Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 5

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

She is of Catholic Religion, not Jewish.
 * She is now a baptized Anglican.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Source? HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , --Scott Davis Talk 06:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, a secret ceremony. Wow. This is a silly aspect of religious labelling. I know many people who were baptised as Anglicans but are in no way Anglicans today. (If they ever really were.) The best description I could give them is apatheists. Meghan presumably had to go through such a ceremony in order to be allowed to marry. Does she actually believe? We will never know. Does everyone who was ever baptised as an Anglican actually count as an Anglican today? Obviously not. This is a very mysterious area for an encyclopaedia aiming to be precise to cover. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources say the lack of baptism nominally would not have prevented the marriage. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this was a ceremony that was "low key" that the tabloid press would prefer to call "a secret ceremony". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't presume anything regarding anyone's religious beliefs or affiliations. What we know---at least it hasn't been disputed---is that our subject was both baptized and confirmed in a ceremony conducted for and by the Church of England. That our subject was recently baptized indicates, but not definitively, that she was not previously baptized in a manner acceptable to the Church of England. As an aside, one could well argue that baptism is not entry into a particular church, but simply acknowledgment of Christian identity. In my faith tradition, anyone can baptize another, lacking the availability of a priest. A military chaplain, for instance, even if Jewish or Moslem or Druid, &c., could baptize someone into the Christian tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would dispute your claim regarding "even if Jewish or Moslem or Druid, &c.," But I feel we are straying into WP:FORUM there. Note that there is now a new thread on Meghan's baptism below. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

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


 * All children are atheists when they are born. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No,they're agnostic.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the reasonable presumption is that children carry the religion of their parents. Until they (the children) decide otherwise when they are old enough to do so. Safiel (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I see it the other way round. To claim they have the religion of their parents is somewhat presumptuous. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Parents get to "presume" for their children. I started life out as United Methodist, not of my own accord of course, but because that was my parent's religion. When I grew up, I subsequently chose non-theism for myself. But if I was, myself, the subject of a Wikipedia article, it would be most correct to describe my childhood religion as United Methodist. Children can't make those decisions, parents make that decision for them, until they reach the age of reason. Safiel (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What if their parents have different religions? PatGallacher (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


