Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 10

Profession
Hey, happy holidays! I wanted to quickly discuss the inclusion of her acting as an active profession in the lead-in. From what I know, she states that she retires from acting in 2017 [https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-final-suits-appearance/#:~:text=As%20she%20prepares%20for%20her,season%207%20finale%20of%20Suits. here]. The infobox also stated she concluded that career in 2017. In terms of Elephant, I don't know if it could really be considered acting, as documentary narration is typically non-fictional voiceover, in the line of, off the top of my head, David Attenborough, a non-actor, but it all depends on perspective.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Very soon, 2017 will be four years ago. A lot has changed for Meghan Markle, especially since she stepped down from being a working member of the British royal family, and more undoubtedly will change. Taking a snapshot or doing a static analysis of the past, based on the stated intention of someone thirty-something prior to marriage, does not override the fact that her double major at university included theater and her usual occupation / profession is that of an actor. Consider if she was say an accountant, engineer or chef. They are all specialised fields. With respect to the infobox dates, her television acting (Suits) ended in 2017, but that is not the only form of acting. You mention David Attenborough (aged 94). Meghan is currently 39. She only married into the royal family two years ago, but has since moved back to Los Angeles. A better example could be Grace Kelly, Princess consort of Monaco. Have a look at how she is described. As for voice acting, it is the art of performing voice-overs to represent a character or provide information to an audience. Performers are called voice actors /actresses, voice artists or voice talent. The operative word is 'actor'. Sampajanna (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * . Nope, 2017 is not four years ago. Today it is only two years ago, and tomorrow it turns three years ago. Happy New Year. Moriori (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know what time zone you are in, but 2020 minus 2017 normally equals 3. To simplify it further, 20 less 17 = 3. Therefore, 2021 minus 2017 would be 4. My comment above "Very soon, 2017 will be four years ago." was not misunderstood by Happy editing.


 * . Ahem. I bought a new car in September and clearly it will be a year old next September. Next week I will be able to say I bought it last year, but but I won't be able to say it is a year ago since I bought it. OK, the last day of 2017 was New Years Eve 2017 so a year didn't pass until New Years Eve 2018. Similarly, it didn't become two years ago until two years passed, and that was on New Years Eve 2019. Today, 30 December where I live, it is still one day short of being three years since 2017. Tomorrow, New Years Eve, it will actually be exactly three years, 1095 days, since 2017.  Moriori (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. It sounds like you've been through a lot with that possession. Stay safe Sampajanna (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly - four years ago, wow. Secondly, I think Grace Kelly's styling and profession on her article has more to do with the way deceased consorts are generally referred to as, but I see your point. I don't think was ever explicitly referred to as a voice-actor during the production of Elephant, but given the amount of media speculation since Megxit regarding the couple's venture into acting fields as well as their recent deals, I won't press too hard on this one. I might suggest in the future it could be changed to something like "she works in the entertainment industry and celebrity philanthropy" but again, it depends on how their anticipated production plans pan out.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For your general interest, this site outlines some common types of acting jobs. Included is Voiceover Artist. "Voiceover artists use their voice acting skills to portray a character or provide information to an audience. The job of a voiceover artist requires people to use their voices across a number of audio works, including for cartoons, video games, commercials and much more." With respect to Elephant (2020), please view these three sources.  Sampajanna (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Grace Kelly says 'was'. She is not currently an actress. And, yes they were both actresses. Wikipedia should employ the idiom that is commonly used in society. It is not our purpose to force societal change by imposing idiomatic novelty. The words 'by profession'; are unnecessary verbiage. DrKay (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input as an administrator. Noting that you have not edited the lead yet, which idiom do you think is most appropriate in this particular case? Sampajanna (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Mutiple members of the royal family have narrated. That doesn't make them all voice actors. If no sources describe Markle as a voice actor, then it shouldn't go in the article. DrKay (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sampajanna changed the word “voice actor” to “narrator”, which I think is more appropriate. Although, if you still oppose its inclusion we can remove it and add a footnote instead. Also, you mentioned other members of the family narrating documentaries or series, but have they made money out of it, or was it just for some charity or organization? Because it appears that Meghan is actually making money out of it. Keivan.f  Talk 18:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Small note: Elephant was done in exchange for a charity donation, I believe, though I don't know if it was released which sum or organisation was provided to.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. I changed Keivan.f's "voice actor" to "narrator" to be consistent with the filmography and also to remove the "original research' tag by DrKay. I don't recall who originally put "actor" in the infobox. However, Keivan.f seems to be making various changes, even to his own edits, so perhaps it may reduce confusion and potential conflict if we just step back until the dust settles. Sampajanna (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. It really helped a lot. And yes, I have to make changes, even to my own edits, when everyone just chimes in to randomly revert the edits made by others. And it seems that a consensus has already been reached regarding what the infobox and the lead sentence should look like, at least for now. I also checked her UN Women speech, and noticed that she was introduced there as an 'actress' so that doesn't need to change either.  Keivan.f  Talk 22:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Small suggestion - if, as previously stated by, "by profession" isn't a commonly used descriptor, perhaps the statement could be neutralized to "She as worked as an actress and celebrity philanthropist" or "She is a celebrity philanthropist who has worked as an actress", etc. I've tried to synthesize information from the biggest concerns within the discussion so far best as I can, so forgive me if I'm stepping on the wrong foot. If the issue is no longer at hand, then feel free disregard the idea for the sake of the page's stability. --Bettydaisies (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with what you said. The phrase "by profession" is not commonly used. Another user also attempted to remove it and add "retired actress" instead, but I'm glad you reverted it, because "a retired actress and a celebrity philanthropist" makes it sound like as if she has also retired from doing charity work, which is not true. The alternative phrases that you suggested could be used, as well as "She is a celebrity philanthropist and a former actress." Keivan.f  Talk 01:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As few words as possible could be best. Also, whatever goes in the lead should perhaps also be replicated in the infobox as 'occupation' Sampajanna (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with both statements. Personally, I vote for either "She has worked as an actress and celebrity philanthropist." or "She is a celebrity philanthropist and former actress." Both imply the same thing, acknowledge her work, and appear to be the same length and I've recently edited both occupations into the infobox. Again, I think both of these variations are fine, but I'm willing to provide a more solid third opinion if needed. Is there consensus or dispute for either of these statements?--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Bettydaisies reverted i) "former actress and a celebrity philanthropist" to ii) "actress by profession and a celebrity philanthropist" while this matter is under discussion. Keivan.f suggests iii) "a celebrity philanthropist and a former actress." What is the difference between the first and third descriptions ? Sampajanna (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I already explained that. If you put 'former' before the professions, it will make it appear as if she is a "former actress" and a "former philanthropist", whereas if you move "former actress" to the end of the sentence, it will be less confusing to the readers. Keivan.f  Talk 02:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A comma could resolve that. For example, 'a former actress, and a philanthropist'. Sampajanna (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If admins and  are available for comment, their input would be welcome. I see that Bettydaisies has already changed the infobox occupation to include 'celebrity philanthropist' (Is that an occupation?) My meaning (above) was if Markle is referred to as a 'former actress' in the lead, then the same description go in the infobox as 'occupation'.Sampajanna (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Consider this - “Philanthropy is not a profession, and it should not become one. We should be rigorous. We should learn from our work. We should help our partners and be helped by them. But a wisdom-focused approach may produce better results than a science-based one.”


 * User talk:Mloveless1999 is editing the lead while we talk. I have just undone his/her change and invited to this page and discussion. Sampajanna (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed that philanthropy has been included as a profession in the infobox used on the page Sarah, Duchess of York. Whatever the outcome of this discussion is, I think it may affect similar pages as well. Keivan.f  Talk 03:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that philanthropy should come from selfless contribution and community work instead of profession, I didn't know that the "occupation" section held the same merit as listing a career. For instance, actress Elizabeth Taylor's occupation is listed as humanitarian for her notable and invaluable contributions contributions to the field, but I do realize these two figures and situations have significant differences. I also agree with the above that the consensus established on this page may affect other public figures, specifically within the royal sphere.--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus
I see no particular reason to call her a celebrity philanthropist at all. Promoting charities is part of being a member of the royal family and she wasn't known for her philanthropy before joining the family. I'd say she's an 'actress and member of the British royal family', or 'member of the British royal family and [former] actress'. I have no particular view on the use of the word 'former', as it seems right to me either way. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting DrKay : I agree completely. Drop philanthropy. There is a separate page, Archewell, for Meghan and Harry's charitable foundation. On Markle's individual page, the following suffices 'actress and member of the British royal family' or vice versa, bearing in mind that they moved abroad to distance themselves from 'The Firm' (RF). Sampajanna (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If everyone agrees on removing "celebrity philanthropist", then we should perhaps change the lead sentence as well as the infobox. I will then apply these changes to the article on the Duchess of York as well. Keivan.f  Talk 22:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Charlesjsharp is a Master Editor with over 14 years experience. He recently changed the lead from "She is an actress by profession and a celebrity philanthropist" to "She is an actress by profession" Bettydaisies undid it, probably because consensus is still pending. Focusing purely on "celebrity philanthropist", as mentioned above by Keivan.f, it would seem that Charlesjsharp is also in favour of removing "celebrity philanthropist". Please note that he also changed "Celebrity philanthropy" to "Philanthropy" as a section heading. This may also require consideration. In short, it appears that Charlesjsharp, DrKay, Keivan.f and Sampajanna agree with the removal of "celebrity philanthropist" from the Meghan Markle page. As a matter of courtesy, is Bettydaisies okay with this proposal? Sampajanna (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay? Sampajanna (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, apologies for the late response. Of course, I'm willing to comply with editor consensus. Happy New Year!--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * We have consensus to remove "celebrity philanthropist" and "by profession". So, when ready, please edit accordingly. Sampajanna (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

