Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

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

Princess Henry? ~ GB fan 01:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Harry's first name is actually Henry. Harry is a nickname. --173.129.63.209 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
No, see WP:COMMONNAME. MB298 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I was merely stating a real-world fact in answer to someone else's question, not advocating that Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex be moved to Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. --184.207.116.64 (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
So you are saying that Meghan Markle is now Princess Henry? I didn't realize that a wife took the husband's first name when they married. ~ GB fan 01:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The Duke of Sussex actually has the first name "Henry." We know him best as "Harry," but it is not one of his given names. (And let's not confuse names with titles and styles.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a000:bfc0:21:1432:4cb9:846a:c1b8 (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2018‎ (UTC)
I understand that is Henry's first name but why would Meghan's name now be Princess Henry? ~ GB fan 01:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The Duchess of Sussex has the first name as given to her, or modified by a legal change. I understand that she has used the name "Meghan" for nearly all of her life. (I imagine "Harry" calls her Meghan.) Her name is different than her title, however. As she is not a princess of the blood, the Duchess cannot be known as Princess Meghan but could be known as Princess Henry, I suppose. Lady Diana, as an example, was given the courtesy title "Princess of Wales," but never formally addressed as Princess Diana. (The courtesy title came as she was married to the presumptive heir to the throne.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop claiming that "Princess Henry" could ever by correct while ignoring all requests to explain why you might think that. In the meantime, do you mind if I call you "Princess 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8"? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/09/duchess-of-cambridge-kate-middleton-name-title Guy, you might enjoy reading this article. It explains the same issues in terms of the Duchess of Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
If Vanity fair claims that there is someone named "Princess William of Wales", then Vanity Fair is an idiot. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
See also, Princess Michael of Kent and VicarsCat second post below, same custom as Mrs. John Smith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Quite right. There is no such person as 'Prince William of Wales' for there to be a Princess to - at least not yet. The confusion may arise because both Prince William and Prince Harry were identified as 'William Wales' and 'Harry Wales' respectively on their service uniforms (please don't ask me why). TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the general principle is entirely correct. In Britain when a man takes a wife, the wife formally takes her husband's name. So when (say) Miss Jane Brown marries Mr Richard White, her formal name becomes 'Mrs Richard White'. The couple are formally addressed (on letters etc.) and introduced (at royal garden parties etc.) as 'Mr and Mrs Richard White'. The wife on her own would be introduced as 'Mrs Richard White' but in modern times, letters would rarely be addressed to 'Mrs Richard White, though in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, it would have been quite unacceptable to address a letter to 'Mrs Jane White' unless you knew her closely. However: Informally she will still be known as '(Mrs) Jane White' (including on her passport) or more usually just 'Jane' to close acquaintances. If Mrs Richard White becomes a widow, she formally reverts to her original name and formally becomes 'Mrs Jane White'. Informally, nothing changes.
I know that the same principle applies in many other countries. For example, Russia does much the same thing with the exception that when the wife is referred to alone she uses a feminised version of her husband's surname (Russian has no equivalent of 'Mr' and 'Mrs'). Thus the President of Russia and his wife are together formally referred to as Vladimir Putin and Putinya. In isolation her formal name is Vladimir Putinya (the feminine surname in both cases specifically identifies that we are talking about the wife (and taking the place of the non existent 'Mrs' in Russian)). If her husband pre-deceases her she formally reverts to Lyudmila Putinya.
On marriage to HRH Prince Henry, Meghan Markle would formally follow the convention and became 'Her Royal Highness Princess Henry, and the pair together would be formally introduced and addressed as 'Their Royal Highnesses, Prince and Princess Henry' (or 'Their Royal Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex' or most likely the full monty of 'Their Royal Highnesses, Prince and Princess Henry, Duke and Duchess of Sussex', depending on the circumstances). In practice in the 21st century, she will seldom, if ever, be referred to as 'Her Royal Highness, Princess Henry' in isolation and WP:COMMONNAME suggests that we do not do so either. TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. NeilN talk to me 03:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Princess of United kingdom