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

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


 * She's still American, hasn't renounced, and still needs to wait 3 years, not spend excessive time outside the UK, pass the citizenship test. The Queen doesn't have the explicit or reserve power to grant citizenship. To expedite, would require an Act of Parliament. She's also liable for American taxes. And her legal name is not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", its still her American name, since she is not a Briton yet. Rachel Zane -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What is the usual American custom for a woman's name following her marriage? What is her "American name" following her "British wedding"? I'm Australian, and my wife took my surname in place of the one she was born with (called her "maiden name") on the day we married. Two days after our wedding, the "majority of sources" about her would still have used the name she was born with (some lasted over 20 years), but it was was no longer her name. --Scott Davis Talk 06:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you mean "Rachel Meghan Markle Mountbatten" ? Harry's surname is "Mountbatten", according to tradition (even though he uses "Wales" and "Windsor"), since Prince Phillip is Mountbatten, and thus Charles, and thus Harry, and thus now Meghan. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * According to tradition and legal fact, those who are princes or princesses with the style of Royal Highness are legally surnameless. 2607:FEA8:C2DF:FF33:40F5:CC68:81B0:9EA1 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Harry's service record has the name "Henry Wales", so clearly they do use surnames. Further, they are members of a family, so clearly they do have surnames. Philip's surname is "Mountbatten", so the tradition of a bride changing her name to her husband's the tradition being discussed here per the comment by ScottDavis, would use "Mountbatten". Also, Meghan isn't a Briton, so her legal name isn't British, it's still American, and she still has a surname, since the HRH title isn't her legal name in the United States. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "Wales" is not a surname in the conventional sense but rather one of a number of cases of the Royals (and their officials) adapting names associated with some or all of the family for the modern demands of pro forma where something has to go in a box. Nor is "Mountbatten" Harry's surname - see Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh for how this was blocked back in the 1950s. "Mountbatten-Windsor" is officially the name for the Queen & Philip's male line descendants who aren't titled but in practice both "Mountbatten-Windsor", "Windsor" and various names derived from titles such as "Wales", "York" and "Wessex" have all been used in the surname boxes on forms by various members of the family over the years. There are many people from many traditions and cultures that don't have names neatly packaged in the form PersonalName (OptionalMiddleName) FamilyName and this often causes problems with modern bureaucracy. Timrollpickering 16:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Royalty traditionally never have surnames.The Duke of Edinburgh adopted a surname on his legally unnecessary naturalization in 1947,which made him the first man with a surname ever to marry a British heiress to the Throne.Just as Prince George of Cambridge uses "George Cambridge" at school and his father and uncle used "Wales" in the military,there are occasions where they pretend to have surnames.As noted elsewhere,the laws in the United States generally respect marriage legally changing a surname automatically...in this case,deleting it.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That depends on the royal tradition. And as I said before, the tradition we were discussing was that of a woman taking on her husband's surname. Surnames are clearly just for functionality of identification. (ie. Iceland uses patrynomic and matrynomic surnames, not familineal ones) Since the royals of Britain clearly do use functional surnames for function, then, they carry a myriad of surnames. And in any case, Meghan Markle is a person that holds American citizenship and does not hold British citizenship. So she retains her surname as she hasn't filed for a legal name change in the United States. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That royalty do not have surnames is pretty much worldwide.Treating dynastic names as surnames is more of a republican affectation.As I just said,and as noted elsewhere on this page,American law generally accepts automatic change of name on marriage.If she ever treats anything as her surname from now on it would probably be "Sussex",as in the case of Prince Edward's wife using "Sophie Wessex"(though Sophie will just about have to abandon that when he is eventually made Duke of Edinburgh as promised).12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll go out on a limb and suggest that her marriage to a constitutionally protected British citizen granted her British citizenship. And, separately, enough with the "American name": as a member of the British Royal Family, her name is whatever the Queen signs off on. Technically, the Queen has complete control over the UK and its government, not that she ever intervenes, so she can do whatever she damn wants. 109.148.98.191 (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, according to this article, Meghan still has to wait her turn, and Prince Harry said, "I can also say she intends to become a UK citizen and will go through the process of that, which some of you may know takes a number of years." So no, The Queen is not just going snap her fingers and make her a citizen. You're really overestimating how much power The Queen has.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the Queen cannot, "do whatever she damn wants". She is a constitutional monarch only and has no real authority whatsoever. The last monarch who tried to interfere in the affairs of state lost his head in the attempt. Indeed, Charles I's death warrant is displayed in the Queens's robing room in the Palace of Westminster as a reminder. The Queen even goes as far as taking a parliamentary hostage for the duration of any state opening of parliament as insurance against a repetition. TheVicarsCat (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Although her permission was required for Harry to wear his beard? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course, the Monarch cannot do "whatever she wants." However, this particular Monarch has garnered such good will over her many years of devoted service to her country, that undoubtedly the Home Office would be able to see its way clear to extending every consideration to the Royal Family on this matter, until such time as the British citizenship of the Duchess of Sussex takes effect.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I know of nothing that would prevent our subject from holding dual nationality. Also, an American can generally hold a title from a foreign government so long as he or she is not in a position within a foreign government that requires the making of what are called "policy decisions." There are/were other freedoms allowed, too. After World War Two, General Eisenhower, for example, was allowed to accept the Danish invitation to enter the Order of the Elephant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Until Trump convinces enough states to pass the Titles of Nobility Amendment ..... Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The "ban" everyone talks about in the US is limited to serving federal officials who need Congressional permission to accept. It is not a restriction on American citizens at large (such a proposed amendment has not passed). Timrollpickering 11:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly her legal name, as an American citizen (and not a British citizen), is Rachel Meghan Markle (which is incidentally also her WP:COMMONNAME, without the Rachel part). An American woman's name is not automatically changed when she marries, even if she marries in a foreign country. So for her legal name to change, she would explicitly have to do something to change it. And "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" would not be accepted as the legal name of an American citizen and she would never get it entered into the only passport she possesses. She might be able to change her name to Rachel Meghan Wales, given that her husband started using the Wikipedia founder's family name. Or if she so desired, she could certainly change it to his ancestral family name, which would be Glücksburg (the cadet branch to which he belongs) or Oldenburg (the main family). --Tataral (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As noted elsewhere,American laws generally DO accept a woman's name legally changing when she marries.She hasn't said she wanted Markle to stay.Her husband's branch of the Oldenburgs,if NOT royally titled,though he IS,are "Mountbatten-Windsor",a name that would apply to children of her sons.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Mountbatten-Windsor" is merely a tiny "branch" of the House of Glücksburg, but given its extremely short history and limited extent, the word "house" seems like an exaggeration in this case. Certainly it isn't an ancestral family name, considering that it's not the name of Harry's father (or at least, not "officially" regarded as such in the UK) and it isn't the name of his grandfather either, and Harry himself has used Wales. So he doesn't really have any ancestors who have called themselves "Mountbatten-Windsor", which is a newly constructed name anyway with no history at all prior to the 20th century. --Tataral (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the notion that the "surname" Wales is the same for both Jimmy and Harry is a misconception. And I don't think there has been any serious suggestion anywhere else that she might change her name to "Rachel Meghan Wales". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Among the royals, the pretend-surnames change with the person's circumstances and are not permanent. A Prince N of Wales is called such only while his father is Prince of Wales and he has no other title of his own. Prince William's children will go from N of Cambridge to N of Cornwall to N of Wales to "The Prince/ss N" even if they never get titles of their own (when he is King one would expect George to be Prince of Wales, Charlotte to be Princess Royal if Anne has died, and Louis to be Duke of York if Andrew has died).LE (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The increased longevity of the Royals suggests that Andrew may still be alive or too recently deceased when Louis receives a title. So it will have to be something else - risk Duke of Clarence, bring back Duke of Kendal or Duke of Ross or find somewhere new to base a title - Duke of Birmingham perhaps? Timrollpickering 19:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like Clarence for George as his being in direct line for Cambridge and Cornwall means he would not have to change his monogram whichever eventuality brought him.Of course it would merge in the Crown.Perhaps its old partner Avondale would work for his brother,if York stays out of reach.Duke of Ross sounds too much like the Earl of Rosse.But if the heptarchy are available a Marquess of Mercia would be pleasingly alliterative.12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Coat of arms
Has Meghan been granted a coat of arms yet ? Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  10:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Meghan has been granted her personal coat of arms, which is impaled with her husband's. No coat of arms has been granted to the father (must show evidence of an ancestor in his family line who was a British subject). But, why is coat of arms for The Duchess of Sussex not depicted as released to the public? The version that has been released can be found at https://www.instagram.com/p/BjM9DgJlkjp/?taken-by=theroyalfamily. Meghan's personal coat of arms has been described with elements with significant meaning that are missing from the version in this article. Compare the personal coat of arms published for The Duchess of Sussex with the one published for the Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge. →  Lwalt ♦ talk 10:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just because no wikipedian has got around to drawing a full version yet. We can't use a fair use version because fair use doesn't apply when images are replaceable with a free version. DrKay (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge had to wait over two years for hers, after marrying William? So it seems a little unlikely. I have no idea what the protocol may be for such an award. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Really?? Catherine Middleton's coat of arms is depicted on pages 25 and 28 of the official order of service for her wedding to Prince William. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So what is the protocol? I must have been looking in the wrong encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They're not actually Catherine's arms: they're her father's. Thomas Markle may not be eligible for a coat of arms if he's not British or of provable British descent. I believe the College of Arms/Lord Lyon only grants arms to British citizens or their descendants. See http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/granting-arms: petitioners for arms must show "their descent from a subject of the British Crown. This may be a recent forebear such as a parent or grandparent who lived in the same country under the British Crown; an emigrant from Britain, Ireland or anywhere else where the British monarch was Head of State; or a more distant ancestor such as inhabitant of the north American colonies before the recognition of American independence in 1783." DrKay (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * He's certainly "eligible for a coat of arms" and he, as an American citizen of German descent, is free to adopt one at any time he wishes, both legally and according to the heraldic tradition of the part of Europe where his family originates. The fact that British authorities don't "grant" him a coat of arms (which is quite reasonable since he isn't British and it wouldn't be natural for him or his other children to have a coat of arms in the British style) is a different matter. --Tataral (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per https://www.americanancestors.org/meghan-markle he has at least one line of descent from King Edward III of England...perhaps you mean his paternal line is not British and I concede that has clear heraldic significance,but you can't validate only his German ancestors as the determinant of his ethnicity.12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Markle (Merckel) family is verifiably of German descent. If the Markle family wanted a family coat of arms, it would be most natural for them to follow German heraldic tradition, according to which they are free to assume one at any time they choose. It would be most unnatural for them to ask a foreign head of state in a country other than the Markle family's country of origin for permission to assume one. The fact that he may or may not have some extremely distant cognatic ancestors unrelated to the Markle family who may have lived in England in the middle ages really has no bearing on anything to do with heraldry, or with his biography, or anything else related to him. In any event an alleged "line of descent from King Edward III of England" is both inherently dubious for countless reasons and also very trivial and of little relevance for anything, because if we go back a millennium or so we probably all descend from those kings of that era (at least the ones who still have descendants). Much more relevant for him is the recent family history that has some bearing on who is he today, such as his ancestors who moved to the US in the 18th century, who adopted the family name Markle and so on. --Tataral (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Edward III is called "the ancestor of the English middle class" and a majority of the English are considered his descendants,but as documented at the link a very experienced and respected genealogist,Gary Boyd Roberts,has tracked every generation of Markle's descent...it's not just a statistical guess.12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This descent is referred to in Sir Philip Wentworth's article...he and his wife Mary Clifford (descendant through four women of Edward III's son Lionel of Antwerp) are the last common ancestors of Meghan and her husband,son Sir Henry Wentworth being an ancestor of both parents of the Prince through his grandson Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset while daughter Elizabeth married Sir Martin De La See and had a daughter from whom the line traces to Thomas Markle's mother Doris May Sanders through the Hildyard,Legard,Skepper,Browne,Lunt,Drake,Smith,and Merrill families.12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Blowed if I know, but I do know that a coat of arms was allocated to her father about two weeks before the wedding and Catherine's own was derived from it in the usual manner by adopting a lozenge shape as opposed to a shield shape. Her lozenge was depicted hanging from a blue ribbon to symbolise her unmarried state. Once married Catherine's coat of arms was impaled with that of her husband, and the lozenge shaped one transferred to her sister, Pippa, until she, in turn, married. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The nearest two comparable cases (non-armigerous foreigners marrying into the royal family) are the duchesses of Gloucester and Windsor. Birgitte van Deurs was granted a personal coat of arms by Royal Warrant. Wallis Simpson didn't have one. DrKay (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess we are just going to have to wait and see. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * To answer the original question: there appears to be no record of any coat of arms at present. It has been stated that her father will not receive a coat of arms so there will be nothing to impale with her husband's. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He's not going to receive a coat of arms, that's true, which means that a coat of arms will not be created for the whole Markle family, but they always have the option of granting Meghan a coat of arms which exclusively belongs to her and not her family. Keivan.f  Talk 17:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What a heraldic relief. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A good place to watch for any news about the granting of arms: The College of Arms website www.college-of-arms.gov.uk. So far, there has been no announcement about arms for the Duchess.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If he's not receiving them because he's ineligible, is Meghan's mother eligible? Because if she isn't, I don't see how Meghan would be going by the above quote. Maybe when she obtains British citizenship although the above quote sort of suggests only her children would be (independently of Harry) but maybe it's missing something. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above blazon, "Per pale Azure and Gules, a chevron Or, cotised Argent, between three acorns (etc.)" describes the armorial bearings of H.R.H. the Duchess of Cambridge (née Catherine Middleton), which were granted to the then-Miss Middleton several days before her marriage to the-then Prince William of Wales. (Please see http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/grants/item/8-arms-of-catherine-middleton)