-

Celebrity philanthropy remains in the body of the article (below). Any comments? Sampajanna (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-royal philanthropy, perhaps? Keivan.f  Talk 00:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is an awkward scenario because she actually did the work (on the quiet) while still a senior royal, but it was released a few days after the Megxit date. Of course, credited as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. No problem dropping 'celebrity'from section heading. However, is it really philanthropy? As DrKay mentions (above), "Promoting charities is part of being a member of the royal family". The section (below) may need rewording. Sampajanna (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're right. On a second thought it's not necessarily philanthropy. It can easily be moved to the section "Post-royal work". We can then retitle that section, if necessary. Keivan.f  Talk 00:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok. Please do. Sampajanna (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * So I removed a section that was titled "Celebrity philanthropy" from her husband's article as well, but I left the info in the charity section. I was thinking that maybe the material that I moved to "Post-royal work" in Meghan's article should be moved to the charity section as well, as there's no need to necessarily break it up to pre and post-Megxit. Keivan.f  Talk 02:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * All sorted now. Sampajanna (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

-


 * I don’t mean to intrude but in my opinion, I think it’s important to distinguish the couple’s work as working royals vs their independent endeavors, as the nature of their career is different and comes from different avenues of funding, conception, region, etc. (while philanthropy is their job as rf members, a good chunk of their work 2020 onwards is based in the continental United States, which can’t be constituted as royal in a republic.) This can also be done by creating a section separate from “public life” focusing on their post departure career (although this is a bit bold) or simply by labeling each time period by foundation. But I do think on this page sectioning her Suits-era charity work with their 2020 charity work is a bit confusing to the average reader.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Not quite, they are still involved with charities in the UK. He's not giving-up Invictus, for example, and in fact they are not giving up any of their patronages. (See eg, )  Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * They definitely retain their patronages and other partnerships (holding patronage of a charity isn't an inherently royal act), but their status as members of the royal family doesn't mean that whatever work they do is automatically royal, which fundamentally differentiates their activities pre and post-Megxit. Like Sampajanna said, commercial endeavors and charitable interests done on behalf of Archewell and the couple themselves can't be constituted as "royal", not only because of statements released by Buckingham Palace about the independence of their post-royal work, but again, because they reside and work in a country outside of the RF's jurisdiction.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Automatically what? At any rate, don't see the reason you go on and on about where they live -- going into and around the the UK has been severely disrupted over the past year, for all people. Most of the people in the royal family don't participate in the firm, even in the UK. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * My point is that their work pre and post-Megxit should be differentiated as they are different in nature. One sector is on behalf of the British royal family, and another is on the behalf of the couple is individuals and buisnesspeople/etc. They have a permanent base in California, as stated by their own team; the difference is that most RF members who don't participate in the institution itself don't take on business and charity work of this size and manner, especially outside the UK. The charity work performed by say, Princess Eugenie, could potentially be seen as part of her greater duty to the RF in the scheme of things, but due to a number of factors, including their area of work and statements from the Palace, the Sussexs' current endeavors hold separate and different measures of gravitas. --Bettydaisies (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Differentiated? Like most things in a life, differentiation comes with natural chronology. Also, it's hardly unheard of for people to live and work in more than one country. As for your ideas of "gravitas", that is rather irrelevant. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course it's not unheard of, but again, according to reporting by notable sources over the past year, they're not working and living in more than one country. Despite any hypothetical trips to the UK, they have permanent base in California, where they, according to their team, intend to raise their family, and have ceased undertaking royal engagements and activities on behalf of the Queen. Their royal work is not bi-country. Again, sectioning should differentiate the natural chronology that came with their work with the royal family up until their work as independent individuals.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, not quite. According to them and the Queen, they have plans to live and work in more than one country and they have a homes in more them one country and they have continued work in the UK (in this day and age, you don't have to be in a country to have work there).  It's as if you imagine, he has plans to renounce his country.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * They are still members of the royal family, according to the Quene's statements - It's not about "renouncing" anything - it's about their work. They have moved and have a permanent base in the US and closed their BP office. They ceased duties on behalf of the Queen and the paperwork for Archewell was filed in the US and is based in Beverly Hills. There have been no announcements of any types of work or activities happening in any country but the United States. Again, this doesn't negate their status as royals when this was clearly spelled out in post-Megxit statements by the Queen, but this proposed sectioning refers to their work and its seperate nature.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Again wrong. They have multiple organizational positions in the UK. And come now, you link to a Vogue article that talks about buying a home in California, which is in no way contrary to living and working in more than one country, indeed nothing you linked precludes living and working in more than one country.  -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * They retain positions within the Queen's Commonwealth Trust (a charity they founded) and retain their private patronages (for which there has been little to no reporting of since March). The QCT's website states that it is entirely separate from the RF, and private patronage is, once again, not inherently royal. Their post-2020 home and work is definitively based in the United States with the sources I listed above. Their charitable interests are already separated by foundation. I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. If you read the Vogue article, it includes statements from their team, and Vogue is just one of the notable and reliable sources reporting on their post-Megxit career. I can link a dozen articles that reliably report that their work and home is now based in the United States. Megxit's own article states that the couple will spend "a majority of their time in the United States" and that all paperwork and subsequent activities have been based in California. --Bettydaisies (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * None of that is contrary to plans to live and work in more than one country. The "majority" you now argue, even were that true, that means not always.  And as many who have done work in more than one country knows, you don't have to physically be in the country to do the work. Your fixations on where a "base" is irrelevant, it precludes nothing about working and moving between countries (unlike a pandemic which certainly precludes movement)  --   Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Where they live and work is important to the article. By all intents and purposes, they live and work in the US. The "majority" was based on official Megxit-era statements, while the US-based activities since then reflect legitimate and notable sources. As you say, you don't have to live in the UK to work in the UK - that has not happened since March, in any capacity, and there are no indications that it might happen. Again, I'm curious to see what you're arguing for in the article.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Wrong, they do video meets since March. As for the article, I've already told you the chronology handles it, and not your odd fixations about "base" and muddled ideas about "royal", which is matter of his birth and her marriage and neither of those have changed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * QCT doesn’t do any work within the United Kingdom. I’m discussing their royal work, as in their work as royals, which almost certainly doesn’t constitute Archewell and partnerships with UCLA, Clevr Blends, whatever else.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust (QCT) website states:

Disclaimer: The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust (QCT) is an independent organisation. It offers a free and open forum where young people can share insights, expertise, advice and inspiration, and come together to discuss issues that matter to them. The content and discussions shared by QCT reflect these perspectives. While QCT may from time to time be supported in its work by members of the Royal Family, views expressed on the QCT website do not represent views of the Royal Family or the Royal Household.Sampajanna (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what you are proposing- and you've been more than clear. Alanscottwalker appears to be acting in bad faith- mainly by ignoring salient facts in your responses, but also by twisting facts to try to make them appear that they're your opinions, and attempting to dismiss your very valid points with his rude and unacademic responses. Don't be discouraged. If you look at his Talk page, Alanscottwalker seems to have quite a history of this behavior, can anything be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:400:c580:b5a9:cd56:5233:e973 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Who posted the above unsigned comment? Sampajanna (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added a signature. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sampajanna (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

-

Celebrity philanthropy (continued)


 * Meghan has certainly gone through some various phases since User:MattBinYYC wrote on 30 October 2006 Meghan Markle is a model, most famous for her role as a briefcase model on Deal or No Deal. What exactly is she most famous for 14-15 years later, Moriori ? The current lead states that she is an American member of the British royal family and a former actress. Her and her husband stepped down as senior royals nine months ago and, as Bettydaisies infers, they now live in a non-Commonwealth country. Hollywood, Netflix, etc., are different realms of reality to Buckingham Palace. I agree with Bettydaisies that it’s important to distinguish the couple’s work as working royals vs their independent endeavors as individuals. What they do as a couple post-royal should tend to fall more under the Archewell banner, if such is of a charitable / benevolent nature. Sampajanna (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's true that they are living in a non-Commonwealth country, but they are still associated with the royal family in everything that they do and certainly are not the first royals to leave the country in which their family members are ruling as monarchs. A perfect example would be Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, who is a Swedish princess but has lived in the US and the UK. I think any general charity work that they do can go under the "Charity work" section. Anything that is associated with Archewell can go under the Archewell section or the associated article. Keivan.f  Talk 20:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keivan.f Fine. This matter now appears to be resolved. Sampajanna (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

-


 * The matter appears to be resolved. If there is anything else you want to add, please do so here in talk, not in the edit comments for the main article. Especially after being referred to talk more than once. For example, "Thanks for granting me the right to make assumptions and changes to an article to which I have contributed for years. I really appreciate it, my liege!!" (Keivan.f) .... Sampajanna (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should give the same piece of advice to you, who regularly leave messages in your edit summaries, some of which sounded somehow provoking, although I am not fully innocent either with that regard. And, as the problem has been resolved, the discussion is now officially over I guess. Keivan.f  Talk 23:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:OWNERSHIP No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia), "my liege!!"(Keivan.f) .... Sampajanna (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You never fail me to amaze me with your lectures! FYI, no one can order other users and tell them what to do + I never suggested that I own the page. Don't twist my words. Keivan.f  Talk 00:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You don't happen to be in lockdown for COVID-19, do you? The following Wikipedia Poilcy WP:OWN is what you are complaining about ....

All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.

Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.


