn't titles such as "Duchess" and "Princess" have to go away as well? After all, the U.S. Constitution prohibits our government from bestowing any of these sorts of titles. I suppose that if in the unlikely event that the Duke and Duchess were to decide to move to the U.S., renounce their status as British subjects and take only all-American names and honorifics, he would become "Mr. Harry Mountbatten-Windsor" and she, in turn, "Ms. Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor."
If we're going to use "Royal Highness" and "Duchess" a title and style belonging to the United Kingdom, we really ought to use these in the way they're used in the United Kingdom. There the lady is known as "H.R.H. the Duchess of Sussex" (Please see the British Royal Family's own website, under the Duchess' own page.) And if we want to include the lady's forename, I suggest we refer to her as "H.R.H. the Duchess of Sussex (née Meghan Markle).Yseult-Ivain (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meg

Why not Meg! [16]. Good enough for Harry.  :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about Meghar ? .... the N in her name is just a typo :) –Davey2010Talk 19:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Unilateral page movers will be lucky too!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect hatnote

this edit is clearly unecessary and inapproppiate if you know what hatnotes are for, self-reverted my revert of that due to 3rr, could someone revert it? Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess of United kingdom

According to the bbc she’s not royal blood, so it should be removed from her title. Lirbuj (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is a princess by marriage,which status is quite official.It's "Princess [her given name]" that she can't be because she's not of royal blood.To recapitulate the rules and customs and their history:
Children of a British Sovereign are "His/Her Royal Highness The Prince/ss [given name]"...the eldest son automatically also The Duke of Cornwall.
On top of these titles conferred automatically by status,the eldest son is customarily created The Prince of Wales,other sons Royal Dukes,and the eldest daughter (once no previous Princess on whom the title has been conferred is living) The Princess Royal.Under recent legislation the eldest daughter,if eldest child,would displace the eldest son in the Duchy of Cornwall.
Children of the sons of a British Sovereign are "His/Her Royal Highness Prince/ss [no "The"] [given name]",followed by "of [father's titular place]",i.e. "of Wales" if the father is Prince of Wales and the name of the Dukedom otherwise.Sons of the Prince of Wales can also be created Royal Dukes on adulthood while he is still Prince of Wales (e.g. Princes Albert Victor and George,sons of Edward VII,were created Duke of Clarence and Duke of York) since they are expected to become sons of the next Sovereign.The eldest son of a Royal Duke inherits that Dukedom and can transmit it to descendants while no younger son of a Royal Duke has ever been granted a peerage of his own.(The late Duke of Gloucester was father of Prince William of Gloucester and Prince Richard of Gloucester and the wife of the latter was Princess Richard of Gloucester until his father died and,his brother having been killed in an accident,he became Duke and therefore she Duchess of Gloucester...the late Duke of Kent was father of Prince Edward of Kent,now the Duke,and Prince Michael of Kent,never to be Duke unless his brother,his brother's sons,and his brother's sons' sons all predecease him without legitimate male heirs).The present Queen was "Princess Elizabeth of York" until her father became King,which made her simply The Princess Elizabeth as daughter of the Sovereign.(Her father died before her aunt the Princess Royal so there was never a question of granting her that title and she became a Duchess through the conferral of a Dukedom on her husband on marriage,beginning the custom she has kept of delaying the grant of a Royal Dukedom until marriage,which had never been the case for her uncles,great-uncle,or great-great-uncles).
