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 13:27, 29 May 2018 (→‎Tax Implications: An overall concept; nothing to be presented in the article.). 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

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]
[1], [2] --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 think this was a ceremony that was "low key" that the tabloid press would prefer to call "a secret ceremony". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 23 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute your claim regarding "even if Jewish or Moslem or Druid, &c.," But I feel we are straying into WP:FORUM there. Note that there is now a new thread on Meghan's baptism below. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]
What if their parents have different religions? PatGallacher (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, referring to my own personal experience. My brother, as I, was raised United Methodist. He married a Catholic. He did not convert, but (on the insistence of her parents) agreed that any children would be raised Catholic, as his son ultimately was. Now in the case of disagreeing parents, we would have to discern from reliable sources regarding how the child ultimately was raised. If we could not discern from reliable sources, Wikipedia should not mention any childhood religion for the child. Safiel (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: that an out-of-process move was performed by the founder. The page was moved by an editor using special rights during a move discussion and while the page was under move-protection. However, most of the arguments and comments below fail to help in determining the best article title. Some are plain votes without any argument presented. Some are based on process and do not address the issue of the article title itself. Some claim that the current article title is the "correct", "legal" or "official" name, despite clear refutation of such an opinion. Both sides use the same argument of consistency (one side comparing to Grace Kelly and Wallis Simpson and the other side comparing to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and others) and so that argument is weak. The best argument is one of common name, and evidence has been provided that the common name at the time of moving was (and for the moment seems to remain) "Meghan Markle". However, even though the logic of the arguments below favors the common name, Meghan Markle, we are faced with the fact that the page was moved by a user with special powers. Any attempt to undo the move by anyone other than the founder is likely to result in more disturbance and potential accusations of wheel-warring. I therefore feel that I am unable to reverse a decision of the founder even though (1) the arguments for the move to Meghan Markle are in my opinion the more powerful, and (2) that the original move to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex was performed outwith the normal processes of Wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]
That analogy has some problems. First of all, Jorge Bergoglio was known as Bishop Bergoglio, not Jorge, before he became the Pope and, once he became the Pope, he assumed his new title as Pope Francis. Bergoglio's move from Bishop to Pope is a linear move in a single institution, unlike Meghan Markle, who had an established media presence as an actress before wedding Prince Harry, just as Grace Kelly did before becoming the Princess of Monaco. Indeed, her status as an actress is what permitted her to come into contact with Prince Harry and marry him, so her past as an actress can't be ignored. In short, going from a recognized actress to a member of the British aristocracy is not the same linear progression as going from priest to Bishop and then from Bishop to Pope. Quite different. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor actress not known by many to having a senior position in the British Royal Family in a wedding watched by billions? It's very linear in terms of significance. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 17:11, 23 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]
  • Procedural close pending the revert request at RMTR. James (talk/contribs) 12:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Strong support for both procedural and substantive reasons. Virtually all of the oppose votes claim the WP:OFFICIALNAME fallacy. The WP:COMMONNAME in the vast majority of independent, reliable sources was and remains Markle at this point. Any WP:NCROY argument must be rejected as well, as a local naming convention cannot override WP:UCRN policy. In addition, I strongly condemn Jimbo Wales' initial move of this page. Established consensus above was strongly in favor of keeping the page at Markle. Given that consensus, and the controversy of his move of Kate Middleton, Wales should clearly have known that a move request was his only acceptable option, per WP:RMCM. Furthermore, Wales flagrantly abused his administrative powers to unilaterally move a move-protected page, and admitted below that he did so for "fun". To the closer: please note that WP:RMCI#Determining consensus explicitly applies here, and the last stable title was "Meghan Markle". Therefore, a no consensus result requires a move back to the Markle title. James (talk/contribs) 15:52, 22 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.[3] 82.18.67.217 (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)— 82.18.67.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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: [4]. 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]
It is as clear as daylight to anyone who read that discussion that the consensus was to retain the article at Meghan Markle. Even those in favor of moving the article agreed that it should only be done following a proper move discussion. Pretending that there was no such consensus is downright dishonest. Surtsicna (talk) 01:31, 23 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)— 118.107.129.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]
  • Comment the current name is violation of Wikipedia policy. It violates WP:COMMONNAME. Her common name is still "Meghan Markle" and will remain so for a while. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is wrong under that standard. However, a compromise can be made using Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex. At any rate, this should follow WP:BRD since it is clearly a bold move so should be instantly reverted. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect statement, royalty does not have surnames and if she were to take one it would be "Wales" (the common name taken by William and Harry based on their father's title). Thus, "Markle" is not her name and would never be included in such a title, anyway. 109.148.98.191 (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your statement is incorrect. She isn't a British Citizen, she's an American Citizen, and she hasn't filed for a legal namechange in the United States. Her name is still that which it was, and not the creation of May 2018. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Name change#United States implies that's not necessary:
          As of 2009, 46 states allow a person legally to change names by usage alone, with no paperwork, but a court order may be required for many institutions (such as banks or government institutions) to officially accept the change.[1] Although the states (except Louisiana) follow common law, there are differences in acceptable requirements; usually a court order is the most efficient way to change names (which would be applied for in a state court), except at marriage, which has become a universally accepted reason for a name change. (My emphasis)
          Have things changed in recent years, is she from an exceptional state or is the formal process like a deed poll in the UK that's just to help ease the process of change with other organisations/satisfy little jobsworths/take fees from the unaware? Timrollpickering 15:51, 23 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]
    • No, it's not her official title now, Sedriskell. Her official title now is "The Duchess of Sussex". "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" will be her official title in case she divorces Harry.
  • 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]
I am seriously thinking about changing my !vote. I always thought WP:COMMONNAME applied, but that people would stop calling her Meghan Markle. But it's clear they haven't.[5][6][7][8] StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, StAnselm, they have not stopped referring to her in-laws by their premarital names either. And there is plenty of precedent for that too. Every woman who married into the family from Mary of Teck to the Norman conquest and beyond is known by her birth name. And in addition to the publications you mentioned, The Guardian and The Telegraph also do not appear determined to stop calling her Meghan Markle, even when acknowledging her new title in the same sentence ("Meghan Markle makes online debut as Duchess of Sussex") or elsewhere in the article.[9][10][11][12] Surtsicna (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my !vote - I am now neutral. StAnselm (talk) 19:06, 23 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)— Pftaylor61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]
  • You are correct that everyone is entitled to take whatever view they like. Anti-British prejudice is not against the law in any country that I know of. And Paintspot is correct in pointing out my error above. As for names and titles - her title is Duchess of Sussex, and her name is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. My point is that this is an irrelevant discussion, as the matter is not subject to democratic vote. The Duchess has herself chosen to accept that title, of her own free will, which is an honorable title, according to the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. If 99% of commenters here choose to change this page back to being titled "Meghan Markle", the truth of the situation remains that her name is "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". Articles on this site are meant to reflect truth, not majority vote. If 51% of commenters here chose to believe that the Earth was flat, the administrators of Wikipedia would still be correct to reject such comments. Pftaylor61 (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTRUTH. As has been pointed out multiple times on this page, it is not the “truth” of the situation that her official name is “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex”. That would only be true and be her name if she were to divorce Harry. Currently her official name is in its entirety HRH The Duchess of Sussex. Articles on this site don’t reflect either majority vote OR ‘truth’, but WP policy, an important one of which is WP: COMMONNAME. Where’s your evidence that the incorrect style ‘Megan, Duchess of Sussex’ is now commonly used by reliable sources? DeCausa (talk) 18:37, 25 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)— 185.203.122.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]
Just to update my vote. As of this afternoon if you google “Meghan Markle” and then google “Duchess of Sussex” and include a parameter of last 24 hours, I still get the impression that “Meghan Markle” is still the primary name used with a distictly secondary reference to her as Duchess. This BBC article from this afternoon, nearly a week after the wedding, is typical: |Royal Wedding 2018: Meghan Markle coat of arms revealed. COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 25 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)— SissyFitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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)— KaiKaiD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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)— 43.250.242.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 02:07, 26 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 02:07, 26 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: [13] 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. §
Note that where the above vote bolds "Support",it expresses opposition to the proposal to move the article back to "Meghan Markle".12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)— 110.147.205.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]