 * I'm not complaining about anything. You are the one who keeps twisting my words for his own benefit. And apparently, you're the one in lockdown, or perhaps with a lot of time on his hands, because as far as I can see all you have been doing is dictating others about what they should do, yet disobeying what you have been preaching for. But let me make something clear. I'm absolutely tired and sick of this conversation as it's going in directions that it should not be going to. And just stop assuming that I'm not familiar with the policies. I have been here for a decade, long enough to know most of the stuff. Keivan.f  Talk 01:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What have you done with your last two edits? This matter has been under subtle non-urgent discussion for a few days over Christmas. Now, DrKay has placed an original research tag (above) on the article at 09:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC).
 * To add context to narrative, please at least scan through all of this 'Profession' talk section . Incidentally, you may care to also refer to the reference list below. Sampajanna (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * He needs consensus for adding any tags or labels, and adding or removing one word doesn’t put the whole integrity of the article under question. Also, as DrKay mentioned above, the word “by profession” is pretty useless. Angelina Jolie is also an actress by profession. So was Grace Kelly; yet we don’t need extra words and phrases to describe a simple thing like this. The sentence just sounds awkward. Keivan.f  Talk 17:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Sampajanna and happy holidays. I noticed that with these two edits you tried to gender neutralize the word actress, by using the word actor instead, which is sometimes used to refer to female actors as well. I just wanted to mention that individuals such as Whoopi Goldberg and Helen Mirren have specifically asked to be called actors, rather than actresses. Is it the same with Meghan though? How does she refer to herself in her interviews when talking about her career? If she hasn't referred to herself as an "actor", then I suppose it's fine to use the term "actress" as well. Keivan.f  Talk 07:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The comment above is almost identical to the style of Otherwise, the onus is upon you to conduct your own research if you are trying to put forward a convincing argument. Sampajanna (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For your information. That’s not how it works. The word actress had been there since years ago, and no one opposed its inclusion. Two users have already questioned your edits and since it’s you who changed it, you’re the one who should provide a reliable source to back up your claim and show that the term is preferred by Meghan, just as it was done by other users for some other actresses. Otherwise it will be reverted back to how it was. Keivan.f  Talk 17:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The two users you allude to are DrKay, who placed the 'original research' tag after you decided that Meghan Markle should be categorised as a 'voice actor' (male) in the infobox, and Bettydaisies, who did not have any problem with the description as it was in the lead (prior to you changing that to the feminine 'actress'). Just because an editor contributes to a talk, that does not mean any decisive vote has been count. But, hey. I sorted and removed the 'original research' tag by changing your voice 'actor' (male) description to 'narrator'. Feel free to change that to 'female-narrator' if you must. Please just try to be consistent and avoid original research. Sampajanna (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I added voice 'actor', because it had to be consistent with your unnecessary change of words from 'actress' to 'actor', for which you obviously neither sought consensus or provided a source. Not to mention that she hasn't been active as an actress (or actor, whatever the word is) since 2017. As Bettydaisies mentioned above, she also did the narrating job for charity, thus my assumption that it was for money was wrong. Likewise, your initial change of '2002-2017' to '2002-' was unnecessary. '2020-present' has to be removed, because she is not a working actor or narrator 'by profession'. Keivan.f  Talk 21:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is your prerogative to make as many assumptions as you like. Sampajanna (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2021

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. Since the relist a week ago, there has been far more opposition and support for the proposal. The consensus is by no means unanimous but both sides have provided sources and rationales for each. Nevertheless, there now exists a rough consensus that the current title is her common name in reliable sources and that the current title is consistent with others. Going by the number and frequency of previous requested move discussions, I doubt a permanent solution with unanimous community support can be reached, however, I would recommend that a hypothetical re-nominator wait to see how Megxit pans out, although this is totally advisory. (closed by non-admin page mover)   SITH   (talk)   15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle – Her WP:COMMONNAME is "Meghan Markle" based on reliable sources:Vanity Fair, People, ELLE, Newsweek , Vogue, CNN, Forbes, CNBC, NBC News, TIME, Variety, Travel + Leisure, Marie Claire, NPR, The Daily Beast. Ngrams show a favorability for her birth name. Her legal name on her passport is "Rachel Meghan Markle" because she is a U.S. citizen not a British national and the United States does not recognize titles of nobility. Showiecz (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting.  SITH   (talk)   17:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , This is a WP:BLP you must provide reliable sources for claims you make about a living person. Do you have any reliable sources for the claims about what this living person's passport says or any reliable source on present legal name, if not, these claims need to be removed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as she is recognized by the Royal Family's official website as The Duchess of Sussex. Not to mention this styling is standard for other women who have married in to the royal family. Princess Michael of Kent is Austrian (a country that abolished noble titles) but is still a titled member of the family. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support clear WP:COMMONNAME. See NGRAMS result, for instance (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME and NAMECHANGES. Duchess of Sussex is COMMON, and in the encyclopedic register, and consistent with other articles, like the redirected article of Kate Middleton, and the least problematic, and thus preferred by policy, see, BBC, LA TIMES, NBC News, New York Times, Britannica. (Even the articles cited in the move request also commonly refer to her as duchess of Sussex, and at least one refers to another duchess as Kate Middleton).  COMMONNAME recognizes that there maybe more than one COMMONNAME which happens often with name change.  It's least problematic in that it is in the encyclopedic register and the name she goes by since her marriage, see reliable sources listed in Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and also, . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Meghan prefers to not publicly be part of the British royal family. She is not a British citizen, and does not live in the United Kingdom. A change to the name that she is most commonly known as (Meghan Markle) could minimise any public confusion or perception as to who she prefers to be as a living breathing human being and her role in the world at large. Sampajanna (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence whatsoever that her father's last name, has anything to do with who she prefers to be, and it's directly contrary to her own present use, as a living breathing person, see her author evidence, linked above, both inside and outside the United Kingdom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There are appears to be a (?) missing in your rhetoric. Sampajanna (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , Do you have any reliable source whatsoever, calling her by her father's last name has anything to do with "who she prefers to be"? Are you just claiming something about a living person for which there is no reliable source?  Isn't your unsourced "living breathing human being and her role in the world at large" claim contradicted by her, when she does not presently call herself Markle, yet instead refers to herself as duchess of Sussex? Is she not a living woman who should be called with reference to how she calls herself? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please try to express yourself in simple terms. One question at a time. This is not a court of law. If it was, the admissibility of leading questions and the way such are framed could be thrown into doubt. Asking for a one word yes/no direct answer, then talking round in circles (with multiple tangential follow-up questions) to where the same could be equally asked of your original enquiry is by no means conciliatory or productive. This is, after all, a talk page discussion, not an interlocutory appeal. Incidentally, your user page seems to suggest that you may be a Wikipedia administrator. Is this correct? Sampajanna (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , there is nothing on 's user page that suggests that this user is an administrator. There's a link to the administrator's noticeboard embedded within the template, but that does not in any way indicate that the user is an administrator--it's just part of the noticeboard directory template. In any case, Alanscottwalker's user page is not relevant to this discussion. Please stick the conversation at hand. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting on behalf of Alanscottwalker. Sampajanna (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your query is not on the topic but the answer your last question to me is, 'no', one word but to expand, your assumption was not true as Aoi points out. Back to topic, you seemed to want question marks, I gave you question marks. I am not limiting you to yes or no, and please feel free to answer them one at a time or combine them and I'm open for discussion. This is a WP:BLP, please provide a reliable sources for your claim with respect to her name and "who she prefers to be as a living breathing human being"? Apparently, you claim to personally know what this living person prefers -- that needs reliable sources. I have provided reliable sources from her public authored articles as a living human being that she goes by duchess of Sussex, inside and outside Britain, and does not use Markle (her father's last name) -- not since her marriage. So, please go beyond yes or no, and discuss and with reliable sources. --  Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Normally when a question is asked without a question mark, such as you did originally (see quote below), it is rhetorical and does not require a response because it is a statement. "Do you have any evidence whatsoever that her father's last name, has anything to do with who she prefers to be, and it's directly contrary to her own present use, as a living breathing person, see her author evidence, linked above, both inside and outside the United Kingdom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)" .... It is not rocket science that you are possibly expressing an opinion and not really prompting for an answer, however much you may believe to the contrary. "Do you have any evidence whatsoever that her father's last name, has anything to do with who she prefers to be". Mention of her father is not necessary in this case. There does not seem to be any record of her using her mother's maiden or current surname. Based on those circumstances, there is a high probability that Meghan used Markle as a surname (ignoring her brief first marriage) publicly for most of the time up until marrying Prince Harry (at age 36) in 2018, not quite three years ago. At age 38 in January 2020, Megxit occurred. One year later, there is no indication that Meghan wants to return to the British royal family. But, hey. The twelve month review is due next month in March 2021. Anything could happen then or beforehand, and this entire discussion could become totally redundant. Sampajanna (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , Changes in how to refer to a person occur in life and are generally respected by common decency. You don't have to call it father's name, but a woman can still change what she got from her father. With Megxit, she is still part of the British Royal family as this Wikipedia article explicitly says right up front, and has not indicated she does not want to remain a part of the family under Megxit. What she has indicated all during and after Megxit, she still refers to herself -- never as Markle -- but as duchess of Sussex as that is what she has publicly published since Megxit, not Markle. So, why are you claiming her preference is contrary to how she presently refers to herself, do you have a reliable source on her name preference for Markle or not?  If not, it's wrong for you to personally construe her preference and argue it here as hers. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You brought up the father (see following quote)."Do you have any evidence whatsoever that her father's last name, has anything to do with who she prefers to be ... Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)" .... To reiterate, the twelve month Megxit review is due next month in March 2021. Anything could happen then or beforehand, and this entire discussion could become totally redundant. The Wikipedia bot notice / instructions at the top of this talk states "Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil." You may care to click here and read beyond the first sentence. Sampajanna (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , Why are you repeatedly talking about the future, which is nowhere in article title policy (WP:AT)? Your quibble about calling it father's name, doesn't change my points or my questions, nor where the name came from. I know WP:AT well, the current title of this article Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has been found previously to accord with policy, all of it from the first sentence and beyond. Moreover, WP:BLP is referred to in article title policy and this is a BLP, and a BLP talk page, so your claims about what this living person prefers with respect to naming her need reliable sources, and nothing in WP:AT relieves you from that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmmm."Why are you repeatedly talking about the future ... Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)" ... Please scroll up to Wikipedia bot message "A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within half an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions)." Sampajanna (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Disappointing, you were talking about something off-Wikipedia in March 2021, not seven days, and respond with a blatant non-sequitur.  Unless, you are going to comply with WP:BLP policy and provide the reliable source for what you claim is a living person's preference of name, there is no point in furthering this discussion.  Please be aware that when you are dealing with the lives of real people on Wikipedia, significant care, and circumspection, is required and part of that care is not speculating about living people, and always providing reliable sources.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Now that you have got all that off your chest, try re-reading my initial post very carefully and literally, especially this part: "... A change to the name that she is most commonly known as (Meghan Markle) could minimise any public confusion or perception as to who she prefers to be as a living breathing human being and her role in the world at large." (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC). Note " ... could minimise any public confusion or perception as to ...". 'Public' refers to the general public. Sampajanna (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC).


