Talk:Megxit/Archive 1

But why though?
But why though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.22.175.143 (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the article (quickly, before it gets deleted/redirected). Britishfinance (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Google seems to have given up on including the English Wikipedia Megxit article in an infobox
It's still not listed on any Google Canada web search, sadly. :(

Thanks, AfD. :(

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  22:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Class of article?
This article is already an impressive length, spanning several sections and a couple pages with ~50 references. Looking at Wing, the example C-class article, I think Megxit is already C-class. Would you agree, and can we upgrade it?

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  22:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No strong feelings on this, I think things are still so nascent that I am fine leaving it as is? Britishfinance (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, C class, I've updated it. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (and ), okay, sounds good. Just wanted to check my understanding of the class of article requirements. Doug Mehus T · C  15:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Britishfinance (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The American Conservative
"A Briton Explains Megxit". Putting this link here in case anyone wants to use it. I'm a clueless American so your judgment is better than mine about its reliability and neutrality. I found it somewhat tendentious, but informative. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DF95 (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Very interesting piece. Unfortunately, there is just a mountain of junk-RS on this subject (global tabloids), so trying to restrict to highest grade sources. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Meaning
another source there, says it was already used negatively a while back..♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I had added this ref to the naming section, but expanded out some of VF's findings. Britishfinance (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Coinage and mis-presenting facts as just claims
Why is the simple declarative sentence: " "Megxit" was coined and long used by internet trolls against the Duchess of Sussex." , removed or morphed in a seemingly misleading way into a "contention" or a "concern" or a "claim"? "Megxit" was coined by internet trolls, and it was long before January 2020 used to abuse Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. These are not contentions or concerns or claims, they are facts and should be presented as facts. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We have the paper of record from almost every country who reported on Megxit (including the main British ones), attributing The Sun as the first user of the term (and some using the term “coined”). We have a piece by Vanity Fair (a good RS and which I originally sourced) mentioning that internet trolls have used the term before; however, it did not gain any notability, and the trolls may have borrowed it from somewhere else.
 * Therefore, splitting the naming section in two - a media section and a trolling section - captures these two different elements (as does the lede). I attach below a clips from ITV’s Good Morning show today (one of the highest viewed UK shows), where an editor from The Telegraph (one of the highest grade RS in the UK, and a royalist paper), uses the term “hard Megxit”. If this was a notable troll term, she would not have used it. Clip: ITV Is a Hard 'Megxit' the Start of the End For Harry and Meghan? | This Morning
 * Stating that it was “coined by trolls” is therefore not what the main RS say (and perhaps we will never fully find out). The structure of splitting the sections, and avoiding claims that it is was a notable troll term (which is not supported) works better. Britishfinance (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would you point to false information, when it is a fact that Megxit was used before by 2020 by trolls and that was in fact reported on before 2020. You also just made stuff up about what you think a Telegraph editor would do. There is not only Vanity Fair. Megxit was coined by trolls and used by trolls against the duchess long before January 2020, here's another . Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article has a section on "In Media", that says "The British tabloid newspaper The Sun is credited with the first headline use of the term "Megxit" on 9 January 2020, to describe the couple's surprise announcement of their decision", which is right? The "In trolling" section repeats the Vanity Fair quote that some trolls used the terms previously, which is also right?
 * "Megxit" was not a notable troll term before The Sun brought it to notability. "Megxit" appears on no database of internet memes before The Sun (e.g. know your meme:Megxit). One of your sources (Harpers and Bazarr above), says only a handful of accounts (who themselves may have borrowed the term from someone else) seemed to make any use of it (amongst other terms)?
 * However, I have supported having a separate "In trolling" section that covers these issues and refs, and have supported adding a note in the lede that trolls had previously used it. However, it is not right, and misleading, to imply that "Megxit" was in any way a notable term before the 8 January 2020 and The Sun headline. Britishfinance (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I put "headline" in that sentence on The Sun. Notability is not a guideline for facts in articles. Notability is a test for whether you have an article.  The history of "Megxit"'s use before January 2020 is well documented, regardless of whether you would have written an article before 2020. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You did. I am talking about notability from the perspective of weight in an article (and lede).  However, just looking at the article just now, I think what we have now works well?  Also, if more RS comes in on previous trolling on this term, the "In trolling" section can be expanded? thanks?. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Reassessment
Didn’t the Queen say in her statement that they would reassess this new situation after a year to see whether it works or not? Shouldn’t we include that as a detail in the body of the article? Any thoughts? Keivan.f Talk 06:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me check this out - if she did, then I think we should include. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I could not find such a reference in the statements (I am not sure I have read them all as they came out in parts). The only RS I can find on it is from Fox News, however, it is an "insider" source, and ultimately, the main UK RS (The Telegraph, The Guardiam, The Times), don't seem to say this.  The Telegraph, who are probably only RS in the UK who could reliably be used for an "insider" source, did mention this Prince Charles to fund the Sussexes for a year (which I added in), but nothing that the overall agreement would only last for a year? Britishfinance (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. I saw it in some new reports, like Fox News, and I assumed that it was part of the actual agreement. The part in this article which says Charles will support them for one year also threw me off, because I made some connection between these two in my mind. Again, thank you so much for looking it up. Keivan.f  Talk 16:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Article title