    • For goodness' sake, will you all stop repeating that nonsense? She is not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". That's the format of ex-wives of dukes. She is "The Duchess of Sussex". You will find no official source mentioning her as "Meghan, Duchess of Suffolk". In fact, this Wikipedia article is the only place out there where she is called by that name. And the claim that the names Middleton, Spencer and Parker-Bowles have faded into obscurity is laughably easy to disprove. Not even the Ferguson name has faded into obscurity, as pointed out by Syrenka V. Surtsicna (talk) 01:40, 23 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)— Michael'sCurries (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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)— 109.148.98.191 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
*Comment: Amen. KaiKaiD (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: No. If Elizabeth wants to edit Wikipedia, she is certainly welcome to do so, but her vote does not have any special weight. --Trovatore (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct answer:Yes. To the extent that any Wikipedians disagree with her,they are wrong;to the extent they cite any Wikipedia policies in defense of their disagreement,those policies are wrong.12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. Elizabeth herself would chuckle and roll her eyes if she read that :D Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am proudly "plus royaliste qui le roi" in the extent of my monarchism,and always have been.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The English monarchy has evolved from a loathsome and despicable institution, which is what it was when it had actual power, to "mostly harmless, and I suppose diverting for those who like that sort of thing". But it has no power here. --Trovatore (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Tolkien said,"Touching your cap to Squire may be no good for Squire,but it's damned good for you." What you consider loathsome,I consider loathsome to refuse to revere.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:25, 24 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]
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]
Risen above the ranks of actresses? Your comment has risen to the top of the plethora of revoltingly misogynist comments on this page. Surtsicna (talk) 01:13, 23 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) — 2601:647:4601:6428:804E:318F:869B:FD87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]
  • Oppose per WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENCY until more post-wedding examples are available. The problems with applying WP:COMMONNAME here are (a) most of the available sources currently are pre-wedding and (b) there is no worldwide consensus on what to call a British royal spouse who is a commoner -- Prince William's wife is variously referred to as Kate Middleton (despite protests), Duchess Kate, Princess Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, or (as Wikipedia does per WP:NCROY) Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Also, WP:NCROY suggests the title of a royal may be part of their "common name" for WP:COMMONNAME purposes. The current title of this article is consistent with not only Kate, but also Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (a commoner by British standards though IIRC she was formerly Lady Camilla Shand), and adjusting for his princely title, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Grace Kelly and Wallis Simpson are not appropriate examples as they are deceased; those are decided by a post-mortem "common name"-like consensus (like Diana, Princess of Wales and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother). --RBBrittain (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kate Middleton's article was moved to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge after the wedding, even though she was probably better known as the former, so there is a precedent for moving it to the proper title and keeping it there. --Zimbabweed (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support why should her husband's title be favoured against her father's name? She was known and reknowned as Meghan Markle before, the duchess title can be an alias. Why should Wikipedia reflect an elitist habit of aristocrats in England?--Nattes à chat (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't most women in UK take their husband's surname? I'm not saying they have to, or even should, just that this is typical. If your husband doesn't use a surname, but instead has a title, wouldn't you expect to adopt that instead? Complaining about the "elitist habit of aristocrats" suggests you would rather have Harry stripped of his title in the first place? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it hilariously ironic that the current page title, which many here favor on the basis of it being her "official" name, is actually incorrect, and would only be correct if she and Harry divorced. James (talk/contribs) 18:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you find the page title for Kate and Sophie equally hilarious? Maybe it's just as well that someone has now opened a formal RfC about this styling? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Textbook example of WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONAME, which is policy.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support This is nonsensical. The move shouldn't have been made to begin with. ShadessKB (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME. The move was undiscussed and the title reeks of 1950s sexism where women are treated as mere appendages to their husbands. She is a well-known actress with her own independent career (quite unlike her husband who doesn't have a notable career himself) who is known as Meghan Markle. There is not even any evidence that she, as an American citizen, changed her name to anything with "Sussex", and regardless, she's overwhelmingly referred to as Meghan Markle by reliable sources. The fact that she marries a guy from a foreign country with a non-democratic political system (and who is a minor member of the royal family there who is merely 6th in the line of succession – far less in a couple of years – and who will never hold any important office) doesn't make her just an appendage to her husband as the current title indicates; things simply don't work that way in America or in most of the developed world. --Tataral (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A clear I don't like it comment. Absolutely no need for this dismissive rudeness. 'far less in a couple of years'? Completely untrue. 'never hold any important office'? Already untrue. 'changed her name to anything with "Sussex"'? Already confirmed. 'quite unlike her husband who doesn't have a notable career'? Ridiculous. '1950s sexism'? Don't be so offensive. Let's focus on the topic and not Tataral's personal opinions. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure if you checked royal.uk's updated page for Meghan saying at the bottom: The couple are now known as The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. So, the current page should be kept as is, otherwise, you're disrespecting her by ignoring that. Don't care how the media continues to call her that or the rules and policy on Wiki as you should be respecting the living person with her new title. Don't ignore that. Mirrorthesoul (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we disrespecting Yusuf Islam and Kim West? What about Princess Consuela Banana Hammock? Besides, this living person's new title is not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". As you noted, she is now "The Duchess of Sussex". "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" would be her new title if she divorced. And as long as respect is a criterium, I would say it's much more disrespectful to imply that the subject's marriage has already broken down than it is to refer to her as Meghan Markle. Surtsicna (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Chase and Tataral. WP:COMMONNAME applies here. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As noted above, WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Moreover, I thought that the Grace Kelly example was a strong precedent for keeping the name of this article as Meghan Markle. If the media and most of the general population refer to her as Meghan Markle, then why should she assume the formal title on Wikipedia? If her name is changed, then we should be consistent and change Grace Kelly as well. Or is the suggestion that the British royalty only needs to be consistent and all other European aristocracies can deviate from using formal titles on Wikipedia articles? Ambrosiaster (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Suggestion What if we renamed the article Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex (in which case I would suggest we do this for other princesses and peeresses who are not divorced, i.e. Catherine, The Duchess of Cambridge or Marie-Chantal, The Crown Princess of Greece)? That way we are still using their name and their full title in the lead instead of the form of address for a divorced peeress. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Makes some sense,though those who insist on her outdated name will likely not care.12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will you also be renaming Barack Obama to "Barack, the President of the United States" or Matt Kenseth to "Matt, the Driver of NASCAR"? Chetsford (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those analogies do not even make any sense as one is a political office (with a set term) and the other is a profession. "The Duchess of Sussex" is neither a political office nor a profession, but a royal title of peerage. Just as other nobles are titled in their articles. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a sensible analogy,since only one person alive can ever be "The" Duchess of anywhere,the other jobs have no such expectation.12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She is no longer working as an actress so she will not be using her maiden name in the futureTomrtn (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of course an important difference between Grace Kelly and Meghan Markle is that Grace Kelly married a reigning monarch (one of very few monarchs in Europe at that time) and became the equivalent of a Queen consort in the UK, whereas Markle only married a minor member of a royal family who is merely 6th in the line of succession to become what Kelly's husband was – a monarch – and who will in all likelihood see his place in the line of succession dwindle further to make him into the equivalent of Prince Michael of Kent (who held roughly the same place in the line of succession when he was young) importance-wise, and who has never held any important office or done anything important. And even in such a situation, Grace Kelly's article is still titled Grace Kelly. --Tataral (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it appears to me that there is a logical inconsistency here. What is essentially being said by those on the "oppose" side is that if you marry into the British royal family, then you're important; if you marry into some other European royal family, however, you're not as important, as no one recognizes any royal family more than they do the one in Great Britain, and, if you marry into one of those more obscure European royal families, such as the ones in Monaco or Denmark, then you can retain your birth name for Wikipedia, such as Grace Kelly did... I understand that the British want people from other countries to recognize the legitimacy of Markle's British peerage, but for us Americans, who do not have a King, perhaps her 10-year-long career as an actress is just as important as her British peerage, as seems to be the case with Grace Kelly. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really.. For example from Monaco we have Charlene, Princess of Monaco (an Olympic swimmer) and from Denmark Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark who both follow the same titling as this article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These examples don't quite compare. If you reference back to the original Wikipedia article on Charlene, you will see that it was created because she "rose to fame [for] accompanying Albert II, Prince of Monaco at the opening ceremony of the 2006 Winter Olympics." Before being seen with Albert II, Prince of Monaco, she did not have a high profile. Her becoming the Queen consort gave her a profile. Not a bad example, but a little bit different than Meghan Markle's case. (The example of Mary also does not compare.) - Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Charlene had a Wikipedia profile prior to her marriage that was titled by her maiden name. She was notable under this name as an Olympic athlete (I would also like to point out that she is NOT a Queen consort, but a Princess consort). Charlene is almost exactly like Meghan's case. A high profile person in her own right (although arguably more so because of her long term relationship with Albert prior to marriage but still eligible for an article because of her status as an athlete), who is now even more notable upon marriage, whose name is changed. I still think Wikipedia should create a universal policy for women who marry into royalty. And what of Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece who was a notable socialite prior to her marriage? Or Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland who was a notable model prior to her marriage? Or Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark who was a notable person in the fashion industry prior to her marriage? Or Princess Salwa Aga Khan who was a notable fashion model prior to her marriage? I still think, if we are going to use royal titles in the name (which I support) I suggest putting "the" in the front to differentiate from the style of a divorced peeress. (i.e. "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" as opposed to what "Diana, Princess of Wales" has. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Charlene is definitely not "almost exactly like Meghan's case." Charlene is married to a reigning monarch, whereas Markle is married to a minor member of a royal family who is currently merely 6th in the line of succession with no prospect of succeeding whatsoever, and whose importance is comparable to that of Prince Michael of Kent (once 7th in line, now 46th) Charlene is in fact the equal of Queen Elizabeth (the Queen mother) during her husband's reign in the UK. The (Sovereign) "Prince" title used by the monarch of Monaco shouldn't be confused with "Prince" titles used by junior members of royal families; the title in the monégasque context simply means "monarch" or "ruler". --Tataral (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Charlene is a consort, yes, but NOT a queen. The consort of a Sovereign Prince (which does rank higher than "Prince" but not an equivalent to King) is still styled with Her Serene Highness and not Her Royal Highness and ranks lower than the queen in order of pretense. Anywhoo- you are right that Meghan's rank is lower, in comparison, in the UK than Charlene's is in Monaco. Still doesn't mean her name change shouldn't happen in the article. Technically Charlene's is wrong to because she is not 'Charlene, Princess of Monaco', but 'The Princess of Monaco'. I still think we should make Meghan's article (and other wives of royalty and nobility who come into such titles) 'Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex'. The title of Albert does not simply mean 'Monarch' or 'Ruler'. It means monarch of a Principality, not a Kingdom. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point too. This article was created in 2007, 9 years before she became associated with royalty in any sense. This is what the article looked like the month before she began her relationship with Prince Harry. She was obviously not an anonymous nobody, as some here would have us believe. And while the royal romance and wedding have undoubtedly increased her profile, they have neither obscured her former career nor her birth name. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for all the reasons listed above. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Meghan Markle is not the first actress to marry into the House of Windsor. We have forgotten about Sophie Winkleman, whom we do not call Lady Frederick Windsor. Granted, Winkleman is still acting, but the rationale for the move back from Lady Frederick Windsor to Sophie Winkleman (rigid court etiquette trumped by WP:COMMONNAME) still applies in this case. Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:IAR: Most coverage is related to her connections to the Royal Family, and most of that is about her engagement to the prince. The only reason why these sources did not use this name is that it didn't exist yet. However, it is a reasonable assumption that the Duchess of Sussex will be known as Duchess of Sussex and not under her former name, based on similar cases... and Grace Kelly is not a similar case(which was already discussed ad nauseam).2001:A61:4E6:C500:D102:468B:3EC1:2D2A (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)— 2001:A61:4E6:C500:D102:468B:3EC1:2D2A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Not a reasonable expectation at all, given that the Duchess of Cambridge is still commonly called Kate Middleton. And unlike Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Cambridge is known solely for her relationship and marriage. I applaud you, however, for making a much better case than most of the registered users here. Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for consistency with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, the Prince of Wales's other daughter-in-law. Actually, I am now undecided I do understand the arguments on each side, but Meghan was relatively obscure as an actress outside the US; had she been anything like as big a name as Grace Kelly, it would be a different matter. If she ever went back to acting, then of course this proposal could be reviewed. Deb (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument is not that she should be referred to as an actress. It's that her most common name is Meghan Markle. Meghan Markle is her big name. That may or may not be due to her acting career, but it's a fact. Surtsicna (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess this is a Google search fact. As the previous IP pointed out, it's difficult to find evidence for a name that didn't exist four days ago? In which case no article title should changed for a woman just because she marries? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not difficult to ascertain that articles published after her wedding still refer to her as Meghan Markle, even when noting that she now has a title (eg. The Guardian saying: "Meghan Markle makes online debut as Duchess of Sussex"). Indeed, no article title should be changed just because the subject married. I thought that went without saying. William's cousin Zara Phillips married in 2011, but we only moved the article to Zara Tindall in 2016. Surtsicna (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Zara Tindall looks like a very good example, assuming it was watched carefully in those 5 years (and I've no reason to think it wasn't). This might explain why Kate Middleton and Sophie Rhys-Jones were changed more quickly. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think Zara is a good example, actually, because she never had a royal title. If she had, I think the article would have been called by it throughout (and Tindall would probably have been given a title as well). I also don't think Meghan will be referred to by her birth surname for much longer. Every time she's mentioned in the UK media from now on (except by one or two ignoramuses), it will be as the Duchess of Cambridge. However, we should probably take into account the fact that the US will continue to refer to her by her acting name for a while. (Or have they already started calling her "Princess Meghan"?) Deb (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As the actress is now a member of the British Royal Family by marriage, I believe that she will partake on various royal duties as the Duchess of Sussex. Similar to the style of Her Royal Highness Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, The Duchess of Sussex is now married to a prince of the United Kingdom, so I believe that the title of this article to remain as it is now. Poeticfeelings (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Her common name from now on will be the Duchess of Sussex or simply Meghan. Just as we had/have Camilla, Diana, Kate (or Catherine, as she now prefers to be called), Sophie, etc. Yes, I appreciate she was already well-known as Meghan Markle and had a public profile as such, but she is no longer an actress and she is no longer called Meghan Markle (and no longer uses that name in any context). It's not like she still uses the name professionally or has faded into obscurity; she is more famous now than she ever was as an actress and will continue to be so, but under her new name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: editors should be aware that someone on Wikipedia saying she is no longer called Meghan Markle is rather meaningless, so fyi, today the BBC called the subject, "Meghan Markle." [14]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. Until and unless there is evidence that sources have changed their usage in the wake of the wedding, then there's no reason for us to have renamed this article. And consistency with Kate Middleton is a red herring, because unlike Kate, Meghan was independently notable before becoming a duchess. Whoever closes this should also bear in mind that Meghan Markle is the long-term stable name for this article, and it should be reverted to there if the result of this discussion is "no consensus".  — Amakuru (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for consistency with other Royal Brides such as The Duchess of Cambridge and The Duchess of Cornwall.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to: Strong Oppose - The more that I read others' comments, the more certain I am of my vote. Her name was legally changed with her marriage and having received her titles. Her current name is not Meghan Markle. It is changed. We should recognize the change and follow existing conventions for other royalty. People that type in Meghan Markle will get routed to her correct name.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolute poppycock. Her name was definitely not changed with her marriage, and you are as clueless about what her "current name" is as I am. See Monkey Bar Freak's explanation above. And once more, Wikipedia does not care about legal or current names. That much is obvious. Surtsicna (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Name_change#United_States,as cited above by Timrollpickering,paying especial attention to the "except at marriage" part.Her name changed. For Wikipedia to not care about what there is no excuse for refusal to care about may be obvious,but that is a matter for atonement,not continuation. 12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
re: "Absolute poppycock" - don't you mean that "her name may have changed with her marriage, if she herself has decided that it has? It's her choice, isn't it? It's just that we have no reliable source(s) to indicate what she has chosen? (won't affect adherence to the WP:COMMON name policy, of course). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per this [15], "Once married, Meghan will sign as Meghan, no last name. Just as Harry signs as Harry. Royals use only a first name," royal expert Marlene Koenig tells Town & Country."–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, Seems I was wrong. That looks like a reasonable source. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Martinevans123, I meant it changed if she decided to change it. As you say, it's her choice. (It's not Marlene Koenig's.) Surtsicna (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME. If she becomes known more commonly as the Duchess of Sussex the page can be moved then, but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and the current WP:COMMONNAME is Meghan Markle. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Consistency with sister-in-law in parallel role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.183.217 (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2018‎— 178.208.183.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support. The Markle→Sussex page move was premature, especially given that there was already a discussion about this question. In a few months we should have a sense of whether her WP:COMMONNAME has changed--it's quite possible that people will still call her "Meghan Markle" (she's a special case, after all!), or "Meghan of Sussex", or "Princess Meg" because why not, we're ’Merican. (Some of us, anyway.) But until we see what happens, let's leave the page as "Meghan Markle". — Narsil (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How do administrators deal with this influx of anonymous users? How do we know who is saying what? It is obvious from their comments that these anons are not Wikipedia regulars, so I would not be surprised to learn that this discussion is being advertised on a forum somewhere. Like this. Though to be fair, even the comments of a majority of registered users here are based only on a personal preference or belief rather than a policy or guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page is being seen by a million people per day and there is a big, ugly box at the top of it saying 'It has been requested that the title of this article be changed to Meghan Markle. Please see the relevant discussion on the discussion page.' Of course you are going to get lots of anonymous users commenting! Don't attack other editors when there isn't any need to. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Yeah, the crazies are out there in full force. It's kinda disturbing. I mean, people have their crazy conspiracy theories and want to pass it off as facts." Maybe posting here should be by appointment only? ---Lilac17 Active Member (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No one ever immediately brought up changing Kate Middleton's page name when she became Duchess of Cambridge, so why do it in Meghan's case? She is retired from acting and has no plans whatsoever to go back to it so why go back to her former name? I feel like this is really about something else....Trillfendi (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
British law has never cared,nor should it,about whether courtesy or peerage titles inherited by or conferred upon those of other citizenship are recognized by those other countries.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
British law is irrelevant since she isn't British, not any more than her husband Mr Wales is American. Why is it that it is automatically assumed by some that she somehow becomes subordinate to her husband by marrying him and subject to his country's laws and values (including outdated values concerning gender equality), and not the other way round? Why shouldn't the couple be subject to American laws to the same degree when one of them is American and not British? --Tataral (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only relevant laws about the title are the ones under which the title exists,namely the British ones.12.144.5.2 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much like Wikipedia has never cared, nor should it, about British law. Surtsicna (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that right? We can dispense altogether with UK copyright law then, and just stick to US, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not comparable at all. Copyright law legally affects publishers (like the Wikimedia Foundation). Noone is required to use "Duchess" as an article title in an encyclopedia, or even recognise an American citizen's claim that she holds a foreign noble title. --Tataral (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as she is undergoing the process of becoming a British subject she will not, in fact, be an American citizen's claim to hold a foreign title (which, legally, Americans are allowed to do so long as they are not in political office or granted a title in order to perform some form of political act. American civilians are legally allowed to hold foreign titles.) -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Former last name,she no longer has one.12.144.5.2 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what I thought too, but the main rationale for moving the article to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is that using "Meghan Markle" suggests that she is an actress. I'll take it that that rationale is rubbish, then. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really, really, really want to support the move back to Meghan Markle. The notion that there's some "fact of the matter" about her name, determined not by her but by an institution characterized by some of the nastier human behavior on record, and that this binds Wikipedia, is beyond irritating. Wikipedia should not, in its own voice, reify the British monarchy.
    That said, there does seem to be a WP:ENGVAR connotation to this. Markle is American, and until now WP:TIES would point to using American English, but I think it's fair to admit that that may no longer be true, legal citizenship notwithstanding. So if it can be demonstrated that the new name is what she's called in British sources, that might be relevant.
    So the punch line is I abstain — but if the article is moved back, it certainly won't break my heart. --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Trovatore, Meghan is definitely called Duchess of Sussex in British sources. She is called Duchess of Sussex in American sources too. Usage in both countries favors the name Meghan Markle, however. As cited above, even articles in the publications which are normally very deferential to the palace still call her Meghan Markle. This one, published today by The Telegraph, calls her Meghan Markle in the title, and uses "Meghan Markle" and "the Duchess of Sussex" interchangeably, all the time referring to her in the present tense. Thus, the argument that the name Meghan Markle is in the past does not stand even in the UK. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • So the preferred usage, in one of the best popular UK press WP:RS sources, suggests the two names now have equal status, only five days after the wedding? I wonder how the !vote currently stands here now (not that it's ever a vote, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The idea of a name change after marriage is nothing new, so I'm a little perplexed by this discussion, as she is no longer "Meghan Markle." Her official name is now: "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex."[16] Since the Wikipedia does not allow HRH in titles (see WP:TITLESINTITLES), it is correct to title the article: "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex." How is this different from the article on Princess Diana which is titled: Diana, Princess of Wales? The first sentence of that article begins: "Diana, Princess of Wales (born Diana Frances Spencer...). It would be inconsistent with the other articles on the Royal Family to revert the article back to Meghan Markle.-Classicfilms (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, her official and legal name is Meghan Markle. She is an American citizen, not a British one. Her country doesn't recognise any form of noble titles and no American is legally called "Her Royal Highness" or anything like that. What a foreign country of which she isn't a citizen calls her has no bearing on her official and legal name. There is no reason to apply the laws of her husband's country to her, but not her country's laws to him. With equal justification, one could argue that her husband should be the subject to the laws of America and officially be considered as Mr Henry Wales, nothing else, the name he would probably be required to use if he sought US naturalization and a US passport based on his marriage to a US citizen. We should not treat women as inferior to men and appendages to their husbands, and his country does not take precedence over her country just because he's a man (at least it doesn't work that way in America). Regardless, Wikipedia article titles are based on WP:COMMONNAMEs, not legal names. She is most widely known as Meghan Markle, not as "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex." And she's not comparable to Diana at all; first of all Diana was a British citizen (unlike her), and secondly Diana was married to the heir to throne in her own country, whereas she is merely married to an exceedingly minor member of a foreign royal family who is now 6th in line in his country and who will probably be something like 46th in line when he's old (like his relative, of equal importance, Prince Michael of Kent, once 7th in line and now 46th in line). --Tataral (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course she is comparable to Princess Diana, as a non-royal woman who married into the royal family and whose name changed. It isn’t up to the Wikipedia to decide the status of a person - meaning this isn't about a google search or the fact that Meghan was an actress, known for her role in a popular American television show. Per WP:RS, I cited a reliable source that states her "official" name change after marriage.[17] - I do not see a source that states that "Megan Markle" is still her official name. And as I stated above, it is very common for a name change to occur after marriage, and that is what we are seeing here. Disagree if you like, but my vote remains Oppose. I'm signing off for today.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • What the native countries of foreigners who marry into the RF recognize is irrelevant...British laws concerning British royal titles are the only laws relevant to British royal titles. And pay attention to the language in Name_change#United_States regarding changes at marriage if you're so hung up on American law.12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • America is a much bigger country than England. Most people consider Harry the foreigner in this marriage. And no, British laws don't take precedence over other countries' laws, and they are utterly irrelevant for Wikipedia article titles. --Tataral (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Harry cannot be a "foreigner" in a wedding that took place in England. He is British. It is the British royal family. It doesn't matter if "America is bigger". Know what is larger than the United States? The Commonwealth of Nations. 53 of them. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose this proposal as it is nonsense. Meghans's name is Meghan, Dutchess of Sussex now. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not. As explained by several users in this discussion, her name will only be "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" if she divorces Harry. The only nonsense here is the repeated claim that the subject's name is that of a divorcee. One can only be dismayed to see so many Wikipedians exhibit such ignorance of both policy and the subject at hand. If these comments are not completely discounted, we can safely conclude that polling is now indeed a substitute for discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I have serious issues with the status quo of (firstname), (title) of (place), as used in this article and those for other wives of royalty. Firstly, as this is neither the correct form of address, nor the common name by which most are known, it fails WP:COMMONNAME while not even being WP:OFFICIALNAME. Secondly, and more importantly, it is specifically the correct form of address for a former wife of member of the royal family. Purely by the titles we are using for these articles we are implying that the women are divorced from their royal husbands. Diana, Princess of Wales is correct, but Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is not correct, and implies to anyone with an understanding of royal titles that she is divorced. In my opinion, the status quo is incorrect, and should be revised. I do not support moving back to Megan Markle, but believe a new format should be agreed upon that both respects the official titles without implying divorce. Barnowldance (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)— Barnowldance (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Should Wikipedia really care if an "official title" implies divorce? Surely Wikipedia would not want to acknowledge any anachronistic system which defines women in terms of their marital status? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should? Wikipedia does care if our titles are literally untrue, even if they are ambiguoulsy unture, it cares. We are not here to represent that which is untrue, especillay about living people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia should care if the title of an article misleadingly implies anything. It is not for Wikipedia to judge any system as anachronistic, which is why there are special expections to WP:COMMONNAME for Royalty and Nobility. It is a fact that Firstname, Title of Place is the format for divorced wives of members of the royal family; it would only take a small change to remove the implication. For example, a better article title could be "Megan, The Duchess of Sussex". The addition of the word "The" removes the confusion, while also satisfying WP:COMMONNAME, as the name she is now most commonly referred to as is "The Duchess of Sussex". Barnowldance (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The is an awful amount of UK-centrism, and frankly, UK chauvinism, in articles on all royals regardless of nationality, as we've now seen in this article on an American (not British) woman. Its seems to be the case that articles in this particular niche area are always titled based on what they are "officially" called in the UK, and the "rules" are always bent to suit the British POV. If an American woman who is well known in her own right as an actress marries an exceedingly minor member of the British royal family who has no prospect of ever becoming a monarch, then suddenly her own identity is erased and she becomes an appendage to her husband and his British titles. But if a minor British royal marries into the royal family of another country and occupies a much more important position there than she did in her own country, British editors insist that she must be known by the anachronistic lesser title used in the UK. One of the worst examples seems to be "Victoria, Princess Royal", as British editors have insisted on naming the article on a woman who was an Empress and a Queen, of one of the world's great powers of her time! --Tataral (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. She is now the Duchess of Sussex. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support First of all, I condemn Jimbo's preemptive move of the article as totally out of line with Wikipedia policy. The article should be preemptively moved back to the last stable title and the burden should be on the proponent's of a move to a new location to obtain a move consensus in a proper move discussion. Now I have been hearing crap about how her name is now officially Duchess of Sussex or whatever. Absolutely, totally and 100% irrelevant WP:COMMONNAME operates solely in how she is referenced in a preponderance of independent, reliable sources. Her official name is irrelevant. Just ****ing irrelevant. It is how independent, reliable sources refer to her that counts. Safiel (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP, your claim that no reliable source would use the name Meghan Markle is known as the no true Scotsman fallacy. As such, it isn't worth further attention. Surtsicna (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes facts are facts,and claiming they aren't is the fallacy.12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Julia Shear Kushner, "The Right to Control One's Name", UCLA Law Review 313 (2009), 324–9. The states which require a statutory name-change procedure are Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, and Oklahoma.
  2. ^ "Royal wedding 2018: Royal Family thanks public".