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. This is clearly her most common name used in reliable sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above; Kate Middleton is probably not most often referred to as "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge", but it's her official name as a member of the royal family.  Nevermore27  (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Reliable sources continue to use Markle far more than Duchess. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 00:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose mainly per WP:NAMECHANGES. When filtered for results dated within the last year, a search for Duchess of Sussex on Bing brings up about 348,000 results compared to about 110,000 for Meghan Markle. While the "Bing" test is definitely not authoritative, there is a huge difference between the two numbers and if nothing else it casts doubt on the statement that "Meghan Markle" is the current COMMONNAME. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NAMECHANGES. While Meghan Merkle is the current COMMONNAME, it refers to her official name as "Duchess of Sussex" per official website. If it moves to "Meghan Merkle", we can move Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge to Kate Middleton as the latter is current WP:COMMONNAME per Showiecz argument. 182.1.230.155 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I disagree that this is relevant to Kate Middleton as she is quite likely to become a consort, and it makes encyclopedic and historic sense to keep with consistency for her titles. IMHO, the more relevant discussion would be if Prince Harry’s name should be changed, as he is invariably more known, as a quick google search for recent articles allows. A note - her name on legal documents is “HRH The Duchess of Sussex” according to unconfirmed recent reports by The Daily Telegraph. Her current projects are listed as “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex”, consistent with recent Spotify crediting. Previous arbitrations have stated that Meghan could return to her maiden crediting as she used throughout her acting career after resuming her creative career, this is not the case - in terms of legal/professional names, she retains her style.Bettydaisies (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you 'Oppose' or 'Support' the change under discussion? Sampajanna (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m deliberating; there’s obviously weight to the fact that people will always refer to her as Meghan Markle, including major reliable news sources - the recognizability of that won’t go away. But her current professional work (articles, appearances, etc.) list her clearly as Duchess of Sussex, and her notability does stem from being a part of the royal family. The only other royal listed by her maiden name was Wallis Simpson, and I gather because history books generally refer to her that way - we don’t have any such history books that apply to this right now. Regardless, both her common name, and her career name, have weight in this situation. It’s tricky.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Sampajanna (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose She has become better known as Duchess of Sussex than for her former acting career. Her citizenship and place of residence are not decisive. Also, this is a hardy perennial, it's only 11 months since the last move request, let's give this one a rest. PatGallacher (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Nothing has changed since the last RM. She is now better known as the Duchess of Sussex. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, per this ngram. 5440orSleep (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. I have just tried a quick Google search. The results were Meghan Markle = 164 million, Duchess of Sussex = 26.2 million and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex = 12.7 million. Sampajanna (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Google has not supported the hit count feature for some time. It is a legacy feature that becomes less meaningful as time goes on. The company recommends using Ngram or Trends instead. In general, the hit counts that Google gives are wildly exaggerated. But the question here is whether the hit counts of two searches done with the same IP and at about same time can be compared. I haven't seen any data on this point. See WP:GOOGLETEST and "Why Google Can’t Count Results Properly." 5440orSleep (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. She is far better known as a Duchess than an actress. Dimadick (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Though her acting credits, mainly her role in Suits is what plunged her into the limelight at first, that hasn't been the case for almost three years now. Since her marriage her position as The Duchess of Sussex, a member of the British royal family and all the drama surrounding it, right from her supposed rift with the Duchess of Cambridge, then her pregnancy and finally Megxit are what have been the constant topics of discussion. Not to mention even post Megxit she still is a member of the British royal family and is still styled as HRH The Duchess of Sussex as of December 2020. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is what she's known as officially so let's just stick to it. TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME and NAMECHANGES. I don't really understand why we have to go over this discussion again and again (at least once every single year!!), when it is apparent that her common name at this point is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Her titles are recognized in Britain and by the royal family, just like her husband's, and as a person she has chosen to use "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" as her name in the articles that she publishes on newspapers such as The New York Times and that's how she's credited in her recent voice acting jobs. I think it's better if we respect people's decisions as well in regards to what their names should be! A very recent example would be that of Elliot Page who was formerly known as Ellen Page. Keivan.f  Talk 18:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support  - she is quite often referred to as "Meghan Markle" on the BBC news. Rollo August (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely true to be honest. All of the news related to her are archived under the name "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" on the BBC website and in the majority of their articles she is either referred to as Meghan or the Duchess. (see Meghan, Duchess of Sussex on BBC and Profile: Duchess of Sussex). Keivan.f  Talk 22:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Camilla Parker-Bowles, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Kate Middleton, and especially Sarah Ferguson (who, like Meghan, is or has been the consort of a prince not directly in line to inherit the throne). She is far better known as the Duchess of Sussex. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also Diana Spencer, Sophie Rhys-Jones, Alice Montagu Douglas Scott, Katharine Worsley, and Birgitte van Deurs. Keivan.f  Talk 01:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And also Marie Christine von Reibnitz and Paola Doimi de Lupis. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But not Wallis Simpson. Showiecz (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, because her case was exceptional. Married to a former ‘king’, never considered a princess nor an HRH. None of those apply to Meghan. Keivan.f  Talk 20:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support (again) – her full name is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. The other examples have no bearing on this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) A person does not necessarily have one ‘common’ name. 2) Most news websites refer to her as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and she is professionally working under that name, a clear example of WP:NAMECHANGES (Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, wins privacy claim against newspaper over letter to her father - CNN, The Losses We Share by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex for The New York Times). 3) Other examples can have bearing on this case per WP:TITLECON. Keivan.f  Talk 17:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: there isn't enough consensus to close either way. The previous RMs demonstrate this is clearly a flashpoint but there hasn't been an RM in a year, better to have a well-attended one which eventually settles the issue one way or the other which might go some way to putting the issue to bed.  The discussion has been largely civil thus far, however, I have collapsed an extended discussion regarding one user's !vote in order to aid whoever ends up closing this.  Thanks,   SITH   (talk)   17:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unless we move Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge to Kate Middleton for the same reason.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's completely pointless since she's still considered a member of the royal family. Stepping away from royal duties doesn't equate that. Miss HollyJ (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, on the Royal Family web site she remains listed as The Duchess of Sussex, one wonders if there is a hint of mischief making in this request. Robidy (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME Saimcheeda 05:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - to those !voting "support per WP:COMMONNAME, please note the page you link to says "Wikipedia ... generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above", one of which is "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." - numerous of which are listed in my opposition above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When it comes to questions of identity in biographies of living persons, Wikipedia generally respects the subject's preferences when they are known. The subject of this article has clearly expressed a preference to be known as Duchess of Sussex rather than by her maiden name. Why should she be treated with less respect than other living persons with biographies on Wikipedia? Another actor, Elliot Page, had a considerably more notable career under his previous name than Meghan did under hers. Would people supporting this move request also support a move of that article back to Ellen Page? I doubt it. Opera hat (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hah, I just noticed Keivan.f made the same point with the same counter-example further up the page. Opera hat (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Markle is not transgender. If she were then she could choose her own name. Showiecz (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be transgender to change your name! See Brian Warner, Declan MacManus, Michael Balzary and Gordon Sumner (and that's just off the top of my head!) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What is meant to be said is that the example used is a transgender person and they tend to bypass WP:COMMONNAME. Markle is clearly not transgender so its apples to oranges. Stage names are their WP:COMMONNAME so they don't qualify either. The person similar to Markle's situation would be Teller. Showiecz (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To answer a deleted comment, there is no consistent naming convention for married women. See Kamala Harris, Jennifer Siebel Newsom and Hillary Clinton. There is one for transgender people. Showiecz (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet there is a consistent naming convention for consorts of princes. Nevertheless, the person's gender is not important. What was being discussed here was a living person's choice of name which has to be respected. That's also the case for those married women; one takes her husband's surname while another one does not, and we choose our article titles accordingly. And no one is bypassing WP:COMMONNAME. Among the criteria mentioned in WP:COMMONNAME is title consistency, which would be violated if the page were to be moved. Keivan.f  Talk 00:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I was a little ambivalent about this, but there's also a matter of consistency. I can't see a good reason why Meghan should be treated differently from Camilla Parker-Bowles, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Sarah, Duchess of York, Diana, Princess of Wales, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, Katharine, Duchess of Kent, Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Michael of Kent and Lady Nicholas Windsor and others. Moriori (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CRITERIA. Unless we are making exceptions for other members of the royal family, a change like this is inconsistent with the titling pattern of similar articles. gobonobo  + c 09:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. A fellow American, Wallis Simpson, is a clear exception. Meghan Markle is clearly different from other royals based on her previous WP:NOTABILITY. Stop listing female consorts because they don't apply. Showiecz (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Wallis was not accepted into the family and was never officially styled as Her Royal Highness. She never became a British princess by law. Whereas Meghan has the same status as other female members who have been married into the family and is a princess (Look at her occupation on Archie’s birth certificate). The fact that she had a career before has no bearing on what her current name should be per WP:NAMECHANGES. Opera hat and I gave similar examples above. Keivan.f  Talk 16:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NAMECHANGES specifically state "Use commonly recognizable names". Her acting career still has bearing on her WP:NOTABILITY because her career name is still her WP:COMMONNAME. Showiecz (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It says “common names”, not “common name”. And it’s already evident that this individual has more than one common name, and preference should be given to her married name because that’s the name that she has chosen to use as a living person; and it’s also consistent with the pattern observed in similar articles. Keivan.f  Talk 16:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current name is the one used in all royal family communications, website, etc. Also, the matter of consistency with other royal spouses. --Richiepip (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose title is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. As per precedent, such as Diana, Princess of Wales, she should be kept as such. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, As I write, the lead story on the BBC News website is this piece about Harry and Meghan formally stepping back from public duties. The word "Markle" does not appear anywhere on the page. That strengthens my view that the COMMONNAME arguments are out of date and now wrong. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose --YoungstownToast (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2A00:23C7:E40E:4B00:9159:40E7:3EE2:6DDD (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unenthusiastically. Mainly because these sorts of discussion are a tremendous waste of time and the article title doesn’t really matter with search function, redirects etc, so status quo ante bellum: but that’s not based on policy, so...  WP:COMMONNAME rather than the other things raised in this thread (‘official’ name, what she wants, etc) should determine the title. WP:NAMECHANGES: common name changes. In 2017/18 maybe 2019 Meghan Markle was undoubtedly the most common name. The problem with Ngrams etc is that it’s very difficult to identify what’s happened over the last couple of years. I suspect that D. Of S. has surpassed M.M. during that time among RS. But as can be seen from this thread, it’s very easy to find recent RS to support either name. (I also suspect that there may be a greater use of M.M. in the U.S. compared to the U.K., to complicate matters.) So, I think the best that can be said at the moment is that the case is unproven to support the move and that means the status quo should prevail. DeCausa (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021
Should be modified to read former member of royal family.