Under a rule of 1898,children of the eldest son of a Prince of Wales were made Royal Highnesses (instead of Highnesses as under a rule of 1864...a title now not used in Britain though Edward VII granted it to the children of his daughter the then Princess Royal),then in 1917 this was limited to the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales,with the other children,along with those of the children of other sons of Sovereigns,titled Lords and Ladies;in 2012 the HRH and Prince/ss titles were restored to all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (not as clear as 1898 whether this would apply in future generations of such eldest sons).Note that children of younger sons of Princes of Wales have never been granted the HRH...they would have been HH Princes/ses under the 1864 rule and are now Lords and Ladies under the 1917 rule,and this would apply to children of Henry and Meghan unless other provision is made (in October 1948,with the current Prince of Wales about to be born,George VI extended HRH to children of the present Queen).
In 1996,with the divorces of the Prince of Wales and Duke of York,the Queen enacted that HRH attaches to wives of those qualified for the HRH under the 1917 patent (enumerated exactly),but is lost upon divorce.(So as things stand,if the Queen lives long enough to see Prince Louis of Cambridge (granted the HRH by the 2012 patent) get a divorce,his ex would under the 1996 patent keep her HRH).Wives are HRH [husband's title],so for a Royal Duke HRH the Duchess of Dukedom,for an otherwise untitled Prince HRH (The) Princess [whoever he is].Widows are HRH the Dowager Duchess of [late husband's title] unless other provision is made (the late Duke of Kent's wife was herself a Danish/Greek Princess by birth and preferred Princess Marina,Duchess of Kent to Dowager Duchess of Kent,and the late Duke of Gloucester's wife was allowed to be Princess Alice,Duchess of Gloucester,keeping her HRH (though Debrett's still listed her as a Lady by birth under her family's article (Dukes of Buccleuch)) while Sarah,Duchess of York is neither HRH nor Princess following divorce.I assume Princess Michael of Kent will always be Princess Michael (never Princess Marie-Christine) even if widowed,if divorced I'm not sure what they'd call her.
Any more queries?12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that the remark, "no younger son of a Royal Duke has ever been granted a peerage of his own" as it stands, would not be borne out by the case of Thomas Beaufort 1st duke of Exeter, K.G. (ca 1377-1426), third son of John of Gaunt 1st duke of Lancaster, K.G. (1340-1399), Gaunt, being of course, the fourth, but third surviving son of King Edward III.
Another son of Edward III, Edmund of Langley 1st Duke of York (1341-1402) had two sons, of whom the second, Richard (1375-1415) was created Earl of Cambridge, a title either forfeited or renounced by his elder brother.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Beaufort was made an Earl by his half-brother and Duke by his half-brother's son...his status was not that of younger son of a younger son at the time as lines senior to his father's had been swept aside from the succession.Earl of Cambridge was a title originally conferred on the 1st Duke of York himself.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Things were such a mess during the War of the Roses. So glad we didn't live during that time. Thank you.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - For consistency - we changed the Camilla Parker-Bowles name to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, yet she was REALLY well known as Camilla Parker-Bowles for nearly two decades. 110.147.205.88 (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to put this in the discussion above. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent nod?