 * ...and...? My above post already states that it is the Middleton Blazon. And please sign your posts. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, he doesn't need to "receive" a coat of arms (and certainly not from a foreign country he doesn't have any ancestral ties to); he is free to assume one at any time, should he so wish (preferably in the style of German heraldry given the family's origin). If he were to assume a coat of arms, as his his right both legally and according to German/continental heraldic tradition, we will of course treat it as a family coat of arms for himself and his descendants in the Markle family. --Tataral (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Supposedly, it is "badass"  Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It may be quite some time before the conjugal coat of arms is released. The conjugal coat of arms for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge took some two years after their marriage to be presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Meghan's arms were granted to her, rather than her father. Thus she impales her arms with her husbands and uses her own supporter (a songbird argent), rather than an inestucheon of pretence used by older members of the Royal Family such as he Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent.  Barliner  talk  11:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm curious, why is the coat of arms of Meghan not shown on an inescutcheon, as is the case with that of Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester? I could not find a satisfactory answer to this on the internet. Is Meghan not the sole owner of the arms and is there not the intention that this will be passed on to her descendants? Rather odd... Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it because Birgitte has no brothers but Meghan does? DrKay (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat of a heraldry enthusiast and to answer the question: it's probably because an inescutcheon does not have to be used for a female bearer of a coat of arms. It seems that both the Duchess of Gloucester and the Duchess of Sussex were granted arms in their own right, but using an inescutcheon is simply a matter of choice. An inescutcheon is more traditional: this would explain why the Duchess of Gloucester has one because her arms were granted in the 70s when the College of Arms would have been slightly less open to innovations. It has nothing to do with siblings because they don't even come into it. Siblings would only be relevant if the coat of arms came from Meghan's father because then all of the siblings would have the right to use their father's arms. However, Meghan's father does not seem to have arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.29.101 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Siblings do matter, from my understanding. If the Duchess of Gloucester had brothers who could inherit her father's arms, then his coat would be impaled with the Duke of Gloucester's to form the Duchess's arms, as happened with the Duchess of Cambridge. But because the Duchess of Gloucester has no brothers, to avoid the situation where no one would "own" her father's arms, she is allowed to carry it with her, inescutcheon instead of impaled. Her son's arms then would include both hers and the Duke's, quartered, so that her father's arms are not "lost". I could be wrong on this, though. Powers T 21:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're completely right. However, the point is that the Duchess of Gloucester bears the coat of arms in her own right, not because she got them from her father. We don't actually know whether the arms were granted directly to her or to her father. But my guess is that they were granted directly to her because she was firstly estranged from her father and took her mother's maiden name instead. Indeed, the symbol on her coat of arms (a lapwing) is a traditional symbol for her mother's surname. Secondly, her father was not a British or Commonwealth citizen, which means it would have been easier to grant it (from a technical point of view) directly to the Duchess of Gloucester after she was married. So I'm fairly certain the arms belong only to her, and that is the reason the siblings don't count. If the arms came from her father than naturally whether she had siblings would have an effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.29.101 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So, to clear all of this up: a woman traditionally impales the arms of her father with those of her husband. Until the Duchess of Gloucester married into the family, every woman in the royal family used this convention. This is because all of their fathers had arms. Normally, a woman's brother would inherit her father's arms but if she has no brothers, then she can use an escutcheon of pretence to show that she is a 'heraldic heiress' - in other words, that the arms belong to her, in her own right. But there is another way for a woman to have arms in her own right: if they are granted to her directly. In this case she can also use an escutcheon of pretence. The Duchess of Gloucester (almost definitely) had arms granted directly to her and thus she is the sole member of the royal family to use an escutcheon of pretence. Now in 2018, the Duchess of Sussex became the second woman in the family to have arms granted directly to her. However, it was simply a stylistic choice to have her arms impaled rather than use an escutcheon of pretence. She does not have to use an escutcheon of pretence, although she is within her rights to do so. Hope this helps xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.29.101 (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Alma mater is a largely American obsession. The term is hardly ever used elsewhere. This includes the UK. Let Meghan become British. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I see plenty of articles about all kinds of British and other Europeans that have "Alma mater" in their infoboxes. Why is this an "American obsession"? I think it's perfectly fair having it in this article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * They have it in their infoboxes because it's in the templates for infoboxes, and that's because of the American obsession. We don't have different templates for Americans and non-Americans, sadly. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, in UK biographies in general, Alma mater is seen as a perfectly legitimate staple fact. I'm a bit astounded by your claim, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you point me at some such biographies? HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we may be straying a bit here from Mrs Meghan Windsor and her article. Probably best raised at Template talk:Infobox person? I could be wrong, Perhaps you could give a source over there for your "obsession" claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "Alma mater" (former school) is a British obsession, see all the Old X statements (and formerly category names before they got renamed for being inconsistent with everything) everywhere. that don't make sense to anyone except the people of that school and those that know it, because the "X" has little relation to the name of the school. Ofcourse, Alma Mater in this case is secondary school instead of university. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, of course, Old Etonians and Old St Cakeans etc., etc., ad nauseam. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with HiLo48. It's Latin, obviously, but it's not commonly used in the UK, and certainly not for anything lower than university-level education. I have never heard it used in the British media with reference to Meghan or any other celebrity. That doesn't, of course, mean that we shouldn't mention her education in the article. Deb (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's used for "celebrity" sports people in the USA because a lot of them get their sporting start through a college. That's not the case in the UK (and my country Australia). For those countries, the only people I see with alma maters outside Wikipedia are people whose place in society is dependent on high level tertiary qualifications. That's hardly the case for Meghan. Where she went to school is irrelevant to her fame. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And the Americans also use the words "alumnus" and "alumna" a lot more than we do in the UK (though it's becoming more common). Deb (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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