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

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

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

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

Title and name

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

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

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

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

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

Name versus Title and Style

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

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

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

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

"The question of titles and styles, then, can really only be answered by Her Majesty." There is an entire catalog of letters patent going back for quite a long time, even before Her Majesty was born, with which scholars of protocol in the U.K. are very familiar, and from which with authority we can derive the correct forms of styles, qualifications, and titles of any kind in the U.K. And writings by very reliable U.K. experts in protocol may be found online on Encyclopedia Brittanica and on DeBrett's Peerages.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, but I am speaking here of our subject alone. This was decided by Her Majesty, just as she decided other matters, such as the use of the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
You're right, of course, that H.M. decides such matters, and, indeed, as the Fountain of Honour, she is able to make and unmake all the provisions of all previous letters patent. There is no disputing that. However, and I don't mean to be a stickler: I would agree that such matters can only be *decided* by Her Majesty, but not that such matters can only be *answered* by Her Majesty. For, are there not experts in U.K. protocol who can *answer* for us any questions about whatever Her Majesty has *decided* on the topic of names, titles, styles, and qualifications?Yseult-Ivain (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we are agreement. As an aside, and as you seem knowledgeable, Do you think it's true that "Harry" is not recognized as a duke while in Scotland or Northern Ireland? Perhaps he is known to be a duke, but is he addressed there as is an earl (laird?) and baron, respectively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind compliment. I wish I knew more about Scottish royal protocol. I think you're right about the way it works, and I think it's done simply as a courtesy to the Scottish people - a recognition by the British Royal Family that Scotland has its own history and its own forms of address, and that as such, it's proper for any British citizen who bears a Scottish title to use the Scottish one, in preference to any other, when visiting Scotland.
I don't know whether you're old enough to recall the very great reception that HRH the Prince Charles received at the time of his investiture as Prince of Wales (1969). There was not a little resentment among Welsh nationalists surrounding the event, and when Charles addressed the crowd, speaking a few lines of the Welsh language (which belongs to a completely different family of languages to our own, and so is known for being difficult for English-speakers) his efforts were greeted with much enthusiasm, and were characterized by news reports at the time as mollifying some of the anti-English sentiments. And, again, when his new bride, on her first visit to that country as its Princess, also ventured to say a few words in Welsh, many were delighted.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I do remember, though not vividly. I'm aware also that then-Princess Elizabeth was invited to become a bard in a ceremony at Mountain Ash. Wales in 1946. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Look at all those funny tree-dwelling Welsh folk scurrying around: [1]. Norman Hartnell it ain't, dear. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duchess of Sussex

Hi, should the infobox and article make reference to her new royal title of Duchess of Sussex as per [2]? Wagnerp16 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


queeeeeen §e§ no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7491:4B00:4541:D26E:472B:4799 (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Identifies Bi-Racial She is NOT African American

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

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

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

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

RfC announcement Now closed

I have initiated an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Request for Comment: Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) override WP:COMMONNAME in all cases? It obviously arises from the issues being discussed here. Safiel (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Note RfC now snow closed by nominator. Safiel (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

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

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

Why is Meghan still in her name?

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

Sources now say her first name is "Rachel" so if anything it should be "Rachel, Duchess of Sussex" [3]. There is no Meghan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:F15F:D980:8971:23A0 (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Your source is the Mirror and predates the marriage. The fact that her first name at birth was Rachel is not new information. It's been in our article when her being the "model who held case #24 on the US version of the television game show Deal or No Deal" and Amy Jessup in Fringe were apparently seen at least as notable as her being in Suits [4] for 1 and a bit seasons and all these were apparently the most notable things about her from a wikipedia standpoint. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Where is the source that says her name is "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex?" Just provide a source. I've not seen anything that puts all four of those words as a name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:F15F:D980:8971:23A0 (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
There's one here today, if you search hard enough in one of the captions! Not sure if this has come from an official source or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Many people don't know that Rachel is the first name of the Duchess; she is known universally as Meghan. Certainly the name Rachel belongs in the text of the article, but to include it in the title would be superfluous and a distraction. Just as the title of the article on Queen Victoria does not include her first name. (Alexandrina Victoria chose to use only her middle name, and by that name she was known to her people, and to history.)
It has been proposed that the title of the article be: "The Duchess of Sussex, née Meghan Markle," which is a form of married women's names that has been around for a very long time, but has recently fallen into disuse. Some have suggested reviving it.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Although Queen Victoria never appeared as "Alexandrina" in Suits, did she?? She did, nevertheless, find suitable TV immortality. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