Am I the only one who's concerned about the title of this article? I have several objections to it, viz. I'm considering requesting a page move to "Withdrawal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from royal duties" - sure, it's longer, but it at least describes what the article is about. But first, what to other people think?
 * 1) It's not descriptive
 * 2) It singles out Megan as responsible for what's happening, when as far as anyone knows, it's a joint initiative by the couple
 * 3) It's not being used on British TV or radio, but presumably originated from the tabloid press - not a reliable source for anything relating to current affairs.
 * I would support a renaming of the article per your proposal. I also have doubts that "Megxit" is the WP:COMMONNAME used in reliable sources. Aoi (青い) (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would oppose any move for now. It may have started from tabloids, but Megxit is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME for this event (per google search, and per the main RS in the article), and was further used in describing the outcome as a "hard Megxit" by most major RS in the UK (per the article sources, including Telegraph, Guardian etc.)
 * In addition, the term "Mexgit" has itself has become part of the story, in pieces such as ‘Megxit’ Is the New Brexit in a Britain Split by Age and Politics (and others in the article), and the article contains several other WP:SIGCOV pieces on the term itself and its broader meaning. No other search term has become close to the level of adoption of Megxit, and other terms are misleading as to what has happened (given they have not resigned, abdicated, stepped back etc.).  Britishfinance (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been following the story, and I'd never heard the term until I came across the Wikipedia article yesterday. That's probably because I don't read The Sun, which, according to your source is where it originated. Deb (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * and, my two cents...is Megxit a bit unfair to Meghan? Maybe, though she was reportedly the one who prompted Harry to acquiesce. Nevertheless, it very clearly checks all the boxes in terms of WP:COMMONNAME and I don't see this as being a WP:BLP violation because what counts is how we've written the article. The article is written from a neutral point of view, does not give undue weight to a particular aspect, and is well cited. I really have no concerns here. --Doug Mehus T · C  20:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "reportedly" - there you have it. The facts of this matter are being widely misreported, but certainly the BBC aren't using "Megxit" and the people I know aren't using it to discuss it. It's entirely a tabloid invention. We owe it to our readers not only to write our articles in a neutral manner but to title them in a descriptive manner that summarizes the actual content. Deb (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC use use it, all of the highest grade WP:RS/Ps in the the UK use it: The Telegraph, The Times, and The Guardian (who even published a cartoon titled Brexit and Megxit). THe highest grade WP:RS/P in the US use it: The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.  Papers of record all over the world use Megxit, including The Hindu, and The South China Morning Post.  And this is just a small sample of the WP:RS/P who use the term "Megxit".  It might have been created as a headline by tabloids, but, wrongly or rightly, it has become - by far - the most common term globally by the highest-grade RS to refer to the affair. Britishfinance (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , We could say Brexit was also a tabloid invention, too, insofar as it was probably invented by the tabloid-esque trade publications of the business world. Yet we have a whole series on Brexit and not The multi-year process for the United Kingdom to withdraw membership from the European Union. Doug Mehus T · C  21:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, and in the same way we don't call Covfefe, a name like President Trump's twitter typing error. Megxit is by far the WP:COMMONNAME globally for this event, not just amongst tabloids, but almost all RS.  And per earlier comments, the term has itself has become an important part of the story and its deeper links to Brexit (e.g. ‘Megxit’ Is the New Brexit in a Britain Split by Age and Politics and Megxit, Trump and the generational divide).
 * Megxit may have pejorative overtones, which the article chronicles, but not to the extent that high-grade RS doesn't use it. In fact, Vanity Fair (magazine) who ran the most substantive article about the pejorative side of "Megxit" (and is in the article) with: “Megxit” Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means), just published the following article today: Yes, HBO Max’s Prince George Show Will Tackle “Megxit”. Britishfinance (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Brexit quickly became an official term, as in "Brexit Secretary", etc. "Megxit" hasn't, and it never will. The BBC blog you refer to mentions it only in the context of reporting newspaper headlines - it actually says "what many of the front pages are calling "Megxit"". So, regardless of whether it's the common name, it's not describing what's really happening. Deb (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody expects Megixt to become a term of office like Brexit, but that is not a requirement for naming articles? It is COMMONNAME. Here is one of the highest grade RS in the US, PBS, (the BBC of the US imho), with Why Harry and Meghan’s ‘Megxit’ is a crossroads for the UK on race.  Or NPR, another really high-grade US source saying How 'Megxit' May Wind Up Settling Down In Canada.  I could keep on listing these high-grade sources (we are at almost 100 refs in the article); we can't say that all of the strongest newspaper/media RS in the en-world are wrong to use "Megxit", and we should use otherwise? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's certainly the WP:COMMONNAME, and the term people are likely to be searching for, so I also oppose a move. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Two thoughts:
 * When I google "Meghan Harry Canada -Megxit" I get about 291,000,000 results and when I google "Meghan Harry Canada -Megxit" I get about 18,400,000 results. I am not sure these are the best queries, but I thought it would be informative. This tells me that there are a LOT of sources that are not using Megxit.
 * If it is renamed to something like Withdrawal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from royal duties, the redirect from Megxit could still stand which would route right to this article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When I search for ""Withdrawal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from royal duties", I get No results found for "Withdrawal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from royal duties from google? I also don't get this as the headline in many RS? Not liking a term, as per Alanscottwalker (below), is not a policy guideline on Wikipedia. We need to go with what the COMMONNAME is (e.g. what our readers search for), and importantly, what the best independent RS in the world says; which per above, is currently Megxit? tanks. Britishfinance (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Putting that in quotes, I am not surprised. Not in quotes, I get 674,000 results and "Duke and Duchess Sussex royal duties withdraw" (not in quotes) gets 2,680,000 results. My point is that I can see the points made by others that Megxit is a negative term, and it was used a bit before the withdrawal business, and I don't think that everyone uses the term.