"The conferring of the Sussex title is an apparent nod to the only other Duke of Sussex, who was known for his progressive views in the early nineteenth century including abolition of the Atlantic slave trade and removal of legal restrictions on Jews"

With all due respect, there's no actual evidence that Sussex was chosen as an "apparent nod" to anything. It was just one of the few unused royal dukedoms available. The NY Times editorial writer who wrote this is speculating, there's no evidence to back up her claim that this is why Sussex was chosen. While the information about the previous duke's views are interesting and perhaps can be included I don't think we should say it's an "apparent nod" without any actual evidence. 2607:F2C0:937D:4000:F8A0:A09E:9374:5E11 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Common Friend / Mutual Friend ?

"Personal Life Since June 2016, Markle has been in a relationship with Prince Harry,[57][58] who is sixth in line to the British throne.[59] Prince Harry and Markle met on a blind date that a common friend set up."

Instead of "common friend," could the text not read, "mutual friend" . . . ?

Yseult-Ivain (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship

Speculation surrounds the new Duchess's citizenship. I have read that the Queen has already given her British citizenship and the Duchess renounced her US citizenship - which I believe is completely wrong. I have also read she needs to pay expat tax for all the three years she is waiting to apply for British citizenship. She would have to take the usual test and not spend more than 270 days outside the UK in those 3 years. Where is the horse's mouth??? 2001:8003:A928:800:ACB5:F488:D327:A0A7 (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's still American, hasn't renounced, and still needs to wait 3 years, not spend excessive time outside the UK, pass the citizenship test. The Queen doesn't have the explicit or reserve power to grant citizenship. To expedite, would require an Act of Parliament. She's also liable for American taxes. And her legal name is not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", its still her American name, since she is not a Briton yet. Rachel Zane -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the usual American custom for a woman's name following her marriage? What is her "American name" following her "British wedding"? I'm Australian, and my wife took my surname in place of the one she was born with (called her "maiden name") on the day we married. Two days after our wedding, the "majority of sources" about her would still have used the name she was born with (some lasted over 20 years), but it was was no longer her name. --Scott Davis Talk 06:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "Rachel Meghan Markle Mountbatten" ? Harry's surname is "Mountbatten", according to tradition (even though he uses "Wales" and "Windsor"), since Prince Phillip is Mountbatten, and thus Charles, and thus Harry, and thus now Meghan. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that her marriage to a constitutionally protected British citizen granted her British citizenship. And, separately, enough with the "American name": as a member of the British Royal Family, her name is whatever the Queen signs off on. Technically, the Queen has complete control over the UK and its government, not that she ever intervenes, so she can do whatever she damn wants. 109.148.98.191 (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to this article, Meghan still has to wait her turn, and Prince Harry said, "I can also say she intends to become a UK citizen and will go through the process of that, which some of you may know takes a number of years." So no, The Queen is not just going snap her fingers and make her a citizen. You're really overestimating how much power The Queen has.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Queen cannot, "do whatever she damn wants". She is a constitutional monarch only and has no real authority whatsoever. The last monarch who tried to interfere in the affairs of state lost his head in the attempt. Indeed, Charles I's death warrant is displayed in the Queens's robing room in the Palace of Westminster as a reminder. The Queen even goes as far as taking a parliamentary hostage for the duration of any state opening of parliament as insurance against a repetition. TheVicarsCat (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although her permission was required for Harry to wear his beard? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the Monarch cannot do "whatever she wants." However, this particular Monarch has garnered such good will over her many years of devoted service to her country, that undoubtedly the Home Office would be able to see its way clear to extending every consideration to the Royal Family on this matter, until such time as the British citizenship of the Duchess of Sussex takes effect.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know of nothing that would prevent our subject from holding dual nationality. Also, an American can generally hold a title from a foreign government so long as he or she is not in a position within a foreign government that requires the making of what are called "policy decisions." There are/were other freedoms allowed, too. After World War Two, General Eisenhower, for example, was allowed to accept the Danish invitation to enter the Order of the Elephant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Until Trump convinces enough states to pass the Titles of Nobility Amendment ..... Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official title

I have not read every word on this page but I have read many of its incorrect statements about her title. https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle-announcement-titles - dated 19 May - says:

"The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

"Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex."


So "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" may well become her accepted Wikipedia page name but not because it is her correct title. Robin Patterson (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be something? If the title of the Wikipedia entry about Shakespeare's "Macbeth" were "The Scottish Play" which is not the correct title, but is sometimes referred to in that way by actors? Or if the Wikipedia page on the element "Tin" were "Stannum," because the latter is an old alchemist's term for tin, and some people still call it that. Or if the page about "The United States of America" were titled "Stateside" because our own G.I.s have often referred to the country in that way. Well, all of those would be quite something. I do hope the editors of Wikipedia are able to see their way clear to use correct titles most of the time . . . and to aim for all of the time.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name versus Title and Style

Just for fun, I thought I would point out more clearly this confusion between one's name and one's titles and styles. This might be a good place, also, to ask, What in the world is an "American name"?

Our subject's name was at birth, from what I understand, Rachel Meghan Markle. This would remain her name until legally changed. One would have to do some digging to find those records, if they exist. Considering the uncommon circumstances of marrying into the royal family, our subject's name could very well be simply Meghan, just as the monarch's name is Elizabeth. (It's rather nice that Her Majesty chose her regnal name to be the same as her first given name. One might note, however, that the regnal name is probably most properly expressed as "Elizabeth II.") Those with royal titles do not really have surnames. They are born, or enter, into a house---in this case Windsor---but a house is not a name in the common way of understanding names. We can't easily force modern practices upon older traditions.

The question of titles and styles, then, can really only be answered by Her Majesty. It is she who awards them. What the popular press and others desire and then print is another matter. Had I ever met Diana, Princess of Wales, I certainly would not have called her Lady Di.