Question for administrator

There has been considerable discussion about this topic. Is it possible for an administrator to evaluate the ivotes and come to a conclusion?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and reply. First, the original move should never have taken place per the procedure explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves. There was move protection on the page to prevent undiscussed moves, and it was foreseeable that this would be a controversial change, so it should have been preceded by a move discussion. Second, once the move was objected to, the move should have been reverted to the stable title as a recent, undiscussed move that turned out not to be uncontroversial. Third, many opinions expressed in the discussion are not based on policy (Wikipedia:Article titles), naming conventions (WP:NCROY), or other relevant sections of policy and guidelines (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:TITLECHANGES, WP:OFFICIAL, etc.). The weight assigned to these comments should be low. Fourth, however, they probably won't be discounted sufficiently because the page was moved by User:Jimbo Wales, because of the heavy traffic currently at the page, and because no one will want to take the heat of a Wikipedia:Move review that is similarly likely to draw the attention of editors who are less familiar with relevant policies and conventions. My impression from reading the discussion to this point is that the close most consistent with normal operating procedure at WP:RM would be to move the page back to the stable title, Meghan Markle, and let another move discussion take place in the coming months. I just don't believe that will happen, and User:Jimbo Wales deserves something more than a trout for interfering with the standard process to little benefit, resulting in the diversion of a large number of hours of a significant cross-section of editors that could have been better spent elsewhere. Finally, move requests are closed after a week. This should stay open until the week has finished, and may take a bit longer than that because it won't be worth the pain that will be inflicted upon whoever closes it. Dekimasuよ! 20:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, Dekimasu!--–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Little did Elizabeth II realize her bestowing a title on her grandson, would create such disturbance here (as well as at Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex). -- GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Attaching undue weight to the cited policies remains a mistake.As is any move to "Meghan Markle".12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a reversion to Meghan Markle, the stable title. Policy can be ignored when necessary, but it is incumbent upon the editors who wish to ignore policy to show why this would be appropriate. There may be reasons to do so, and some editors may have presented such arguments over the course of this discussion, but comments along the lines of "that is her name now," or simply "oppose" with no stated reasoning, do not reach this standard. It is not "attaching undue weight to policy" to state that, in normal circumstances, article titles should be governed by the policy appropriately called Wikipedia:Article titles. Dekimasuよ! 22:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dekimasu, your efforts are in vain. The IP user has already stated that the British crown is above Wikipedia policies. (Yes, believe it or not.) This whole debate feels like trying to hold off a coup by fundamentalists. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you appealing to the No True Wikipedian Fallacy?12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Surtsicna (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bumping thread for 365 days. Safiel (talk) 00:41, 27 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]