Duchess of Sussex should be removed as she resigned titles upon leaving the royal family. 64.231.171.116 (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: unsourced and incorrect according to media outlets.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Dual degree's wrong.
Meghan Markle did not earn her double major in theatre and international studies. She was a CANDIDATE for degree in communications. She's not listed in the 2003 yearbook for theatre or international studies, and those 2 degrees are not offered together as a double major opportunity, since intl relations is an adjunct degree program. 85Rose (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The news website for the university itself says: "Markle graduated from Northwestern in 2003 with a double major in theater and international studies." (https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/november/from-wildcat-to-royalty/) Keivan.f  Talk 02:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not to dispute what user:Keivan.f has sourced. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that MM majored in one and minored in the other, but the university prefers to describe such as a double major. Sampajanna (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's totally possible, but I'd suggest we keep the wording as it is, because that's what the sources say. Keivan.f  Talk 02:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, don't know how much, if any, it has changed since around 2000, but the current pages of Northwestern University do suggest you can major in Theater, getting your degree in the School of Communication, and also major in International Studies in the College of Arts & Sciences, at the same time -- and that it is functionally the same as a double major.  .  At any rate, as Keivan.f notes we should follow what the source says. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

85Rose is correct, but I fear there is no way to include that without violating No original research. According to the 2001–2003 Northwestern catalog, International Studies was indeed an "adjunct major" (an "adjunct major" appears to be some sort of Northwestern University eccentricity because I'd never heard of the term, and the Google results for it are dominated by Northwestern; it appears an "adjunct major" is smaller than a major but larger than a minor). It is briefly described on page 208 of the then-School of Speech, which housed the theatre major (pages 220-224). The full description of the International Studies program on page 226 reads, "International studies is an undergraduate major with two special features: it is not situated in any one school but is open to students in all schools, and it does not replace any other major but complements it as an adjunct major that may be taken only in conjunction with a departmental major." OCNative (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you and 85Rose are putting too much weight on the phrase "double major". At that time, it was "an undergraduate major" and they offered it as a major you take with another major in the School of Speech.  It was offered to major in both (double) at the same time. Double majors still generally get only one degree, while fulfilling whatever the requirements were of the university for undergraduate majors.  -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Coat of Arms?
Is this correct?

Meghan bears the arms of her husband impaled with her own. Thomas Woodcock, Garter King of Arms, the senior officer of the College of Arms, helped the Duchess with the design, which was approved by the Queen.[195][196]

24.79.147.13 (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It sounds about right and has sources. What makes you think it may be incorrect? Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Where she grew up
According to numerous sources, Markle was born in Canoga Park, and spent parts of her childhood in Woodland Hills/the Valley , Central Los Angeles and Hollywood. Should these be included, or simplified to the collective "she was raised in Los Angeles", etc. Although it's important to note, as a native, these considered to be vastly different and widespread neighborhoods. —Community bettydaisies


 * If well sourced, which at first glance they appear to be, these should all be included. We have a fairly lengthy article on this person, and a lot has been written about her. It's insufficient detail to skip over her early life just by saying she was raised in Los Angeles when we have sources that provide greater nuance and specificity. Beorhtwulf (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Private ceremony before wedding
The article states "the private ceremony occurred three days before on May 16 in their backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury serving as the marriage officiant". I am not sure this is accurate as this ceremony did not constitute a marriage as discussed here and the publicly-available marriage licence shows the couple were married at St George's Chapel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.156.118 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A private exchange of vows or a blessing is not the same as a marriage. DrKay (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the venue also need to be officially licenced for weddings? In this case it is claimed it was a "backyard". Somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a better source than the American tabloid People.com, as even our own red top the Mirror lists holes in this story]. Maybe under the First Amendment you have the freedom to get married in your "backyard" by the head of the church with no witness, but not here. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well they do kinda do drive-in don't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove the sentence. Documenting every moment is not the purpose of this article, nor any Wikipedia article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It could have been a wedding rehearsal. Sampajanna (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Perhaps they just got Justin in to do a bit of weeding? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BBC coverage seems clear that it was a private exchange of vows. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, and according to this [hitched.co.uk/wedding-planning/ceremony-and-reception/commitment-ceremony/] there are no rules or laws for two people to show they are committed to each other in the UK, and they are free to do it in the backyard. So, really it's a matter of, fine, don't say it is a "legal marriage" -- to the couple it still may be a 'marriage of the heart' of some such poetic wish people want to recognize their relationship. But in the end, I still would take out the entire sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alanscottwalker. If in doubt, take it out, or insert "private exchange of vows" with inverted commas. Sampajanna (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the participation of the third party might lend this event some significance. He's not generally invited to most betrothed couples' back gardens? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Martinevans123 In this case, the supreme governor	of the CofE is Queen Elizabeth II, the happy granmother-in-law to be. Sampajanna (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure she does weddings. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, no. He did marry them, and I think our article says he baptised her -- clergy who marry people regularly do meet with them several times before the wedding, and yes, they can be in the back yard, at least on a nice day. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * An underling in the Church would surely be happy to oblige. Sampajanna (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Even for an underling, he is apparently notable, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Can't wait to see the pix, the selfies, to see if they all went barefoot. Of course, any videos could reveal the music played, such as "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" seeing as Harry is such a big Rugby Union fan. Sampajanna (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Meghan told Oprah they were married three days before the public ceremony. Robin Patterson (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, she did. She made a mistake there. Here's an extract from the transcript:
 * Meghan: Right? Like this kind of stuff. It’s so, it’s so basic, but it’s really fulfilling. Just getting back down to basics. I was thinking about it — even at our wedding, you know, three days before our wedding, we got married . . .
 * Oprah: Ah!
 * Meghan: No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us’. So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that was the piece that . . .
 * Harry: Just the three of us.
 * Oprah: Really?
 * Harry: Just the three of us.
 * Meghan: Just the three of us.
 * She may have genuinely believed she was "getting married", although you might expect Justin Welby to have told her. She wasn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC) p.s. if you believe The Sun, that is.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021
Change is to was for member of Royal family, they are officially civilian. 1.136.107.101 (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But she's still married to Prince Harry? And he's still a prince? Not sure abut the term "civilians" - did Meghan previously have a military appointment? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ And, as per Diumadick below, she's not dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021 (2)
Please change:” is an American member of the British royal family” to “was an American member of the Royal family” 1.136.107.101 (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (see above). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The suggested change would imply that the Duchess is dead. Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Assuming she is still alive. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021 (3)
Megan Markle cannot have the title Princes. Equally neither can Kate Middleton. The titles prince and princes because they were not born of royal parents. Please amend to reflect this. Hi 2A00:23C7:7C07:3401:D462:10DD:D001:8717 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Princes isn't a title, it's the plural of Prince. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC) p.s. also do fish paste.