There is another point that has not really been discussed here and that is how the Duke of Sussex and his wife are addressed in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I haven't enough experience to comment on this myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The question of titles and styles, then, can really only be answered by Her Majesty." There is an entire catalog of letters patent going back for quite a long time, even before Her Majesty was born, with which scholars of protocol in the U.K. are very familiar, and from which with authority we can derive the correct forms of styles, qualifications, and titles of any kind in the U.K. And writings by very reliable U.K. experts in protocol may be found online on Encyclopedia Brittanica and on DeBrett's Peerages.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but I am speaking here of our subject alone. This was decided by Her Majesty, just as she decided other matters, such as the use of the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course, that H.M. decides such matters, and, indeed, as the Fountain of Honour, she is able to make and unmake all the provisions of all previous letters patent. There is no disputing that. However, and I don't mean to be a stickler: I would agree that such matters can only be *decided* by Her Majesty, but not that such matters can only be *answered* by Her Majesty. For, are there not experts in U.K. protocol who can *answer* for us any questions about whatever Her Majesty has *decided* on the topic of names, titles, styles, and qualifications?Yseult-Ivain (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are agreement. As an aside, and as you seem knowledgeable, Do you think it's true that "Harry" is not recognized as a duke while in Scotland or Northern Ireland? Perhaps he is known to be a duke, but is he addressed there as is an earl (laird?) and baron, respectively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind compliment. I wish I knew more about Scottish royal protocol. I think you're right about the way it works, and I think it's done simply as a courtesy to the Scottish people - a recognition by the British Royal Family that Scotland has its own history and its own forms of address, and that as such, it's proper for any British citizen who bears a Scottish title to use the Scottish one, in preference to any other, when visiting Scotland.
I don't know whether you're old enough to recall the very great reception that HRH the Prince Charles received at the time of his investiture as Prince of Wales (1969). There was not a little resentment among Welsh nationalists surrounding the event, and when Charles addressed the crowd, speaking a few lines of the Welsh language (which belongs to a completely different family of languages to our own, and so is known for being difficult for English-speakers) his efforts were greeted with much enthusiasm, and were characterized by news reports at the time as mollifying some of the anti-English sentiments. And, again, when his new bride, on her first visit to that country as its Princess, also ventured to say a few words in Welsh, many were delighted.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do remember, though not vividly. I'm aware also that then-Princess Elizabeth was invited to become a bard in a ceremony at Mountain Ash. Wales in 1946. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. Look at all those funny tree-dwelling Welsh folk scurrying around: [17]. Norman Hartnell it ain't, dear. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia form of the name and style of the current wife of a British Prince or Peer to be the same as the official name and style of the divorced wife of a British Prince or Peer?

It would seem that for Wikipedia, the name and style of the present wife of a British prince or peer is indistinguishable from the official name and style of the divorced wife of a British prince or peer. Thus we have, for example, "Meghan Duchess of Sussex," which is the same form as that of "Diana Princess of Wales," Diana's official style subsequent to her divorce. And if the sad time should ever unfortunately arrive, that the Duke and Duchess decide to go their separate ways, the lady now officially known as "the Duchess of Sussex" will officially become "Meghan Duchess of Sussex." And so the reality and the Wikipedia usage will at last coincide.