Yes, Meghan has been granted her personal coat of arms, which is impaled with her husband's. No coat of arms has been granted to the father (must show evidence of an ancestor in his family line who was a British subject). But, why is coat of arms for The Duchess of Sussex not depicted as released to the public? The version that has been released can be found at https://www.instagram.com/p/BjM9DgJlkjp/?taken-by=theroyalfamily. Meghan's personal coat of arms has been described with elements with significant meaning that are missing from the version in this article. Compare the personal coat of arms published for The Duchess of Sussex with the one published for the Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Arms. →Lwalt ♦ talk 10:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's just because no wikipedian has got around to drawing a full version yet. We can't use a fair use version because fair use doesn't apply when images are replaceable with a free version. DrKay (talk) 11:30, 27 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]
He's certainly "eligible for a coat of arms" and he, as an American citizen of German descent, is free to adopt one at any time he wishes, both legally and according to the heraldic tradition of the part of Europe where his family originates. The fact that British authorities don't "grant" him a coat of arms (which is quite reasonable since he isn't British and it wouldn't be natural for him or his other children to have a coat of arms in the British style) is a different matter. --Tataral (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per https://www.americanancestors.org/meghan-markle he has at least one line of descent from King Edward III of England...perhaps you mean his paternal line is not British and I concede that has clear heraldic significance,but you can't validate only his German ancestors as the determinant of his ethnicity.12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Markle (Merckel) family is verifiably of German descent. If the Markle family wanted a family coat of arms, it would be most natural for them to follow German heraldic tradition, according to which they are free to assume one at any time they choose. It would be most unnatural for them to ask a foreign head of state in a country other than the Markle family's country of origin for permission to assume one. The fact that he may or may not have some extremely distant cognatic ancestors unrelated to the Markle family who may have lived in England in the middle ages really has no bearing on anything to do with heraldry, or with his biography, or anything else related to him. In any event an alleged "line of descent from King Edward III of England" is both inherently dubious for countless reasons and also very trivial and of little relevance for anything, because if we go back a millennium or so we probably all descend from those kings of that era (at least the ones who still have descendants). Much more relevant for him is the recent family history that has some bearing on who is he today, such as his ancestors who moved to the US in the 18th century, who adopted the family name Markle and so on. --Tataral (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edward III is called "the ancestor of the English middle class" and a majority of the English are considered his descendants,but as documented at the link a very experienced and respected genealogist,Gary Boyd Roberts,has tracked every generation of Markle's descent...it's not just a statistical guess.12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This descent is referred to in Sir Philip Wentworth's article...he and his wife Mary Clifford (descendant through four women of Edward III's son Lionel of Antwerp) are the last common ancestors of Meghan and her husband,son Sir Henry Wentworth being an ancestor of both parents of the Prince through his grandson Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset while daughter Elizabeth married Sir Martin De La See and had a daughter from whom the line traces to Thomas Markle's mother Doris May Sanders through the Hildyard,Legard,Skepper,Browne,Lunt,Drake,Smith,and Merrill families.12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:08, 25 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]
As I mentioned above, he doesn't need to "receive" a coat of arms (and certainly not from a foreign country he doesn't have any ancestral ties to); he is free to assume one at any time, should he so wish (preferably in the style of German heraldry given the family's origin). If he were to assume a coat of arms, as his his right both legally and according to German/continental heraldic tradition, we will of course treat it as a family coat of arms for himself and his descendants in the Markle family. --Tataral (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly, it is "badass" [22] Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 25 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".

Yes,she has now been granted a coat of arms.[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meghan's arms were granted to her, rather than her father. Thus she impales her arms with her husbands and uses her own supporter (a songbird argent), rather than an inestucheon of pretence used by older members of the Royal Family such as he Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent.  Barliner  talk  11:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, why is the coat of arms of Meghan not shown on an inescutcheon, as is the case with that of Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester? I could not find a satisfactory answer to this on the internet. Is Meghan not the sole owner of the arms and is there not the intention that this will be passed on to her descendants? Rather odd... Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it because Birgitte has no brothers but Meghan does?[24] DrKay (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat of a heraldry enthusiast and to answer the question: it's probably because an inescutcheon does not have to be used for a female bearer of a coat of arms. It seems that both the Duchess of Gloucester and the Duchess of Sussex were granted arms in their own right, but using an inescutcheon is simply a matter of choice. An inescutcheon is more traditional: this would explain why the Duchess of Gloucester has one because her arms were granted in the 70s when the College of Arms would have been slightly less open to innovations. It has nothing to do with siblings because they don't even come into it. Siblings would only be relevant if the coat of arms came from Meghan's father because then all of the siblings would have the right to use their father's arms. However, Meghan's father does not seem to have arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.29.101 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Siblings do matter, from my understanding. If the Duchess of Gloucester had brothers who could inherit her father's arms, then his coat would be impaled with the Duke of Gloucester's to form the Duchess's arms, as happened with the Duchess of Cambridge. But because the Duchess of Gloucester has no brothers, to avoid the situation where no one would "own" her father's arms, she is allowed to carry it with her, inescutcheon instead of impaled. Her son's arms then would include both hers and the Duke's, quartered, so that her father's arms are not "lost". I could be wrong on this, though. Powers T 21:47, 28 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]
According to tradition and legal fact, those who are princes or princesses with the style of Royal Highness are legally surnameless. 2607:FEA8:C2DF:FF33:40F5:CC68:81B0:9EA1 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Harry's service record has the name "Henry Wales", so clearly they do use surnames. Further, they are members of a family, so clearly they do have surnames. Philip's surname is "Mountbatten", so the tradition of a bride changing her name to her husband's the tradition being discussed here per the comment by ScottDavis, would use "Mountbatten". Also, Meghan isn't a Briton, so her legal name isn't British, it's still American, and she still has a surname, since the HRH title isn't her legal name in the United States. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Wales" is not a surname in the conventional sense but rather one of a number of cases of the Royals (and their officials) adapting names associated with some or all of the family for the modern demands of pro forma where something has to go in a box. Nor is "Mountbatten" Harry's surname - see Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Royal house for how this was blocked back in the 1950s. "Mountbatten-Windsor" is officially the name for the Queen & Philip's male line descendants who aren't titled but in practice both "Mountbatten-Windsor", "Windsor" and various names derived from titles such as "Wales", "York" and "Wessex" have all been used in the surname boxes on forms by various members of the family over the years. There are many people from many traditions and cultures that don't have names neatly packaged in the form PersonalName (OptionalMiddleName) FamilyName and this often causes problems with modern bureaucracy. Timrollpickering 16:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Royalty traditionally never have surnames.The Duke of Edinburgh adopted a surname on his legally unnecessary naturalization in 1947,which made him the first man with a surname ever to marry a British heiress to the Throne.Just as Prince George of Cambridge uses "George Cambridge" at school and his father and uncle used "Wales" in the military,there are occasions where they pretend to have surnames.As noted elsewhere,the laws in the United States generally respect marriage legally changing a surname automatically...in this case,deleting it.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on the royal tradition. And as I said before, the tradition we were discussing was that of a woman taking on her husband's surname. Surnames are clearly just for functionality of identification. (ie. Iceland uses patrynomic and matrynomic surnames, not familineal ones) Since the royals of Britain clearly do use functional surnames for function, then, they carry a myriad of surnames. And in any case, Meghan Markle is a person that holds American citizenship and does not hold British citizenship. So she retains her surname as she hasn't filed for a legal name change in the United States. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That royalty do not have surnames is pretty much worldwide.Treating dynastic names as surnames is more of a republican affectation.As I just said,and as noted elsewhere on this page,American law generally accepts automatic change of name on marriage.If she ever treats anything as her surname from now on it would probably be "Sussex",as in the case of Prince Edward's wife using "Sophie Wessex"(though Sophie will just about have to abandon that when he is eventually made Duke of Edinburgh as promised).12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:02, 25 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]
    • The "ban" everyone talks about in the US is limited to serving federal officials who need Congressional permission to accept. It is not a restriction on American citizens at large (such a proposed amendment has not passed). Timrollpickering 11:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly her legal name, as an American citizen (and not a British citizen), is Rachel Meghan Markle (which is incidentally also her WP:COMMONNAME, without the Rachel part). An American woman's name is not automatically changed when she marries, even if she marries in a foreign country. So for her legal name to change, she would explicitly have to do something to change it. And "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" would not be accepted as the legal name of an American citizen and she would never get it entered into the only passport she possesses. She might be able to change her name to Rachel Meghan Wales, given that her husband started using the Wikipedia founder's family name. Or if she so desired, she could certainly change it to his ancestral family name, which would be Glücksburg (the cadet branch to which he belongs) or Oldenburg (the main family). --Tataral (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted elsewhere,American laws generally DO accept a woman's name legally changing when she marries.She hasn't said she wanted Markle to stay.Her husband's branch of the Oldenburgs,if NOT royally titled,though he IS,are "Mountbatten-Windsor",a name that would apply to children of her sons.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Mountbatten-Windsor" is merely a tiny "branch" of the House of Glücksburg, but given its extremely short history and limited extent, the word "house" seems like an exaggeration in this case. Certainly it isn't an ancestral family name, considering that it's not the name of Harry's father (or at least, not "officially" regarded as such in the UK) and it isn't the name of his grandfather either, and Harry himself has used Wales. So he doesn't really have any ancestors who have called themselves "Mountbatten-Windsor", which is a newly constructed name anyway with no history at all prior to the 20th century. --Tataral (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the notion that the "surname" Wales is the same for both Jimmy and Harry is a misconception. And I don't think there has been any serious suggestion anywhere else that she might change her name to "Rachel Meghan Wales". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Among the royals, the pretend-surnames change with the person's circumstances and are not permanent. A Prince N of Wales is called such only while his father is Prince of Wales and he has no other title of his own. Prince William's children will go from N of Cambridge to N of Cornwall to N of Wales to "The Prince/ss N" even if they never get titles of their own (when he is King one would expect George to be Prince of Wales, Charlotte to be Princess Royal if Anne has died, and Louis to be Duke of York if Andrew has died).LE (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The increased longevity of the Royals suggests that Andrew may still be alive or too recently deceased when Louis receives a title. So it will have to be something else - risk Duke of Clarence, bring back Duke of Kendal or Duke of Ross or find somewhere new to base a title - Duke of Birmingham perhaps? Timrollpickering 19:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like Clarence for George as his being in direct line for Cambridge and Cornwall means he would not have to change his monogram whichever eventuality brought him.Of course it would merge in the Crown.Perhaps its old partner Avondale would work for his brother,if York stays out of reach.Duke of Ross sounds too much like the Earl of Rosse.But if the heptarchy are available a Marquess of Mercia would be pleasingly alliterative.12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alma mater