I would like the title to be changed from 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" to "Rachel, Duchess of Sussex" or "Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Jamesplimmy (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to use common names for article titles. These are not commonly-used names. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
"Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is an unused name. "Meghan Markle" was the common name. How did we get to an unsourced, unused name? This is idiocy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:91F9:5350:7D03:285E (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It's only Wikipedia. So it's well-thought-out idiocy, implemented by an American fun-loving website co-founder, that's been argued over for days, with comparisons to Hitler and Donald Trump thrown in, that may well change. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Introduction style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Option 2 or Option 3 for the sake of consistency. Keivan.fTalk 23:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 2. The semicolons punctuating Option 3 look wrong and why use "née" when "born" means the same thing? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 6 Well, I bolded the name in Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, dunno whether it'll get reverted or not, not sure how conforming it with one article is "consistency" when say Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall uses option 1 format - in fact I do believe most articles the birth name is bolded, as being a significant alternative name bolded, and in this case it'd ease recognizability. In 6 maybe unbold Rachel Meghan Markle. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 6 I like both, though I'm leaning towards 6, as it mentions her being known as Meghan Markle, which is probably how most people know her.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    There isn't an option 6. Option 5 contains a misspelling. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 6: Assuming the title remains 'Duchess of', The arguments for the others just seem to be trying to hide Meghan Markle, which is bizarre for readers and information providers, who are forever going to be seeing "Meghan Markle", somewhere in the 1000s upon 1000s of reliable sources that say it (including, it should be noted in parts and in future archived parts of the royal website, itself, and including at present like 100 times in the source titles on this page). Or we could begin the second paragraph "Meghan Markle was born and raised in Los Angeles, California". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker: There is indeed a disturbing tendency of users trying to obscure Meghan Markle's most common name and indeed anything connected to it, including her career,[5] her signature, and her personal life before her marriage.[6][7][8] Several users on this talk page have suggested that Meghan Markle and the Duchess of Suffolk are not the same person (example). She has already been defined in the lead paragraph as a wife and as a daughter-in-law, with her husband's name preceding any mention of her career and the names of her parents-in-law preceding the names of her own parents (who are now argued to be notable themselves, thanks to her marriage).[9][10] The treatment the subject of this article is getting on the account of her gender is worrying. Surtsicna (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, someone also tried changing the short description to "wife of Prince Harry" or something like that, which is just.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Probably for some, but for others it seems to be tied to their strong desire for the title, so they have to make it seem like Meghan (Markle) is a woman of no account -- to both groups, we have to say, no, regardless of the article's title, we cannot distort history and do that with or to her biography. This is not the biography of someone who from late teens on was the friend/girlfriend of the future king, or the biography of someone who for decades from youth was romantically connected to the future king (even through their marriages to others). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Let me also support, whoever changed it to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981) is an American former actress and a member of the British royal family.", per the bolding-of-redirect policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or Option 2 best fits with the advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Changed names, which was the result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2018 archive#"Maiden names" to "Surname changes". DrKay (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per WP:COMMONNAME. This isn't a personal letter addressed to her, but an encyclopedia article. The other options would be fine for a tourist pamphlet produced by HM Stationary Office, however, within the confines of a WP article the preferences and conventions of the College of Arms wither in the face of Wikipedia policy. Further, to say "née Markle" is unsupported by RS. We don't have a reliable source that indicates the name "Meghan Markle" has been extinguished the world over, only that a new name has been adopted in the realms of the House of Windsor. If Meghan Markle had petitioned the California Department of Motor Vehicles or the U.S. Passport Office to have her documents changed, I feel like this would be the subject of wide reporting, but can't find any evidence that is the case. This seems to be the case of different jurisdictions recognizing a woman under different names. Chetsford (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 4 because it corresponds to the chronological order of her biography. --Nattes à chat (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Anything but option 4 as there is no reason to imply that she retains her maiden surname after marriage or that her formal title is just an alias.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Our subject is not a princess.