Edit Request - March 12, 2021
The Meghan Markle page has a new edit about a Times article that is currently being disputed and has not been brought to investigation yet. The paragraphs do not make it clear that the allegations are under dispute and are presented as facts. 2600:8805:2208:E200:2D2A:4FC:C0D4:C5DF (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ It's not clear what you want changed. It also not clear what's the "new edit about a Times article that is currently being disputed". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2021
Megan Markle, wife of Prince Harry 2001:4454:5B8:BF00:C0CA:19E9:150E:2452 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article already says she is married to the Prince. What change are you suggesting?  RudolfRed (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Humphrey Yogart
Is the following notable enough for inclusion in the "Early life and education" section? "She had her first paying job at age 13 in a frozen yogurt shop, called Humphrey Yogart." Sampajanna (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I think it was me who added it initially, but I have no strong feelings about including or excluding it. Though I welcome insights from other users. might be able to provide us with a third opinion.  Keivan.f  Talk 19:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Any frozen yoghurt shop with a name as good as this deserves a mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Twenty-seven years later, it appears that Humphrey Yogart is still operating and could possibly be a franchise. Besides, Meghan has recently invested in a startup near Montecito that makes instant oat milk lattes, and Oprah made a special video to promote such. In any event, "After Meghan Markle name-dropped the yogurt shop she worked at as a teenager, the store has apparently seen a noticeable uptick in customers. In her recent interview with Oprah, Meghan talked about her time working at Humphrey Yogart and how she's always "valued independence." "  Sampajanna (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Seems like fluff, given the attention from those sources. Were it an acting job, I would say yes, but as is, it seems like basically irrelevant trivia, unless she starts a yogurt company, opens a shop, or becomes a yogurt pitchwoman. 'Teenage job' is not standard in the encyclopedia in what I have seen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge they have a singular location in Sherman Oaks, which remains semi-popular. I personally have little against or for including it, but it's naturally not relevant to her professional work, and inclusion should be determined by the consensus of editors. I have previously seen the biographies of, for instance, Nicki Minaj and Amy Adams, include their previous jobs (but obviously WP:OTHERSTUFF disclaimer etc.) It's worth noting that her "Career" section includes information on her time spend in calligraphy and bookbinding, respectively. --Bettydaisies (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It was included in the "Early life" section, so it was pretty much clear to the reader that this is not necessarily related to her acting career. And considering her interest in organic food as Sampajanna said, as well as her connection to community kitchens, I think this first job is related to a field which she's interested in. Similar examples of such jobs being mentioned in an article were given by Bettydaisies and we already have a sentence on her job as calligrapher and bookbinder. I think if we go by consensus, so far only Alanscottwalker has firmly opposed its inclusion. If no one else argues against it, then it can potentially be added back to that section. Keivan.f  Talk 00:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A frozen yogurt store at thirteen has no connection whatsoever to anything to do with community kitchen, and no connection to organic food, let alone to those things thirty years later. We discuss her work after college because, she has to support herself and career as it is connected in the text to her trying to be a working actor, a notoriously difficult path to pursue.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And having now looked at Minaj and Adams, neither discusses high school jobs, but only jobs while trying to pursue performance careers. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alanscottwalker and oppose the inclusion of Humphrey Yogart. Sampajanna (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, as I said, I have no strong feelings about it. Let's leave it out then, unless anyone wishes to make a strong argument in favor of it. Keivan.f  Talk 07:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
I agree it's not "public or post royal work" and I'm not sure where else it might be placed. But it might be wise to provide an explanation as to why she will not attend alongside her husband. It's quite a notable event. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it’s better to include it on the actual funeral’s article, since Wikipedia’s focus better suits topical and encyolodeic content rather than explanation. I don’t know if it warrants inclusion based both on organisation and overall notability within her biography. I agree it’s definitely a notable event, and full nuances and details reported regarding attendance should absolutely be included on that specific page. Additionally, it might be best to wait until after the funeral before deciding on inclusion on individual biographies. Bettydaisies (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes Betty, that's a perfectly reasonable argument. I guess this may depend on press coverage, although perhaps it shouldn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021
archie popadopoulos
 * 1) English Royal family...not British 217.137.147.124 (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See British royal family. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021
69.6.32.55 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC) No longer duchess


 * as she still retains the title of duchess. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Title and style
I’m surprised that the Duchess is here styled ‘Meghan, Duchess of Sussex’, as this is not the normal style accorded to the wife of a duke, but that for the wife of a deceased duke or the former wife of a duke following a divorce. (Sarah, Duchess of York, is the correct style for The Duke of York’s former wife, to give an example). The correct title and style is simply “Duchess of Sussex”, as per Debrett.

I’d submit that the article would be better titled “Duchess of Sussex”, and perhaps for clarity add a disambiguation link leading to former holders of title or to the “Duke of Sussex” page which would equally clarify.