 * A: No. Because she is not of royal blood, she is prohibited by letters patent from using her Christian name in connection with any royal title. Her titles are; 'Her Royal Highness, Princess Henry of Wales, Duchess of Sussex'; or 'Her Royal Highness, Princess Henry, Countess of Dumbarton'; or ' Her Royal Highness, Princess Henry, Baroness Kilkeel' as appropriate when attending any event with her husband. If she attends alone, then the titles respectively become; 'Her Royal Highness, Duchess of Sussex'; or 'Her Royal Highness, Countess of Dumbarton'; or 'Her Royal Highness, Baroness Kilkeel'. See Princess Michael of Kent for a practical usage.


 * There are *no* letters patent prohibiting it; it is merely convention and tradition which dictate the styling of princesses by marriage. She is not Princess Henry of Wales because the Duke of Sussex is no longer Prince Henry of Wales. 2607:FEA8:C2DF:FF33:40F5:CC68:81B0:9EA1 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Harry doesn't cease to be Prince Henry simply because he is created a Duke he retains those titles but they are subsumed under the Dukedom in use. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Q: Is this likely to change?


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

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


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

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


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

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


 * A Because they will have royal blood, being direct great-grand children of the Queen, they would automatically be princes and princess, and any princesses will use their own Christian name. Prior to 2012, this was not the case and Charlotte would have been, 'Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor'. However, the Queen issued a new patent while Kate was pregnant to alter tradition that only the first born boy could be a prince. It is likely that the change in legislation allowing daughters equal inheritance of a title to sons triggered this change.


 * Since the Duke of Sussex is the SECOND son of the Prince of Wales,his children are not covered by the 2012 patent and will have to wait for the death of the Queen to become HRH Princes/ses rather than Lords/Ladies unless the Queen specifically extends the HRH to them.Further,it is not particularly likely that the alteration of succession to the Throne triggered this change,as a similar extension took place in 1898 (when Queen Victoria extended HRH to the children of the future George V) and in 1948 George VI extended HRH to the children of the present Queen...the basic situation is that children who would inevitably become qualified for HRH as grandchildren are being granted it from birth.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * On rechecking the source I used, it contradicts itself. It claims that Harry and Meghans's children "... would automatically become a prince or princess". However, the quote from the patent does specifically refer to the eldest son of the prince of Wales. The patent seems to be designed to ensure that if Kate and William's first born was girl, then she would be styled as a princess as the abandonment of male primogeniture would demand (the previous patent only applied to a first born son). I would agree that the 2012 patent, as written does not seem to overrule the existing rules where Harry and Meghan's children will not be princes or princesses. The principle that such children will not be princes and princesses is entirely logical as none of them are ever likely to become heir presumptive to the throne. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the 2012 letters patent was primarily reflecting the fact the Queen's longevity means the limits of the main LP were being reached. (Although why the 1917 LP only covered the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and not all of the eldest son's children is a mystery. For that matter why they needed to be concerned about any grandchildren of the Prince of Wales at a time when the present one was a young bachelor. It's like the time Parliament debated the pension allocation for a widow of the Duke of Cornwall, when the Duke was a toddler.) It only adds to the previous ones for a specific category and seems in line with the practice of limiting changes and additions to a few at a time. It's quite possible that a further set will be issued for Meghan and Harry's children but only if & when a pregnancy is announced during the Queen's lifetime. Timrollpickering 12:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The 2012 letters patent were enacted before the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 completed passage.The main issue was that children who expected succession would automatically bring into the category of qualification for HRH in the future be granted the HRH from birth,as in the previous cases I noted.The grandchildren of the Prince of Wales will all be grandchildren of the Sovereign when he becomes Sovereign.The 1898 rule was reinstated for William's children and we may see something similar if a Sussex child appears likely to be born in the present reign.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Up to the couple. They could take Edward's example or not as the Queen wishes.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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