Like all other famous people with good education, there should be Alma mater stated. ex) Alma mater Northwestern University (B.A.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolina Uber (talk • contribs) 11:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alma mater is a largely American obsession. The term is hardly ever used elsewhere. This includes the UK. Let Meghan become British. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I see plenty of articles about all kinds of British and other Europeans that have "Alma mater" in their infoboxes. Why is this an "American obsession"? I think it's perfectly fair having it in this article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They have it in their infoboxes because it's in the templates for infoboxes, and that's because of the American obsession. We don't have different templates for Americans and non-Americans, sadly. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, in UK biographies in general, Alma mater is seen as a perfectly legitimate staple fact. I'm a bit astounded by your claim, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me at some such biographies? HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may be straying a bit here from Mrs Meghan Windsor and her article. Probably best raised at Template talk:Infobox person? I could be wrong, Perhaps you could give a source over there for your "obsession" claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Alma mater" (former school) is a British obsession, see all the Old X statements (and formerly category names before they got renamed for being inconsistent with everything) everywhere. that don't make sense to anyone except the people of that school and those that know it, because the "X" has little relation to the name of the school. Ofcourse, Alma Mater in this case is secondary school instead of university. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, of course, Old Etonians and Old St Cakeans etc., etc., ad nauseam. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with HiLo48. It's Latin, obviously, but it's not commonly used in the UK, and certainly not for anything lower than university-level education. I have never heard it used in the British media with reference to Meghan or any other celebrity. That doesn't, of course, mean that we shouldn't mention her education in the article. Deb (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's used for "celebrity" sports people in the USA because a lot of them get their sporting start through a college. That's not the case in the UK (and my country Australia). For those countries, the only people I see with alma maters outside Wikipedia are people whose place in society is dependent on high level tertiary qualifications. That's hardly the case for Meghan. Where she went to school is irrelevant to her fame. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the Americans also use the words "alumnus" and "alumna" a lot more than we do in the UK (though it's becoming more common). Deb (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frequently asked questions

There has been much discussion and information on the matter of titles and styles. I have looked into this and found some useful background information. I have decided to present it in the form of 'frequently asked questions' because they seem to be - well - frequently being raised. Much of this is derived from an article on the Sky News website with a few other sources.

Q: Will the Duchess of Sussex be known as 'Princess Meghan'?

A: No. Because she is not of royal blood, she is prohibited by letters patent from using her Christian name in connection with any royal title. Her titles are; 'Her Royal Highness, Princess Henry of Wales, Duchess of Sussex'; or 'Her Royal Highness, Princess Henry, Countess of Dumbarton'; or ' Her Royal Highness, Princess Henry, Baroness Kilkeel' as appropriate when attending any event with her husband. If she attends alone, then the titles respectively become; 'Her Royal Highness, Duchess of Sussex'; or 'Her Royal Highness, Countess of Dumbarton'; or 'Her Royal Highness, Baroness Kilkeel'. See Princess Michael of Kent for a practical usage.
There are *no* letters patent prohibiting it; it is merely convention and tradition which dictate the styling of princesses by marriage. She is not Princess Henry of Wales because the Duke of Sussex is no longer Prince Henry of Wales. 2607:FEA8:C2DF:FF33:40F5:CC68:81B0:9EA1 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Harry doesn't cease to be Prince Henry simply because he is created a Duke he retains those titles but they are subsumed under the Dukedom in use. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Is this likely to change?

A The Queen can always reverse centuries of tradition and issue a new patent. As to whether it is likely? Your guess is every bit as good as mine.

Q: What about Princess Diana, how did that fit in?

A: It didn't. Diana was subject to the same rules as everyone else and was not permitted to use her Christian name in connection with any royal title because she was not of royal blood. Thus she was; 'Her Royal Highness, Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall'; or similar composite for Charles's other titles; or 'Her Royal Highness, Princess of Wales' when accompanying her husband. On her own, the titles were truncated in a similar manner to Meghan's with the exception of the Princess of Wales one.

Q: But the newspapers frequently referred to 'Princess Diana' or even 'Princess Di.

A: They were quite wrong to do so and technically in breach of the patent. Though action in the courts was highly unlikely these days. But a couple of centuries ago, the newspaper editor would have been in big trouble.

Q: Would Harry and Meghan's children be princes and princesses?

A Because they will have royal blood, being direct great-grand children of the Queen, they would automatically be princes and princess, and any princesses will use their own Christian name. Prior to 2012, this was not the case and Charlotte would have been, 'Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor'. However, the Queen issued a new patent while Kate was pregnant to alter tradition that only the first born boy could be a prince.[1] It is likely that the change in legislation allowing daughters equal inheritance of a title to sons triggered this change.
Since the Duke of Sussex is the SECOND son of the Prince of Wales,his children are not covered by the 2012 patent and will have to wait for the death of the Queen to become HRH Princes/ses rather than Lords/Ladies unless the Queen specifically extends the HRH to them.Further,it is not particularly likely that the alteration of succession to the Throne triggered this change,as a similar extension took place in 1898 (when Queen Victoria extended HRH to the children of the future George V) and in 1948 George VI extended HRH to the children of the present Queen...the basic situation is that children who would inevitably become qualified for HRH as grandchildren are being granted it from birth.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On rechecking the source I used, it contradicts itself. It claims that Harry and Meghans's children "... would automatically become a prince or princess". However, the quote from the patent does specifically refer to the eldest son of the prince of Wales. The patent seems to be designed to ensure that if Kate and William's first born was girl, then she would be styled as a princess as the abandonment of male primogeniture would demand (the previous patent only applied to a first born son). I would agree that the 2012 patent, as written does not seem to overrule the existing rules where Harry and Meghan's children will not be princes or princesses. The principle that such children will not be princes and princesses is entirely logical as none of them are ever likely to become heir presumptive to the throne. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 2012 letters patent was primarily reflecting the fact the Queen's longevity means the limits of the main LP were being reached. (Although why the 1917 LP only covered the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and not all of the eldest son's children is a mystery. For that matter why they needed to be concerned about any grandchildren of the Prince of Wales at a time when the present one was a young bachelor. It's like the time Parliament debated the pension allocation for a widow of the Duke of Cornwall, when the Duke was a toddler.) It only adds to the previous ones for a specific category and seems in line with the practice of limiting changes and additions to a few at a time. It's quite possible that a further set will be issued for Meghan and Harry's children but only if & when a pregnancy is announced during the Queen's lifetime. Timrollpickering 12:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 2012 letters patent were enacted before the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 completed passage.The main issue was that children who expected succession would automatically bring into the category of qualification for HRH in the future be granted the HRH from birth,as in the previous cases I noted.The grandchildren of the Prince of Wales will all be grandchildren of the Sovereign when he becomes Sovereign.The 1898 rule was reinstated for William's children and we may see something similar if a Sussex child appears likely to be born in the present reign.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Up to the couple. They could take Edward's example or not as the Queen wishes.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Should this article be called 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex'?