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

  • According to British princess, Since George V's Letters Patent of 30 November 1917, the title "Princess" and the use of the style "Royal Highness" has generally been restricted to the following persons: the legitimate daughters of a British sovereign, the legitimate male line granddaughters of a British sovereign, [and] the wife of a British prince.Bolding added. Citations omitted, bulleted list converted to prose for easier quoting.. The article says that its subject was awarded the style of "Royal Highness" officially. That equates to "Princess" as I understand it. Can you cite sources that say otherwise, IP Editor? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your question. I see I was not clear. Our subject will not be addressed as princess. I hate to reference popular media, but I think this will do: https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a13029009/meghan-markle-royal-title/. Again, thank you for getting me to clarify the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Adding to the confusion---I suppose---our subject might be addressed as HRH Princess Henry of Wales, but I don't think this would be done now that "Prince Harry" has been made a duke.
  • She is technically a princess. Her formal title is "Her Royal Highness Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    • To emphasize---and my apologies if I have confused matters---our subject would never be addressed as Princess Meghan. Whether or not our subject is a princess isn't really my point. (I personally don't think that issue is all that clear, but it doesn't concern me.) I can imagine circumstances in which our subject could become Princess Meghan, but the idea of it is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Please stop claiming that "Princess Henry" could ever by correct while ignoring all requests to explain why you might think that. In the meantime, do you mind if I call you "Princess 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8"? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Guy, to whom are you speaking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
To the person who wrote the words "our subject might be addressed as HRH Princess Henry of Wales". I believe that would be you. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The IP is theoretically right per royal convention - see this BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42150762. But in practice wives of British princes are rarely called per this formula (mainly because it’s hopelessly archaic) except, for some reason Princess Michael of Kent, who always goes by it. DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Most British princes have a peerage and that style is used instead, with the result that their wives are "HRH The [Peeress] of [Somewhere]". However Prince Michael of Kent doesn't have a peerage (there seems to have been a conscious decision to cut back on peerages for Royal cousins and grooms in recent decades but he's now the only married prince without one) and so his wife's style is what it is. Timrollpickering 10:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
No, the peerage makes no difference. See citations 94 and 95 in our article on Sarah, Duchess of York - she was theoretically “Princess Andrew, Duchess of York” on marriage. In the BBC article you’ll also see reference to “Princess William”. DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary 95 is pretty clear that the possibility of the style "HRH The Princess Andrew" being used was swept aside by the announcement of the peerage before the ceremony and she instead became "HRH The Duchess of York". (94 is not freely accessible online but it's Fergie's own book.) Most of the speculation on "Princess [Husband'sFirstName]" invariably comes before the wedding because the peerage hasn't yet been announced. Timrollpickering 11:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the grant of a ducal title "sweeps aside" the possibility of a "Princess [husband's first name]" style,only that it buries it in the deepest layers of formality in terms of when it would be used,on par with the rare occasions when a non-royal duke is dubbed "most high,noble,and potent prince" in addition to "His Grace".12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Changing the title of the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it lazy journalism that Yusuf Islam is still referred to as Cat Stevens? Possibly but I do not think it would be incorrect to keep the article about Meghan Markle at Meghan Markle, while noting the name change in the body of the article, until (and unless) the new title becomes the most common way to refer to the (former) actress. Surtsicna (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I guess the case about royal figures is a little bit different than others. Obviously Diana and Catherine are both commonly known as Princess Diana and Kate Middleton (occasionally Princess Kate) in the press. Does it mean that we should have those incorrect forms as the titles of our articles? I'm not saying that we should immediately move Markle's page to the new title, and I'm open to discuss the possibilities, yet I believe it would be better to include the appropriate royal title in the title of the article as that's going to be her profession for the rest of her life. Keivan.fTalk 03:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
But isn't the case of Meghan Markle quite a bit different than those of Diana and Catherine? She was, by Wikipedia standards, a notable individual for a decade before she met her prince. She had a flourishing career as Meghan Markle. Furthermore, "Princess Diana" and "Kate Middleton" were never correct forms; Middleton never used the name Kate herself. On the other hand, referring to Meghan Markle as Meghan Markle will be as correct as referring to Queen Mary as Mary of Teck or to Grace, Princess of Monaco, as Grace Kelly (hint: another actress turned princess). Surtsicna (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't usually care about this stuff, but yes, I think there's a good case for keeping this article under the name she has always been known by. Grace Kelly is a salutary example. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I second that. The Grace Kelly naming precedent seems to be the correct way to go. -- fdewaele, 12 May 2018, 22:04 CET.
Yes, it has legally never been right to refer to Catherine as Kate Middleton, but that was her common name for a decade during which she was dating William, and I guess that was the title of her article before becoming the Duchess of Cambridge. On the other hand, Grace was always known as a prominent American actress and had won an Academy Award for one of her roles. I'm not trying to say that Markle is not as prominent as Kelly, but the fact is that Kelly's career as an actress overshadowed her life as a royal figure. We just have to wait and see what Markle's case is going to be. Keivan.fTalk 22:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@82.26.137.48: If journalism, lazy or not, uses one or more names or titles for the subject then those can be mentioned in the lead or body of this article. This talk page section is about if and when the article itself should be moved from Meghan Markle to something else. For example:
Two points - she never married the king - he'd abdicated by then, and also her title was purely honorary and she was expressly prohibited from styling herself 'Royal Highness'!DickyP (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
That's just a short sample. Many commoners have married royalty[11], [12], [13] with some still being known by the name they used prior to their marriage, others taking on their spouses name, and still others becoming known per WP:COMMONNAME by their titles.
I support Surtsicna's suggestion that we use a proper move discussion though oppose "preemptively opposing" any name changes as Ms. Markle and her husband could soon start working actively towards establishing a new WP:COMMONNAME for her. Wikipedia should not take the lead in recognizing the new name but if reliable media starts using it then we can cite those articles to support moving the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Note This is neither here nor there and means nothing, but I strongly remember that while we were in the midst of a move discussion regarding Kate Middleton, Jimbo Wales himself swept in and moved the article to its current location. Again, this is neither here nor there, it holds no precedent, binds us to nothing, just an interesting anecdote on what occurred the last time around. Safiel (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Jimbo Wales actions regarding Kate Middleton notwithstanding, I believe that WP:COMMONNAME dictates that the article remain at Meghan Markle unless and until a majority of reliable sources refer to her otherwise, for example, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. So I would oppose any immediate move of the article. Safiel (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Does WP:BLP "We must get the article right" not trump WP:COMMONNAME? Her name is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (or potentially Rachel, Duchess of Sussex), not Meghan Markle. Will Bradshaw (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I see that Jimbo swept in, like the Kate Middleton article before, and unilaterally moved this article. Regardless of Jimbo's actions, any requested move discussion would have likely produced the same basic results as the one now currently underway, with the same people making the same comments as whether this article should be "Meghan Markle" or "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • The page should be named Meghan Markle until she or news media says otherwise. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The webpage of the British Royal Family styles the lady as "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex." As for the use of British titles by Americans visiting the United States, has anyone come across instances of the Duchess of Windsor (née Wallis Warfield) being referred to in the U.S. Press - or anywhere else - as "Mrs. Windsor"?Yseult-Ivain (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