 * Ah yes, aka the "Duchess of Cambridge effect". Apparently all the rage amongst fasionable goats this season? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I am actually more interested in social and political impacts, although there is probably more info about her impacts to fashion going back several months. Not so interested in website crashes, but it's funny.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Marriage Certificate
Any word on our subject's marriage certificate? This would give us a better idea of her intentions regarding her name. The Duchess of Cambridge, I understand, dropped the use of a surname with her marriage certificate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * An American citizen cannot "drop the use of a surname" in a legal/formal context. She can call herself what she likes privately, but she won't get a passport without the use of a surname. --Tataral (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Various states of the USA do allow legal mononymy...entertainers such as Cher and Teller have been formally allowed to have only one legal name and I haven't heard they were banned from international travel as a result.12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Duchess of Cambridge is not an American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Meghan Markle on the other hand is American. Not British. --Tataral (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested that our subject has dropped the use of a surname. I would ask that you re-read my entry. The marriage certificate will give us a better idea of our subject's intentions. That should be quite plain. We might, for instance, rule out the use of our subject's given 'first' name if that is what she desires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It is likely that the marriage certificate will not become publicly available - see this story about the Cambridges which states that almost none are. For some reason Charles and Camilla's certificate is available (image in this post here) and it's from the same district as Meghan and Harry's. Note that the certificate itself does not have an explicit section declaring what the bride or the groom's name will now be. But this doesn't stop a marriage certificate being accepted as a proof of a name change for one of the couple to the other's, or both to an obvious combined form, as the convention of such change is so strong as to not need such an explicit assertion. There's been an awful lot of talk about "legal name" in these discussions but in the UK that concept doesn't really exist in law and from what I've seen the US is much the same in not requiring formal procedures to change a name on marriage, and nobody asserting "legal name not changed" has shown to the contrary that such a process is needed. Timrollpickering 12:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this information. For the most part, changing one's name in America is governed by individual States and the process can be quite simple. Some important documents issued by the Federal Government, however, such as one's passport, do require documentary proof for changes to one's name. I won't bore everyone with the details, but the process runs from easy to difficult depending on the reasons for the change in name. As an aside, it's said that the entertainer Cher is one of the very few Americans to have a passport issued with just one name. (Cher.) Presumably the passport is issued with Cher as the surname and 'NFN' (No first name) as a first name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note for anyone interested: Mononymous person says this: "The comedian and illusionist Teller, the silent half of the duo Penn & Teller, has legally changed his original polynym, Raymond Joseph Teller, to the mononym "Teller" and possesses a United States passport issued in that single name." (with two sources). Not sure about Prince or Madonna. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018
Titles and styles 4 August 1981- 19 May 2018- Ms Meghan Markle 19 May 2018- Present- HRH Meghan, Duchess of Sussex Margenius10 (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source for the 1981-2018 dates. DrKay (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I consider these "Styles" sections to be horrible. It's as if someone on Wikipedia is trying to emulate the etiquette books of the 1950s or before ("How to address an earl, an archdeacon, a member of parliament, ...")  They should be got rid of, or if not then an explanation linked from every page describing what the section is trying to do (as with standard links in infoboxes etc).  Of course Ms Markle had at least three "styles" before she married the prince, but this is the 21st century and no-one talks like that any more.  Sussexonian (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I suppose if a person doesn't like the etiquette books from the 1950s, then they would also that much more intensely dislike titles like duchess and princess. Titles like these, after all, grew out of the mists of antiquity, like the 800s and the 600s, and no one talks the way they did anymore. (Unless they know how to speak Carolingian-era Franconian.) Wouldn't it make sense to do away with titles altogether, in our own modern times? (The Urban Dictionary might contain some useful substitutes.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yseult-Ivain (talk • contribs) 05:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Yseult-Ivain (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Arms
Is there any reason why we don't have the full arms pictured, with supporters, etc.? It looks strange when compared to the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge article. StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said at 11:30, 27 May 2018 above (in the section), it's just because no-one has drawn it for us yet. There is a request at Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. DrKay (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2018

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * At least one series of US-UK tax treaties exists; to read them might answer some of these questions. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/international-businesses/united-kingdom-uk-tax-treaty-documents.


 * Because the British royal family would prefer that their financial dealings remain as private as possible, it's not inconceivable that some time ago, administrators of the British royal family financial affairs contacted the Foreign Office, who contacted the U.S State Dept., who contacted the White House, who contacted the IRS, and told the IRS that any U.S. purported tax liability of Meghan Markle, residing abroad, should be referred to the U.S. State Department. A private treaty may have been arranged between the two governments . . . i.e., (I'm making up an example from whole cloth): in exchange for some fantastic deals for the U.S. military purchase of aircraft parts and equipment from British Aerospace, and certain British overseas military assets making themselves accessible to the U.S. military, the U.S. tax boys are hereby ordered to stand down and cool their jets regarding Meghan.) And we'll never know of such agreements, because they'll be arranged privately with confidentiality clauses. Yseult-Ivain (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Um ... yeah, that's actually totally inconceivable. There's no such thing as a "private treaty." Treaties have to be ratified by the Senate. Senate votes are all recorded and published (aside from the fact they're known by 100 loose-lipped senators, their 4,000 looser-lipped staff, viewed by 200 journalists in the press gallery, and nationally broadcast by CSPAN to its 14 viewers). Also, since the US military doesn't currently purchase anything at all from British Aerospace, it would definitely raise some eyebrows if it started. That's a fun plot for a romance novel or a matinee film, but not relevant to a non-fiction encyclopedia article. &#32;DocumentError (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They’re not always that transparent...but, yeah, that does seem an unlikely proposition. DeCausa (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Trying to eliminate bookkeeping inconveniences for the marriage of two C-list celebrities versus trying to bankroll an armed rebellion to overthrow a government are two unrelated things. No man, woman, child, or dog in the EEOB is going to risk going to jail so that Harry and Meghan can live a fairytale romance free from accountants. &#32;DocumentError (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Let the reader be advised: The following is not presented as content for the article, but strictly added to the talk page, and strictly to help shape and to suggest a direction, if any, for any future discussion around the inclusion of factual information, if any.