A: Technically No. It is breach of the patent. However, these matters are rarely enforced these days, and I have little doubt that the media will refer to her as 'Princess Meghan'. That in itself should satisfy the requirements of WP:COMMONNAME and would certainly be consistent with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the media won't refer to her as "Princess Meghan" - after all, they have not called the Duchess of Cambridge "Princess Catherine". StAnselm (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.danburymint.com/prod/934/1639-0015/Princess-Meghan-Bride-Doll Get a load of this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/28/guide-to-britain-princess-meg-prince-harry-fiancee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd like to see evidence that the naming of a WP article would be a breach of the patent. I don't think it covers historical designations, where there is always a need to disambiguate. The Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy uses Katharine, Duchess of Kent, etc. StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fact that the Wikipedia servers are hosted in the US probably places the matter outside of the territorial applicability of English law. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The wording is, "All children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of royal highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour".

Meghan Markle effect

Is it too soon to start a Meghan Markle effect article, somewhat like the Kate Middleton effect article?

There are already comments in the media about her impacts to the fashion world, one of which is mentioned in Kate's article. And, there are mentions of her social and political impacts (charitable works, on becoming a person of black ancestry to join the royal family, social impacts, etc.)

Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, aka the "Duchess of Cambridge effect". Apparently all the rage amongst fasionable goats this season? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually more interested in social and political impacts, although there is probably more info about her impacts to fashion going back several months. Not so interested in website crashes, but it's funny.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Certificate

Any word on our subject's marriage certificate? This would give us a better idea of her intentions regarding her name. The Duchess of Cambridge, I understand, dropped the use of a surname with her marriage certificate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An American citizen cannot "drop the use of a surname" in a legal/formal context. She can call herself what she likes privately, but she won't get a passport without the use of a surname. --Tataral (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Various states of the USA do allow legal mononymy...entertainers such as Cher and Teller have been formally allowed to have only one legal name and I haven't heard they were banned from international travel as a result.12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Duchess of Cambridge is not an American.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Meghan Markle on the other hand is American. Not British. --Tataral (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one has suggested that our subject has dropped the use of a surname. I would ask that you re-read my entry. The marriage certificate will give us a better idea of our subject's intentions. That should be quite plain. We might, for instance, rule out the use of our subject's given 'first' name if that is what she desires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that the marriage certificate will not become publicly available - see this story about the Cambridges which states that almost none are. For some reason Charles and Camilla's certificate is available (image in this post here) and it's from the same district as Meghan and Harry's. Note that the certificate itself does not have an explicit section declaring what the bride or the groom's name will now be. But this doesn't stop a marriage certificate being accepted as a proof of a name change for one of the couple to the other's, or both to an obvious combined form, as the convention of such change is so strong as to not need such an explicit assertion.
There's been an awful lot of talk about "legal name" in these discussions but in the UK that concept doesn't really exist in law and from what I've seen the US is much the same in not requiring formal procedures to change a name on marriage, and nobody asserting "legal name not changed" has shown to the contrary that such a process is needed. Timrollpickering 12:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this information. For the most part, changing one's name in America is governed by individual States and the process can be quite simple. Some important documents issued by the Federal Government, however, such as one's passport, do require documentary proof for changes to one's name. I won't bore everyone with the details, but the process runs from easy to difficult depending on the reasons for the change in name. As an aside, it's said that the entertainer Cher is one of the very few Americans to have a passport issued with just one name. (Cher.) Presumably the passport is issued with Cher as the surname and 'NFN' (No first name) as a first name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note for anyone interested: Mononymous person says this: "The comedian and illusionist Teller, the silent half of the duo Penn & Teller, has legally changed his original polynym, Raymond Joseph Teller, to the mononym "Teller" and possesses a United States passport issued in that single name." (with two sources). Not sure about Prince or Madonna. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018

Titles and styles 4 August 1981- 19 May 2018- Ms Meghan Markle 19 May 2018- Present- HRH Meghan, Duchess of Sussex Margenius10 (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source for the 1981-2018 dates. DrKay (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I consider these "Styles" sections to be horrible. It's as if someone on Wikipedia is trying to emulate the etiquette books of the 1950s or before ("How to address an earl, an archdeacon, a member of parliament, ...") They should be got rid of, or if not then an explanation linked from every page describing what the section is trying to do (as with standard links in infoboxes etc). Of course Ms Markle had at least three "styles" before she married the prince, but this is the 21st century and no-one talks like that any more. Sussexonian (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if a person doesn't like the etiquette books from the 1950s, then they would also that much more intensely dislike titles like duchess and princess. Titles like these, after all, grew out of the mists of antiquity, like the 800s and the 600s, and no one talks the way they did anymore. (Unless they know how to speak Carolingian-era Franconian.) Wouldn't it make sense to do away with titles altogether, in our own modern times? (The Urban Dictionary might contain some useful substitutes.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yseult-Ivain (talk • contribs) 05:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Yseult-Ivain (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arms

Is there any reason why we don't have the full arms pictured, with supporters, etc.? It looks strange when compared to the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge article. StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at 11:30, 27 May 2018 above (in the #Coat of arms section), it's just because no-one has drawn it for us yet. There is a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. DrKay (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: This question is being discussed at AN, and at MRV. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle – The founder of wikipedia violated the guidelines by going against the community consensus to not move the page at the time he took action. This page should be reverted back to what it originally was. Is the Queen allowed to go out and kill people because she is immune from prosecution? No, she most certainly isn't. The founder of wikipedia is therefore not exempt from the wikipedia rules and must be held responsible for his actions. Any other outcome would send the message that the founder may do anything he wishes despite what the community says and without consequence.

Additionally, you see in the news that she is still referred to as Meghan Markle! Not as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. I would say Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names wins out here. FigfiresSend me a message! 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tax Implications

Nothing content related here. If there are more sources concretely talking (not speculating) about the tax situation, we can start discussing, but a lot of this just appears/veering towards speculation about BLPs doing shady things, which is a big no. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As an American, the Duchess (and, most likely, the Duke) is obligated to file an annual tax return declaring her (their) worldwide income to the US IRS. If the total of her (their) non-US bank or other accounts reaches $10,000 on ANY one given day of the year, as expected, FATCA obligates her (them) to file an annual FBAR disclosing all her (their) foreign assets. Even when she renounces her US citizenship, as expected, the IRS imposes a 10 year sunset clause, I believe... So:

1. Under what section does her Tax Situation go? I'd go with Personal Life.

2. There will be interest from Wikipedia readers in her tax situation. So, it would help if tax experts weigh in with reliable sources.

3. I will leave one reliable source for easy reference: How Will Meghan Markle's Finances Change Now That She Has Married Harry?

Explorium (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least one series of US-UK tax treaties exists; to read them might answer some of these questions. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/international-businesses/united-kingdom-uk-tax-treaty-documents.
Because the British royal family would prefer that their financial dealings remain as private as possible, it's not inconceivable that some time ago, administrators of the British royal family financial affairs contacted the Foreign Office, who contacted the U.S State Dept., who contacted the White House, who contacted the IRS, and told the IRS that any U.S. purported tax liability of Meghan Markle, residing abroad, should be referred to the U.S. State Department. A private treaty may have been arranged between the two governments . . . i.e., (I'm making up an example from whole cloth): in exchange for some fantastic deals for the U.S. military purchase of aircraft parts and equipment from British Aerospace, and certain British overseas military assets making themselves accessible to the U.S. military, the U.S. tax boys are hereby ordered to stand down and cool their jets regarding Meghan.) And we'll never know of such agreements, because they'll be arranged privately with confidentiality clauses. Yseult-Ivain (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... yeah, that's actually totally inconceivable. There's no such thing as a "private treaty." Treaties have to be ratified by the Senate. Senate votes are all recorded and published (aside from the fact they're known by 100 loose-lipped senators, their 4,000 looser-lipped staff, viewed by 200 journalists in the press gallery, and nationally broadcast by CSPAN to its 14 viewers). Also, since the US military doesn't currently purchase anything at all from British Aerospace, it would definitely raise some eyebrows if it started. That's a fun plot for a romance novel or a matinee film, but not relevant to a non-fiction encyclopedia article. DocumentError (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They’re not always that transparent...but, yeah, that does seem an unlikely proposition. DeCausa (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to eliminate bookkeeping inconveniences for the marriage of two C-list celebrities versus trying to bankroll an armed rebellion to overthrow a government are two unrelated things. No man, woman, child, or dog in the EEOB is going to risk going to jail so that Harry and Meghan can live a fairytale romance free from accountants. DocumentError (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let the reader be advised: The following is not presented as content for the article, but strictly added to the talk page, and strictly to help shape and to suggest a direction, if any, for any future discussion around the inclusion of factual information, if any.
In reply to DocumentError's helpful concerns (above): Then, not a treaty. Another arrangement. Necessarily private, and therefore unknowable to the general public. Many private things, things unknowable to the public do happen in government. Based on past experience, however, present and future private arrangements may be surmised. My contribution, such as it is, is conceptual, not concrete. And so any examples, such as the examples I gave - admittedly implausible - were included to help illustrate what I consider a valid overall concept, which should be fairly easily grasped by people familiar with government and international affairs. I propose simply that these sorts of things can be arranged, and fairly quietly. (Again, I'm trying to illustrate an overall concept; and won't be called upon to propose, illustrate, or suggest in what ways they might be arranged, since such examples seem to cause problems for some readers, who aren't grasping the overall concept.)
And in reply to Galobtrotter's concerns: as long as all legal requirements are met, there would be nothing considered "shady," unethical, or illegal about arranging these things quietly. It's simply that some people wouldn't like it, or wouldn't understand. (As we have seen during this very discussion.) Again, I won't give examples of how such things might be arranged. Instead, anyone can read the applicable CFR sections for themselves. (And I won't point to any specific regs.) And I don't believe public transparency would necessarily be a legal requirement here. Again, all of this is presented as an overall concept, not as a fact, and not as a "how to."Yseult-Ivain (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