For the sake of clarity, “Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle) might even be better than the current error in style, allowing for both the correct style and appropriate search functionality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cursitor (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The guiding policy here is Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). If you look at the talk page of that and its extensive archives you'll see this has been gone over for the best part of 20 years now, and this seems to be the form that has been arrived at (same as for Charles, Prince of Wales for example), even though as you point out on its face it looks like the form used for a widowed or divorced wife of a peer. The central problem is that these people don't have surnames in the straightforward way the rest of us are used to, so we are bound to end up with some choice of construction for how to name them, and all the options have their downsides. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Per Common name (no puns please) I suggest reverting to Meghan Markle, which is what most readers would type in. Duchess of Sussex is a redirect to this page, which makes sense since she is the only person to be called that. Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) in fact says that, "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English." This isn't Burke's Peerage or a court circular. I would mention also that when women marry, we don't usually take their married name. We didn't change Jennifer Aniston to "Mrs. Brad Pitt" when they were married. (Of course when they divorced, that would have been Mrs. Jennifer Pitt.) TFD (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * User:The Four Deuces It was discussed very recently here. Sampajanna (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There's a small but determined group of editors who are resistant. For example the article about John Buchan was originally called John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir. (Talk:John Buchan/Archive 2.) The only time I see her referred to as the Duchess of Sussex in news reports is when both she and her husband as referred to as "the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" or "the Sussexes." Separately they are usually referred to as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. I have never seen her referred to as Princess Harry, although that would be correct.
 * Since she is never referred to as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, I agree to the move to Duchess of Sussex.
 * TFD (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * TFD wrote "I have never seen her referred to as Princess Harry, although that would be correct." The royal wedding granted Meghan Markle a host of titles, including Princess Henry of Wales. Sampajanna (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there’s no proof that she actually held the title Princess Henry of Wales. That was just a guess made by the article’s writer that in the hypothetical situation in which Harry wouldn’t have been granted a dukedom then his wife would have been known as HRH Princess Henry of Wales, just like Prince Michael of Kent’s wife is known as Princess Michael of Kent (or Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, who was known as Princess Richard of Gloucester before her husband became the Duke of Gloucester). In Meghan’s case, however, she was HRH The Duchess of Sussex from the beginning; pretty much like her sister-in-law who was HRH The Duchess of Cambridge from the moment she married William. Meghan has never been referred to as HRH Princess Henry of Wales in any official documents or palace records, just like Catherine who has never been named HRH Princess William of Wales. That’s why we cannot really make a solid argument in favor of these titles. Keivan.f  Talk 08:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * She has been referred to as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex multiple times - for instance, in her New York Times op-ed. If that were the case, wouldn't her husband's name revert to simply "The Duke of Sussex"? Regardless of my opinion, we should see what a discussion request to move yields. Additionally, I think the reason "Duchess of Sussex" redirects here while "Duchess of Cambridge" doesn't redirect at her page, is because Meghan is the only person historically to hold that courtesy title, while Catherine isn't, and requires further disambiguation. --Bettydaisies (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have said she is never formally referred to that way. Oddly enough, when the NYT article showed up under my Google search as "Opinion | Meghan Markle: The Losses We Share - The New times." The actual article says, "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex." Other sources say "Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex" or ""Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex." It's like referring to Dean Baquet, editor of the New York Times. That's not literally his name. If there were lots of Meghan Markles, I would recommend calling this one "Meghan Markel (Duchess of Sussex).
 * May I ask: Do you think readers are more likely to type in "Meghan Markle" "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex?"
 * TFD (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Her referral in the news in general definitely fluctuates between all three variations - but its also important to consider this principle onto, for instance, Anne, Princess Royal, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, etc. I'd say people are definitely more likely to look for Meghan Markle; but from a historical point of view, there could be discrepancies, its a multifaceted issue, etc. This matter has been discussed multiple times on this page with no consensus, as recently as a few weeks ago, which is unfortunate.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Then there's Wallis Simpson, the most controversial of all royal wives. Common name of course does not ensure consistency, because common usage is not consistent. Note that article begins, "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor (born Bessie Wallis Warfield; 19 June 1896 – 24 April 1986), known as Wallis Simpson, was an American socialite and wife of the Duke of Windsor, the former British king Edward VIII." So we get to call her Wallis, Duchess of Windsor while making it easy for the readers to find the article and to know they have reached the right article by looking at the article title. TFD (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha! this interminable and pointless discussion...actually, I quite like the IP’s suggestion of “Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)”. Works for “official name’, covers off COMMONNAME whether you claim DofS or MM as COMMONNAME, and best of all satisfies no one. DeCausa (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Readers are not more likely to type in "Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)” than "Meghan Markle." That's not common usage at all. TFD (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s what redirects are for and why article titles don't matter. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Article titles, "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." TFD (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is totally pointless. There was an RM which was closed about two weeks ago (scroll up) and the consensus was against moving this page. I also really want to know why people are so obsessed with moving this single page, while ignoring tons of other articles about female relatives for which we use this same format of titling. Examples are Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (aka Kate Middleton, Catherine Middleton), Diana, Princess of Wales (aka Princess Diana, Lady Diana Spencer), Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (aka Camilla Parker Bowles), Sarah, Duchess of York (aka Sarah Ferguson), Sophie, Countess of Wessex (aka Sophie Rhys-Jones), Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (aka Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott), Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester (aka Birgitte van Deurs), Katharine, Duchess of Kent (aka Katharine Worsley), etc. The example provided above about Wallis Simpson cannot be applied to Meghan's case, because Meghan and all of these women were legally made HRH and princesses of the UK by marriage whereas Wallis never had that privilege. Everything about her is unique and cannot be used to draw conclusions about what articles or article titles of other female relatives should look like. Additionally, removing the first name of these individuals would cause a huge amount of trouble because there have been women before them who used to have the exact same titles. And it's not gonna be helpful in Meghan's case either, considering that she herself uses her name and title together when signing documents or publishing. Not to mention that previous suggestions for moving pages such as Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall to The Duchess of Cornwall or Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall were strongly opposed by the community and I doubt it will generate much support in Meghan's case either. Also, at this point she has dropped her father's surname from whom she's estranged. I have never seen her use the surname Markle even once since marrying Harry; neither in her voice acting jobs, op-eds, nor in her interview. I guess we should stop shoving it down her throat when she obviously does not want it. Keivan.f Talk 02:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Attention is paid to this article because the subject is currently in the news. Consistent with policy, my preference for article name would be (1) COMMONNAME, i.e., what the subject is normally called in reliable sources, (2) legal name, (3) what Buckingham Palace calls her, which is the Duchess of Sussex, and (4) what Wikipedia editors like. Bear in mind that we don't have to show deference to people of higher social rank, since Wikipedia is international. And if we do, we should at least get it right. TFD (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * All of these figures are constantly in the news but I don’t see an RM getting opened for them every 6 months. The Palace also refers to the royals as HRH The Prince/ss / Duke/chess of X and to Elizabeth II as HM The Queen. We obviously don’t (and shouldn’t in my opinion) use such formalities here. Nevertheless, it’s important to remember that people can have more than one common name, and this seems to be the case for Meghan and all of the aforementioned women. Per MOS:IDENTITY a person’a choice of name must also be considered (the most recent example that I can think of is Elliot Page, previously known as Ellen Page). In Meghan’s case, she evidently doesn’t like being referred to as Meghan Markle as I explained before. And as you said Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, which means that we treat all people equally, regardless of their title, but providing information on people is different from the process through which their articles are named. We have royalty and nobility (WP:NCROY), whether we like it or not, and these people utilize their titles in their daily lives and our articles here should be a reflection of that, regardless of their nationality (Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland (Sweden), Queen Rania of Jordan, Kiko, Princess Akishino (Japan), Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco, etc.) Obviously referring to these people by their titles doesn’t make them superior to anyone else, and keeping this page at its current title doesn’t make the subject superior to us either. It does, however, keep it consistent with the articles on all international royals. Keivan.f  Talk 03:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * TFD : Fair comments. Just to clarify, what is her legal name? Sampajanna (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex (1) based on how her name originally appeared on her son’s birth certificate, and her sister-in-law’s is Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge (2). Though I should mention that a petition was filed in June 2019, which changed her name to Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex by removing Rachel Meghan from her son’s birth certificate (3). This was similar to how Diana’s name appeared on her sons’ birth certificates as Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (instead of Diana Frances Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales) (4). Nevertheless, the point is that her legal name is not Meghan Markle in the UK. As a married woman, there’s a possibility that her name in the US could now be Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor, but this hasn’t been confirmed yet. Keivan.f  Talk 04:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what her legal name is. Her son's birth certificate contains her name as reported by her, and is only a legal document for her son. Better sources would be her U.S. passport (if she is ever allowed to see it), her UK driver's license or the name on her National Insurance Card. One could also consult the name she uses to register as an elector in California. TFD (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I bet she has her passport now that she’s in the US, otherwise how could she possibly leave and travel in the first place? Also, hers is not the only one taken; it’s a precautionary measure to monitor movements of members of the royal house and provide them with security. In any case, that’s a legal document that we have access to. Doesn’t make a difference whether it’s for her or her son. It’s still a legal document containing her legal name; just as any woman’s legal name would appear on her child’s birth certificate. Also, there were some reports that according to sources close to her, she voted in the 2020 US elections (1) but this was never confirmed. Is there a way to find out more about it? Like a database of registered voters? Through I think such information would not be available to the public. Keivan.f  Talk 08:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems I was right. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), for the state of California these are the people who can request access to the voter file: Candidates, parties, ballot measure committees, and to any person for election, scholarly, journalistic, or political purposes, or for governmental purposes, as determined by the Secretary of State. All voter information is confidential except for those listed above that may request lists. Keivan.f  Talk 08:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Legal document for her son? So, what? Even were that solely true, that document legally identifies his parents by law and in fact (see, Act of Settlement; Succession of the Crown Act; etc.) -- he has inheritance rights because of those facts and by law, not only to a dukedom but to a throne, partly because his mother, in fact and by law, is the person legally named there, and the mother, legally named there, is wed to the Prince, Duke of Sussex. But it is not solely true that it is only a legal document for her son, it is a legal document for her: as evidenced by that document, she has legally identifiable rights as his mother.  -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The parents' names on a birth certificate is whatever the person registering the birth says it is. You cannot change someone's name by using a different name to register the birth of their child. In the U.S. there are public records with persons' names, such as voter registration lists. It will also be interesting to see what name Markle uses when she runs for U.S. president and even more interesting what she will be called if she wins. TFD (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You? Do you mean, her? Whatever the person says it is, is the changed name, and it is legal. In common law countries, like the UK and the US, a woman can change her name on marriage just by her using the name, and she doesn't even have to use it all the time, just using it customarily will do.  --Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD, you are quite wrong. In common law jurisdictions (and almost all US states and England and Wales) name change is determined by common usage “open and notorious” i.e. unless it’s for fraudulent purposes, what one calls oneself is one’s legal name with no necessity for a formal process although they may be available for evidential purposes. In other words, in a common law jurisdiction you can generally change ones name simply by saying to the world ‘I now want to be called X’. This is different to civil jurisdictions. See Name change. Also, there may be a legal obligation to register the new name with various government departments e.g. DMV etc. But that isn’t to change the name - it’s just that they must be informed of your current name. If you don’t do it you still have the new name but you’ve breached DMV rules. The child’s birth certificate is evidence of her name because the parents have to register the birth, it is her act and her usage (and therefore equals her legal name). However, per WP:PRIMARY it would be unwise to place too much reliance on it and can’t be used for a generalised statement of her legal name. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course one can call oneself what one wants, but for most purposes you need proof that is your name. You can't open a bank account, get a passport or driver's licence, sign a contract or deed or run up a criminal record under an alias. Try telling the authorities that you choose to call yourself the High and Mighty Prince De Causa of the United Kingdom and see what happens. In my correspondence, I normally shorten my Christian name and omit my middle name, but that doesn't mean that I have changed my name. In a recent letter from HM Revenue and Customs, I am addressed as full Christian name middle initial surname. That doesn't mean I have shortened my middle name. The Dept. of Works and Pensions addressed me as first initial surname. That doesn't mean my Christian name is an initial. If you send me checks for all the versions of my name, we can see which ones your bank will honor. TFD (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) We are not talking about a pseudonym or what people do with initials (which at any rate, commonly do represent the full name), we are talking about a marriage and well established ordinary custom.
 * 2) Yes, people do put their name on documents, documents like their children's birth certificates, where the name matters. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but they can put various version of their names on birth certificates. As an amateur genealogist, I can tell you that discrepancies are fairly common. And remember when the late Marquis of Bristol was arrested and the court documents called him Jamie Blandford or something similar? Is it your opinion as a lawyer that a person's legal name is whatever appears on their child's birth certificate rather than their own birth certificate, change of name by deed poll, marriage certificate, voter registration or passport? TFD (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can tell you as a UK lawyer (and it would seem 46 U.S states - including California - have exactly the same legal basis) that if my name is X on my bank account, passport, social security, birth certificate, voter registration etc and on 16 March 2021 I start using the name Y, my name is legally Y with or without changing those other documents. The legal basis is that my usage just has to be “open and notorious” and intending that usage to be a new name. And it’s not restricted to marriage either. it’s a different question whether my bank, immigration authorities etc believe me if I deal with them with my new name - and they may well look for evidence that i have really done that such as a deed poll - but in law my name has changed on 16 March 2021 come what may. (Most common law jurisdictions are like this. By the way, civil law jurisdictions, including I believe, Louisiana have a concept much more akin to what people more popularly believe: that your name doesn’t change until there’s some sort of formal legal process completed.) That’s the relevance of her putting forwarded her name on her child’s birth certificate. But per WP:PRIMARY I don’t think it should be used in this context, so a bit of a WP dead end. DeCausa (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure why my opinion as a lawyer would matter. Reading sources, however, the common legal rule found in sources is based on the person's usage. The birth certificate is sourced usage, and it accords with other usage like in her byline of last November, and it accords with marriage common name change custom -- thus it is makes perfect sense to read things in a story about a legal case, like, ". . . Duchess of Sussex . . . Meghan . . . The former Meghan Markle . . .", easily and readily (or perhaps, if DeCausa prefers, 'openly and notoriously' :)) recognizing, there's a name change. (Anecdote: I have a colleague who 'openly' has used her married name for years, but I have to remember her maiden name when I email her because it is in her work email address, still I honor her choice of changed name with what I write in the e-mail or when I see her in person, as common courtesy.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is theory and practice. I don't think all these organizations would accept a name change just because you told them you had changed your name. Normally they would require evidence such as a deed poll. But what is her name on her passport, driver's license, California voter registration, electric bill, and Netflix contract? TFD (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Court cases have upheld the principle that a person's name is what they give it as not what the bureaucracy lists it as. (The one that springs to mind is Greenway-Stanley v Paterson [1977] 2 All ER 663 although that's better known for what it sets down about the obligations on a Returning Officer.) Some little jobsworth may demand documentation to support a change of name that's easier to provide than dragging them through the courts but the principle of a name changing upon marriage is so strongly established that the marriage certificate itself would be sufficient proof. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Luckily, imo, it's not our job to trawl through her personal documents. And, I think I would find that invasive job a miserable existence, but that's quite different from reading what the BBC has sourced and sent around the world -- its not like, Meghan [drop former name on marriage], is anything shocking, nor a crime.. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said above, preference should be given to the common name. Some editors thought we should use her legal name, but we don't know what that is. Anyway we can revisit this as her Netflix series are produced and she possibly makes a run for president. TFD (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Her running for presidency is WP:CRYSTAL. She may or may not do it, though I find it really unlikely. Yet again, nothing is out of the realm of possibility so we just have to wait and see. Plus, at the moment, she and her husband are credited together on their mutual works as Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex; the most recent example being their podcast on Spotify as well as Meghan’s voice acting job with Disney last year. So that’s the common name used in those platforms to give her credit for her work. Additionally, she has written under the name Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex for The New York Times. Overall, there’s no indication of Meghan Markle being the common name at this point, other than it being used by tabloids. Things may change in the future if she runs for public office in the US and the issue can be brought up then with a new RM. Keivan.f  Talk 02:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