 * In reply to DocumentError's helpful concerns (above): Then, not a treaty. Another arrangement. Necessarily private, and therefore unknowable to the general public. Many private things, things unknowable to the public do happen in government. Based on past experience, however, present and future private arrangements may be surmised. My contribution, such as it is, is conceptual, not concrete. And so any examples, such as the examples I gave - admittedly implausible - were included to help illustrate what I consider a valid overall concept, which should be fairly easily grasped by people familiar with government and international affairs. I propose simply that these sorts of things can be arranged, and fairly quietly. (Again, I'm trying to illustrate an overall concept; and won't be called upon to propose, illustrate, or suggest in what ways they might be arranged, since such examples seem to cause problems for some readers, who aren't grasping the overall concept.)


 * And in reply to Galobtter's concerns: as long as all legal requirements are met, there would be nothing considered "shady," unethical, or illegal about arranging these things quietly. It's simply that some people wouldn't like it, or wouldn't understand. (As we have seen during this very discussion.) Again, I won't give examples of how such things might be arranged. Instead, anyone can read the applicable CFR sections for themselves. (And I won't point to any specific regs.) And I don't believe public transparency would necessarily be a legal requirement here. Again, all of this is presented as an overall concept, not as a fact, and not as a "how to."Yseult-Ivain (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Move to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex
Well as it have now been moved back should it be moved to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex?Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The MRV will decide what the title will be; let's just wait for that to conclude. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


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

Of course both articles should, and will, be moved to the "correct" titles which was already done once. It seem that at some level of bureaucracy it was considered that the moves were "done wrong". Scott Davis I have not seen that suggestion, to add "The" in the title. I agree if it gains support it will involve a change to the current conventions for "royalty and nobility" but in the meantime we wait for the move to some title that recognizes the fact they are now the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (no relation). Sussexonian (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Including "The " is mentioned a few times above in the points that say the current WP:NCROY convention names articles about married and divorced people the same. --Scott Davis Talk 14:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The move back to Meghan Markle, when billions of people didn't have a clue who or what a Meghan Markle was before she became the Dutchess of Sussex, is a total waste of time. I predict that the article will return to Meghan, Dutchess of Sussex. This has become a farce. It totally defeats basic common sense... It clearly is a venomous and nasty assault on the Founder who took the right action at the right moment (with justification). It's nothing more than a ganging up frenzy by the same stale, liberal, basement-dwelling, spoiled, untouchable, instigating and bureaucratic long-term admins and their cheerleaders, who have a lot of time on their hands and no jobs, who have hijacked Wikipedia, who have outlived their useful lives on Wikipedia long ago and who are still hindering donations and progress on Wikipedia. They now want the Founder impeached just because he made them cry. This is insane. The system is rigged to ALWAYS exclude Admins who don't "fit their mold". This is how the admin swamp maintains tyrannical control over Wikipedia. Such Swamp needs to be drained, and new admins placed to rejuvenate Wikipedia and bring a higher level of excellence, competence and congeniality. Explorium (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of incendiary, untoward accusations in the post above. Whatever the MRV decides, it will be the result of an open and transparent process involving anyone in the community who wishes to comment. That's as it should be. And to suggest the actress was not already well-known as Meghan Markle is simply untrue. While not as famous as Grace Kelly, she was a star of a popular network series for years, among other high-profile work. She was not unknown, like Diana, Princess of Wales, prior to become a royal.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How famous she was as an actress is a red herring. The question is, per WP:COMMONAME, how do the sources refer to her currently? As, for example, the BBC on 25 May and The Times on 27 May The Daily Express on 28 May etc ad finitum it appears, for the time being to be Meghan Markle. I doubt that they do this because of her prior reputation as an actress. But it doesn’t matter why, the fact is that is what they are doing and Wikipedia’s policy is to follow that. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is so ridiculous and such a mess. If we are going to have the article at Meghan Markle, we should move Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge to Kate Middleton; Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall to Camilla Parker Bowles and Diana, Princess of Wales to Princess Diana. Plenty of sources refer to Meghan as the Duchess of Sussex.  CookieMonster755 ✉  22:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * None refer to her as “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” that I can find. Most primarily refer to her as MM. Whether the others should be moved depends on an analysis of the RS usage, case-by-case. Maybe some should be moved. Don’t see a problem with that. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Diana is different in that she actually was titled "Diana, Princess of Wales" before she died, as a divorcee (just as Sarah, Duchess of York is correctly titled). However Catherine, Camilla, and many other's articles are wrong. If anything they should be "Catherine, The Duchess of Cambridge" to be more correct. Or just use the maiden name. Either way, we should make whatever consensus there is consistent across all articles. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We do have Anne, Duchess of York at Anne Hyde, Queen Alexandra at Alexandra of Denmark, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent at Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark, etc. Why is that not a ridiculous mess? Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, but we also have Charlene, Princess of Monaco (not Charlene Wittstock), Caroline, Princess of Hanover (not Princess Caroline of Monaco), Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece (not Marie-Chantal Miller), Gloria, Princess of Thurn and Taxis (not Countess Gloria von Schönburg-Glauchau), Princess Michael of Kent (not Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz), Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark (not Tatiana Blatnik), Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark (not Mary Donaldson), Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland (not Sofia Hellqvist), Sophie, Countess of Wessex (not Sophie Rhys-Jones), Princess Angela of Liechtenstein (not Angela Brown), Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco (not Salma Bennani), Queen Noor of Jordan (not Lisa Najeeb Halaby), Queen Rania of Jordan (not Rania Al-Yassin), Princess Claire of Luxembourg (not Claire Lademacher), Princess Salwa Aga Khan (not Kendra Spears), Marie, Princess of Liechtenstein (not Countess Kinsky of Wchinitz and Tettau), Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein (not Duchess Sophie in Bavaria, Princess of Bavaria), Princess Sibilla of Luxembourg (not Sibilla Weiller y Torlonia), Princess Olga, Duchess of Apulia (not Princess Olga Isabelle of Greece), Julia, Princess of Battenberg (not Countess Julia von Hauke), Princess Anastasia of Greece and Denmark (not May Stewart), etc. So what do we do? How do we reach a consensus? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We should apply WP:COMMONNAME just as we do for any other aricle. For example, there is no RS support for using either Marie Christine von Reibnitz over Princess Michael of Kent or Lisa Najeeb Halaby over Queen Noor of Jordan (although I notice there is a case to be made for Noor Al Hussein over Queen Noor of Jordan). The point is we don’t haveto have the same formula on all these names. We shouldn’t use “consistency” as an argument to override COMMONNAME in these cases. DeCausa (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If we don't encourage correctness over COMMONNAME we become part of popular misconceptions we should feel bound to set straight.LE (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Move There seems to be widespread disagreement among reliable sources as to whether she is correctly known as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" or "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex"  or "Rachel, Duchess of Sussex"  or "Rachel, The Duchess of Sussex" . We shouldn't be changing this article back and forth to various different names until it's clear what her actual name is; in the meantime it should stay parked here. (The word "The" indicates the current wife of the duke, in the same way Diana went from "The Princess of Wales" to "Princess of Wales" following her divorce, so moving this to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" - aside from being conflicted by RS - would also indicate she's already gotten a divorce. I haven't seen today's tabloids, but I assume they'll stay married for at least a couple years before moving on.) &#32;DocumentError (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support move as William is married to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Could we please close this new discussion, which seems to be transforming into a new (but unofficial) requested move until the move review of the previous requested move is closed? Celia Homeford (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the review was over. Seeing as the page was moved back to Meghan Markle. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