At least one series of US-UK tax treaties US-UK tax treaties exists that would apply to US citizens living abroad. Yseult-Ivain (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Well as it have now been moved back should it be moved to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex?Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The MRV will decide what the title will be; let's just wait for that to conclude. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, this article will be moved to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex again, just like Prince Harry will be moved to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex again. The increasing number of sources for both, will see to that. GoodDay (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seemed to be a significant minority proposing the article title should be Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex. That should also pass through the naming conventions for royalty and have a much wider impact. Personally, I have no appetite to get involved in changing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Royals with a substantive title but could see the argument. --Scott Davis Talk 12:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a bureaucracy mess..... common sense should be a rule of the Five Pillars. All this bitching and complaining for something that all agree is true just not common yet. Wow. --Moxy (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course both articles should, and will, be moved to the "correct" titles which was already done once. It seem that at some level of bureaucracy it was considered that the moves were "done wrong". Scott Davis I have not seen that suggestion, to add "The" in the title. I agree if it gains support it will involve a change to the current conventions for "royalty and nobility" but in the meantime we wait for the move to some title that recognizes the fact they are now the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (no relation). Sussexonian (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Including "The " is mentioned a few times above in the points that say the current WP:NCROY convention names articles about married and divorced people the same. --Scott Davis Talk 14:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The move back to Meghan Markle, when billions of people didn't have a clue who or what a Meghan Markle was before she became the Dutchess of Sussex, is a total waste of time. I predict that the article will return to Meghan, Dutchess of Sussex. This has become a farce. It totally defeats basic common sense... It clearly is a venomous and nasty assault on the Founder who took the right action at the right moment (with justification). It's nothing more than a ganging up frenzy by the same stale, liberal, basement-dwelling, spoiled, untouchable, instigating and bureaucratic long-term admins and their cheerleaders, who have a lot of time on their hands and no jobs, who have hijacked Wikipedia, who have outlived their useful lives on Wikipedia long ago and who are still hindering donations and progress on Wikipedia. They now want the Founder impeached just because he made them cry. This is insane. The system is rigged to ALWAYS exclude Admins who don't "fit their mold". This is how the admin swamp maintains tyrannical control over Wikipedia. Such Swamp needs to be drained, and new admins placed to rejuvenate Wikipedia and bring a higher level of excellence, competence and congeniality. Explorium (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of incendiary, untoward accusations in the post above. Whatever the MRV decides, it will be the result of an open and transparent process involving anyone in the community who wishes to comment. That's as it should be. And to suggest the actress was not already well-known as Meghan Markle is simply untrue. While not as famous as Grace Kelly, she was a star of a popular network series for years, among other high-profile work. She was not unknown, like Diana, Princess of Wales, prior to become a royal.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How famous she was as an actress is a red herring. The question is, per WP:COMMONAME, how do the sources refer to her currently? As, for example, the BBC on 25 May and The Times on 27 May The Daily Express on 28 May etc ad finitum it appears, for the time being to be Meghan Markle. I doubt that they do this because of her prior reputation as an actress. But it doesn’t matter why, the fact is that is what they are doing and Wikipedia’s policy is to follow that. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is so ridiculous and such a mess. If we are going to have the article at Meghan Markle, we should move Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge to Kate Middleton; Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall to Camilla Parker Bowles and Diana, Princess of Wales to Princess Diana. Plenty of sources refer to Meghan as the Duchess of Sussex. CookieMonster755✉ 22:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None refer to her as “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” that I can find. Most primarily refer to her as MM. Whether the others should be moved depends on an analysis of the RS usage, case-by-case. Maybe some should be moved. Don’t see a problem with that. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Diana is different in that she actually was titled "Diana, Princess of Wales" before she died, as a divorcee (just as Sarah, Duchess of York is correctly titled). However Catherine, Camilla, and many other's articles are wrong. If anything they should be "Catherine, The Duchess of Cambridge" to be more correct. Or just use the maiden name. Either way, we should make whatever consensus there is consistent across all articles. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do have Anne, Duchess of York at Anne Hyde, Queen Alexandra at Alexandra of Denmark, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent at Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark, etc. Why is that not a ridiculous mess? Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, but we also have Charlene, Princess of Monaco (not Charlene Wittstock), Caroline, Princess of Hanover (not Princess Caroline of Monaco), Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece (not Marie-Chantal Miller), Gloria, Princess of Thurn and Taxis (not Countess Gloria von Schönburg-Glauchau), Princess Michael of Kent (not Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz), Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark (not Tatiana Blatnik), Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark (not Mary Donaldson), Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland (not Sofia Hellqvist), Sophie, Countess of Wessex (not Sophie Rhys-Jones), Princess Angela of Liechtenstein (not Angela Brown) , Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco (not Salma Bennani), Queen Noor of Jordan (not Lisa Najeeb Halaby), Queen Rania of Jordan (not Rania Al-Yassin), Princess Claire of Luxembourg (not Claire Lademacher), Princess Salwa Aga Khan (not Kendra Spears), Marie, Princess of Liechtenstein (not Countess Kinsky of Wchinitz and Tettau), Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein (not Duchess Sophie in Bavaria, Princess of Bavaria), Princess Sibilla of Luxembourg (not Sibilla Weiller y Torlonia), Princess Olga, Duchess of Apulia (not Princess Olga Isabelle of Greece), Julia, Princess of Battenberg (not Countess Julia von Hauke), Princess Anastasia of Greece and Denmark (not May Stewart), etc. So what do we do? How do we reach a consensus? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should apply WP:COMMONNAME just as we do for any other aricle. For example, there is no RS support for using either Marie Christine von Reibnitz over Princess Michael of Kent or Lisa Najeeb Halaby over Queen Noor of Jordan (although I notice there is a case to be made for Noor Al Hussein over Queen Noor of Jordan). The point is we don’t haveto have the same formula on all these names. We shouldn’t use “consistency” as an argument to override COMMONNAME in these cases. DeCausa (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Move There seems to be widespread disagreement among reliable sources as to whether she is correctly known as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" [25] or "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" [26] or "Rachel, Duchess of Sussex" [27] or "Rachel, The Duchess of Sussex" [28]. We shouldn't be changing this article back and forth to various different names until it's clear what her actual name is; in the meantime it should stay parked here. (The word "The" indicates the current wife of the duke, in the same way Diana went from "The Princess of Wales" to "Princess of Wales" following her divorce, so moving this to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" - aside from being conflicted by RS - would also indicate she's already gotten a divorce. I haven't seen today's tabloids, but I assume they'll stay married for at least a couple years before moving on.) DocumentError (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move as William is married to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please close this new discussion, which seems to be transforming into a new (but unofficial) requested move until the move review of the previous requested move is closed? Celia Homeford (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS CRAZINESS! This article is not going to be named Meghan, Duchess of Sussex then Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge needs to be renamed "Kate Middleton" oh and while we're at it Elizabeth II needs to be renamed "Elizabeth Windsor" REDICULOUS! Eric Cable  !  Talk  13:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality/ethnicity categories

I have a few questions: should we add [[Category:British people of ### descent]] and/or [[Category:English people of ### descent]], because she is a British citizen? Also, should "African-American" categories be in the mix? (e.g. [[Category:African American actresses]]) I know Markle explicitly identifies as a biracial person of African-American ancestry; does anyone know if she considers herself "black" or "African-American" as well? Thanks, – Julia (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is she a British citizen? Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, and sources cited there, she has started the process to become a British citizen, but it will not be complete for several years. Do you have any sources theist say otherwise, Julia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was misinformed, and shouldn't have asked. Sorry to waste your time.
Anyways, what about the second part of my question? In this Elle piece, which is cited in the article, she doesn't really embrace or shun either identity, but rather identifies more with being biracial. However, many people who, like Meghan, are half African-American and perhaps don't "look" black (as she talks about in the article) are almost always categorized as "African-American" on here (e.g. Kris Humphries, Jennifer Beals, Halsey (singer), Jessica Szohr, Rashida Jones, Maya Rudolph, etc.), whether or not their personal racial identity is mentioned in the article. The recognition of her as African-American or not is important, I think. – Julia (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And all these articles are poorly categorised, because none of them have a reliable source about the person's ethnicity - only that of their parents. But having a black ancestor doesn't necessarily make you black and having a white ancestor doesn't necessarily make you white. StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nor should we be imposing American racial perspectives on someone on their way to becoming British. "African-American-British" is an ugly construct. And most British people are unlikely to describe her as African-American HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding category "African American actresses". DocumentError (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "African American" anything. Has she ever claimed to be African or African American? She has only claimed to be American, of bi-racial heritage, neither black nor white. There is a time at which we stop identifying with the place of origin of our migrant ancestors and only identify with where they came to. --Scott Davis Talk 06:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And remember she is becoming British. The Brits don't generally play the XXXXX-American game. That's pretty much purely an American thing, needed because of the country's (mostly past) racism towards blacks in particular. She will not become "African-American-British". HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex&oldid=843487699"