How 'bout a compromise - - -

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

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

I agree that the title as it is (Meghan, Duchess of Sussex) is incorrect. Debrett is clear that this form of title (forename plus title) indicates a woman divorced from a duke https://www.debretts.com/expertise/rites-of-passage/divorce/forms-of-address/. I would suggest that 'Meghan Markle, HRH the Duchess of Sussex' would be possible purely for the name of the article - to make it clear who is the subject of the article, though in fact they are two alternatives used together. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is wrong. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
But you can't have a predicate of honor and deference in the title (like HRH). You could have The, I guess, but not HRH. After all, noone seriously considers to have an article His Eminence the Most Reverend Lord, Monsignor Timothy M. Cardinal Dolan. In fact, Cardinal Dolan does not even have a "Cardinal", which he should have imo, but that's another story.
As far as the last name is concerned, the usual manner to call her in "commoner style" would be Meghan Sussex or Mrs Henry Sussex, using the titles as they are always used for such occasions (and as the nobility themselves does when encountering higher nobility). (Even though the Duke of Cambridge broke that precedent when he continued to use William Wales, rather than the correct William Cambridge, as his military name.) The actual personal family name, of course, is Mountbatten-Windsor (though the name of the family as a family remains simply Windsor), but it is only only used when no titles are applicable.--2001:A61:260C:C01:6C68:A220:44F0:D424 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

In any case "American former actress" is better than the current "former American actress", which puts primary stress on her nationality change that is disputed rather than her ceasing her former profession which is clear.LE (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Meg

Why not Meg! [14]. Good enough for Harry.  :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What about Meghar ? .... the N in her name is just a typo :) –Davey2010Talk 19:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
"Unilateral page movers will be lucky too!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. 'Meg' is what she prefers to be called [15]. Also per the 'fun' precedent set by Jimbo Wales in the previous move. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex/Archive_4&oldid=849179555"