THIS IS CRAZINESS! This article is not going to be named Meghan, Duchess of Sussex then Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge needs to be renamed "Kate Middleton" oh and while we're at it Elizabeth II needs to be renamed "Elizabeth Windsor" REDICULOUS!  Eric Cable  ! Talk 13:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically Elizabeth would stay the same because she is, firstly, never "Elizabeth Windsor" (no such person exists) and, secondly, The Duchess of Sussex and The Duchess of Cambridge are members of the royal family by marriage, wherest Elizabeth is one by birth. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I've declined a request to close this discussion, though I was tempted. The previous move (which has resulted in the current title) is still being formally cleaned up. Meanwhile it is not appropriate to start voting again until a formal move process is again underway, at some point in the future. It is appropriate to continue to provide a space for a discussion about the process for achieving the best title for this page, however please do not vote. Please do not whine and bitch. Please do not just state your preferred title. No one will be listening. Instead, rational non-repetitive discussions of policy and evidence would be appropriate at this time. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Meghan Markle is her common name by far. Frankly, I don't think any of these silly British vanity titles should be in any Wikipedia article names. We don't include "Sir" or "MBE"/"OBE". It is like cretins who put "BA (Hons)" after their name, its just farcial egoism really. Claíomh Solais (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Vanity titles"? There is no such thing. We do not include "Sir" or "MBE/OBE" because they are styles. Her title is a legal title. She is a princess of the United Kingdom and a member of a reigning dynasty. It's a little different than someone whose been knighted. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Legal" according only to the reactionary British government. Idi Amin's official title according to the government of Uganda was "Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular". Yet we don't include that in his article title. Nor should we with British "titles." Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the paragraph above, this is not a vote, so please don't put bolded "support" or "oppose" comments - they will not count towards any survey. This section is here purely for general discussion of the naming issue, pending the result of the ongoing WP:MRV discussion. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Not for the moment. I think time will tell on this one. I changed my vote on the previous move proposal because I don't think the new name (or the correct title) has bedded in yet. We do have an ongoing problem with the titles of wives and consorts - even more than we have with dukes, princes, kings, etc. At one time we had clear guidelines, but these were removed in favour of "common name", so now we have the ridiculous "William the Conqueror" instead of "William I of England" and, even more ridiculously "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" instead of "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" (which will, as GoodDay has always said, eventually have to change back). There's no easy answer, and certainly no consensus. Deb (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)