can someone explain to me why you are having a discussion about what her legal name is? Do you have the same discussion for Kate Middleton who is just as often referred to by her pre Duchess name? This entire discussion is proof of why Meghan is treated differently. No one can tell me that it’s a coincidence that the first African American president had racists incessantly asking for his birth certificate and crafting elaborate conspiracy theories about his “mysterious” back ground, when it wasn’t at all... Is it a coincidence that people are playing the same trick with Meghan? Asking to look into her voting records to verify she is who she says she is etc? Verify her name? There is nothing different about her and Kate in regards to the name, they’re both still called Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle interchangeably with their marriage titles. To all the people who kept responding to the “birther” who is demanding to see Meghan’s documents to verify her name, when there is absolutely nothing confusing about what her name is, why don’t you just call out the person instead of entertaining their birther conspiracy theories? How many times do we just stand by and watch people like this sneak into forums to taint it with doubt and hate? The sick part is that they’re incessant and never give up on their hateful campaign. Everyday tens of thousands of middle aged men and women wake up and think of how they can make Meghan’s life miserable on social media that day. Tens of thousands of accounts dedicated to conspiracy theories about her, everything from Archie is a doll to she used to be a prostitute. The person(birther) who is demanding to see her papers is clearly a dedicated member of the Meghan hatedom that is so prominent online, the person needs to be blocked from ever editing her page. Shows all the patterns of membership into that hatedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvictusGames (talk • contribs) 04:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the conspiracy theories you've mentioned have been propped up by editors as reason for any sort of page room. The reason why people might want documentation is because when it comes to noble titles, legal names are tricky and difficult to determine - for instance, Princess Anne's legal name might be different than her given surname, Mountbatten-Windsor, but we have no way of knowing that without legal sources, etc. The majority of reasons cited discuss WP:COMMONNAME, and there have been naming discussions about almost every contemporary "married-in" royal spouse you can find.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The issue of her legal name came up because people who want the article to be called "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" insisted that was her legal name as it would appear on her passport, driver's license, tax return, bank account, etc. Policy however requires that we use COMMONNAME for subjects. Hence the article title Wallis Simpson for the late widow of the Duke of Windsor. It seems though there is a tendency by some editors to add titles to article names where they are clearly unnecessary. John Buchan for example was originally called John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir. You can read the move discussion at Talk:John Buchan/Archive 2. As I explained then, "This is an encyclopedia not a social calendar and therefore we should use the most common name." It has nothing to do with the race or nationality of the subject. It's a little confusing anyway to use her married name, since her husband is not normally referred to as the Duke of Sussex, but as Prince Harry. TFD (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the norm for Kate Middleton, it should be the exact same for Meghan Markle. Both have two different ways that media and people in general refer to them. Media is still largely refer to Kate Middleton as Kate Middleton, just like Meghan. Do you have an opinion on this when it comes to Kate? Why are you editing Meghan’s page, you have too much hostility and every single comment of yours is a passive aggressive attempt to confuse everyone and make things around Meghan somehow more complicated. Borderline birther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvictusGames (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We don’t have an article for “Kate Middleton”. It’s under the name Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. So, yes, Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle are treated exactly the same way. What’s your point? DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME
@User:Векочел - per MOS:SURNAME, public figures are typically referred to by their last names in articles (i.e Grace Kelly). As Meghan didn't have a title before marriage, On Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, for instance, she's referred to mostly as "she" and "her" in the early parts of the lead and entirely as "Middleton" through her engagement. I"m not sure if it's suitable to refer to Meghan by her first name in the biographical portions dating pre-2018, especially since she established notability under her maiden name. This discussion could also be applicable for Sophie, Countess of Wessex. I'm curious to know your thoughts (and other editors, if they wish) on this matter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well Bettydaisies, I’m sure people will have a number of thoughts on the matter. We have Wallis Simpson be referred to by her first name, as is Diana, Princess of Wales. She is called Meghan as Duchess, wouldn’t it make sense to refer to her with the same name throughout the article? To me, it seems reasonable that this should be the case. Векочел (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be Markle. Unlike Catherine Middleton and Wallis Simpson, Meghan Markle was professionally notable prior to her remarriage and called Markle in all reputable media. The article should reflect that. When the article gained GA status, she was called Markle before the royal marriage and the Duchess after. Surtsicna (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:Векочел Thank you for responding. MOS:SURNAME states:
 * "a person should generally be referred to by surname only"
 * "if their most commonly used name includes their earlier surname, and you're discussing a period of their life before the surname change, ::refer to them by their prior surname
 * "in other words, when discussing the early lives of Hillary and Bill Clinton, use "Rodham met Clinton while they were students at Yale", referring to Hillary using her then-current surname."
 * With these guidelines, I don't understand why Simpson's article is formatted that way (I can haphazardly guess the fluctuation of surnames was a factor); additionally, I believe Diana had a title before marriage. The debate centers around where WP:NCNOB comes in, which staunchly states that royals should be referred to by first name or title - however, before her marriage, she wasn't royalty. I'd also like to reiterate the aforementioned factor of notability established under the name "Meghan Markle", used commonly during her previous career.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Diana did have a title before marriage. She was Lady Diana Spencer, being the daughter of an earl. Do you think this means we need to change the naming in the articles of Diana and Sophie so that we have their last names? Векочел (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe (?) that since Diana had a title, her first name is understandable, but since Sophie had none and a "normal" surname, Rhys-Jones, this discussion is also applicable to her page in terms of usage and style.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In other articles married women are referred to by their maiden names before marriage. For example Hillary Clinton (nee Rodham) is referred to as Rodham. And having a title of nobility makes no difference - surnames or the title name are used. In this case that would be Sussex. First names are only used for royal titles (King, Queen, Princess). In this case the married woman assumes the first name of her husband, e.g., Princess Michael of Kent. But it would be confusing to refer to her as Princess Henry of Wales. TFD (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also concur with the Rodham logic. MOS:SURNAME states that "Generally speaking, subjects should not [...] be referred to by their given name; exceptions include royalty, e.g. Prince Charles or Charles". Her husband's peerage is a royal dukedom, not dukedom of nobility, and she is a British princess, so I think referring to her by her first name/title is fine for content post-2018. WP:NCNOB states royals with such titles are referred to by (first name), (title); she hasn't used "Princess Henry" officially or commonly.--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason people refer to Charles and other children of kings and queens by their first names is that they don't have last names. Surnames developed long after the establishment of the royal houses from which they descend. It's only when the descendants of royalty come to lack royal or noble titles that they are assigned surnames. TFD (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021
Meghan was born 1976 not 1981 75.90.27.69 (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Meghan: celebrity
I do appreciate that profession has previously been discussed.* At the moment, the lead reads: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (/ˈmɛɡən/; born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981) is an American member of the British royal family and a former actress. Especially as a result of the attention given to her by mass media since the Oprah with Meghan and Harry TV interview, MM's celebrity would seem to have expanded. Here are some alternatives: Comments or suggestions, please. Sampajanna (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * an American celebrity member of the British royal family and a former actress
 * an American celebrity, member of the British royal family and former actress
 * an American celebrity, former actress, and member of the British royal family


 * There has often been mass media and it's because she is a member of that family and had a working acting career. It's basically the same as when they did that engagement interview, and then the South Africa interview. (See also Vanity Fair cover article in that engagement year.)  Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, Alanscottwalker is right. People do interviews but that doesn't indicate a change in the reason for which they are prominent. Also, building up on that logic, Harry would be considered a celebrity as well. I think in essence, all members of the royal family, specifically the younger generation, have some sort of celebrity status, including Will and Kate. Keivan.f  Talk 23:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Keivan.f : The following may be of interest : "The royal family is undoubtedly very famous. However, unlike many other famous people, members of the royal family have to represent the royal brand and cannot be celebrities in their own right. This means that much of the work they do should ultimately tie back in to what the establishment stands for, not be for their own personal gain." Sampajanna (talk)


 * Their notability hasn't changed in the light of the interview, in my opinion, especially since the basis of the episode and subsequent coverage revolved around their links and experiences in the royal family. Depending on how they go forward (i.e Archewell Productions) their occupation could be added to as, for instance, producers and such, but I don't think I've ever seen a person be listed strictly as a celebrity; figures "famous for being famous" are typically referred to as socialites, and I'm not sure how well that would apply here.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term "celebrity" is just too vague. People should be listed by profession. As Bettydaisies suggested, as their career develops we can add terms such as producer, businessperson, podcaster, etc. to the lead in the future, similar to Sarah, Duchess of York. Keivan.f  Talk 00:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Depending on the future path taken by Meghan, I think the term celebrity might be well and accurately used. Celebrity is a specific term which can be used descriptively of one facet/set of facets in a person's life.  Yes, not all celebrities are the same but neither are people to whom other valid descriptors might apply.  The only question, for me, is whether an accurate use of a term such as celebrity would fit in with trends of term usage within Wikipedia.  GregKaye 12:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Shes not nobility. Her husband is, and since he is no longer a working royal or a HRH, I believe she should be filed under celeb or former royal. 85Rose (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)