I very much hope, however, that day never arrives, and that Wikipedians interested in this general topic, will consider further discussions on what the correct form of the name and style of the current wife of a British Prince or Peer will be within these pages.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very short answer to the question posed in the header to this section is: yes. PatGallacher (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well. We shall see.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite funny actually how people here insist that the style she has never held or used ("Meghan, Duchess of Suffolk") is the correct title for the article and that the one she did use for 36 years and by which she is still best known ("Meghan Markle") is inappropriate. Logic at its finest. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very little is making sense these days, Yseult. It's quite frustrating, tbh :( GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the style that she uses right now, The Duchess of Sussex, can never be chosen as the main title for this page. What if she gives birth to a son? That means that there might be some potential successors in the future who might carry on the heraldic titles and their respective spouses will also be known as "The" Duchess of Sussex. By the way, I think her transformation into a British royal figure is the only thing that has made her extremely notable. Yes, she had a career as an actress before marriage, but I didn't even know that she existed, just like many other people who became interested in her after her engagement. Keivan.fTalk 01:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keivan, you're absolutely right about the problem of using just "The Duchess of Sussex," with no further identification of the lady. This is a difficulty which I find very tiresome when I read books on history: which "duchess" or "princess" is the author referring to? If only the authors would think to identify the duchess with greater detail. Which is why considerate authors of works on history often specify the woman in this way (for example) "Anne of Cleves Queen of England." That is - and this usage is best limited to historical figures no longer living - the woman's forename and maiden surname (or territorial designation), followed by the title by which she was known as a married woman. And so when we read "Queen Anne of England," we'll recall that earlier in the same paragraph or section, the author had specified "Anne of Cleves Queen of England," and thus didn't leave us wondering if she was referring to "Anne Boleyn Queen of England." Or even "Queen Anne of England, Scotland, and Ireland," who was not a queen consort, but a queen regnant, as is the present queen.
For women currently living, one proposed solution for the wives of British princes and peers is to list the woman's married title first, followed by the word born or nėe, followed by her full name before she was married. Thus, in the case of the former Meghan Markle, we would have, "The Duchess of Sussex, née Meghan Markle." This is actually not something I just "made up;" it's a very old-fashioned, perfectly proper way of referring to married women, a form that our great-grandmothers would have been familiar with (if they were interested in that sort of thing.) And it would accomplish the task of distinguishing easily among the various duchesses down through the ages, no matter how many there are. And, at the same time, the form "The Duchess of Sussex, née Meghan Markle," would not be likely to give the mistaken impression that the lady in question was a divorcée, when in fact she was not. (Please note that "Meghan Duchess of Sussex" is exactly the form used for divorcées in British official protocol, and thus could arguably give the impression that a bride still enjoying her honeymoon with her beloved is no longer even married to the gentleman.)Yseult-Ivain (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

The following statement is incorrect: "Markle is the second American[note 2] and the first person of mixed race heritage to marry into the British royal family.[8] The engagement announcement prompted much comment about the possible social significance of Markle becoming a proudly mixed-race royal." In fact, Queen Charlotte was the first person of mixed race heritage to marry into the British Royal Family. Jmnykrckt (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The African descent of the Duchess's mother is indisputable; the remote African ancestry of Queen Charlotte's 7-greats grandmother Margarita de Castro (which would be 6 generations further back if verified) is not.LE (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much prefer that the American obsession with race stayed completely out of this article. (And, in fact, all other articles concerning matters outside that country.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the offending statement has been removed. StAnselm (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Meghan still in her name?

She is not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" just "The Dutchess of Sussex." Is there a source for "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex?"

Sources now say her first name is "Rachel" so if anything it should be "Rachel, Duchess of Sussex" [18]. There is no Meghan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:F15F:D980:8971:23A0 (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your source is the Mirror and predates the marriage. The fact that her first name at birth was Rachel is not new information. It's been in our article when her being the "model who held case #24 on the US version of the television game show Deal or No Deal" and Amy Jessup in Fringe were apparently seen at least as notable as her being in Suits [19] for 1 and a bit seasons and all these were apparently the most notable things about her from a wikipedia standpoint. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the source that says her name is "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex?" Just provide a source. I've not seen anything that puts all four of those words as a name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:F15F:D980:8971:23A0 (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's one here today, if you search hard enough in one of the captions! Not sure if this has come from an official source or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many people don't know that Rachel is the first name of the Duchess; she is known universally as Meghan. Certainly the name Rachel belongs in the text of the article, but to include it in the title would be superfluous and a distraction. Just as the title of the article on Queen Victoria does not include her first name. (Alexandrina Victoria chose to use only her middle name, and by that name she was known to her people, and to history.)
It has been proposed that the title of the article be: "The Duchess of Sussex, née Meghan Markle," which is a form of married women's names that has been around for a very long time, but has recently fallen into disuse. Some have suggested reviving it.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex&oldid=842427701"