 * I just copy and pasted a suggested article name. I can absolutely see that there might be better options.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When you don't use quotes, you get a google search off every individual word – E.g. same as googling +Harry +Meghan, which yields a huge figure given their individual notability, however, it has nothing to do with the Megxit event. The highest-ranked search term - by some distance - for the event, is "Megxit".  A term that implies Meghan was the driver of their departure (whether that is correct or not) is not a BLP violation.  The highest-grade RS in the en-speaking media world use Megxit in their article titles (and body) as shown above (and in quantity) – they would not do this if such a term was of the type that would be a BLP violation.  This view may change in the future (who knows), but at the moment, not only is Megxit the dominant search term, but is in prominent and widespread use by the highest grade RS. Britishfinance (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Using and not using quotes makes a big difference in the results. I partly see what you are saying about the search query, and I partly disagree with your conclusion.


 * This may not be the right time, it might be good to have things settle down a bit more, but I don't think I am the only one that questions the use of the term "Megxit" for the article... and finds that "Megxit" is not always used by reliable sources. In this google news page, Megxit is only used a few times in titles (although some articles are about other topics). It's not used at all in this NBC News article. I can find more if we are getting into a serious conversation.


 * In going through the article, there is so much discussion about when the term was used, how it's used, etc... and relatively little discussion about the actual withdrawal of royal duties. It's a bit annoying, I find.


 * But, I am ok with waiting a bit... perhaps talking in relation to splitting the article. I was just expressing my opinion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Isn't it true that only tabloids have used 'Megxit' as one word in a title, which would suggest the title is a BLP problem, and failure of encyclopedic register. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes! Deb (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's meant to be a sensationalistic title to grab folks and I am seeing articles from reliable sources that don't do that. I agree that I find it a "failure of encyclopedic register". I am happy to do a survey, perhaps by finding all "Sussex royal" articles about withdrawal of royal duties from reliable sources and how many use Megxit in the title.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And consider, are people just suppose to assume what royal duties are and what this couple was assigned to do? It's rather like coming in mid-book if the reader wants an actual understanding. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with that as well. I am happy to work on that or the survey for titles used by reliable sources about withdrawal from royal duties.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

One point I'm trying to make here is that "Megxit" does not mean the same thing as withdrawal from royal duties. It's about Meghan and her supposed dislike of the UK, the royal family, etc. Of course it's used on social media by people who are ignorant of the facts and the background - that's why it's so easy to find when you google. But it's absolutely not the common name for what the article is really - or should be - about. Deb (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's not what I am seeing when I look at google news for royal sussex articles. There are just a few outlets (TMZ, Fox) that are using Megxit in their headlines. And, I think this article has way too much information about the genesis, naming, etc. of Megxit... when the focus should be the withdrawal of royal duties and the repercussions. Where do we go from here?


 * Withdrawal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from royal duties may be too long. Edward VIII abdication crisis is an example of a shorter title. Perhaps something like Sussex withdrawal from royal duties?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the term "Megxit" either, especially given how it started and agree that "Withdrawal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from royal duties" would be a more encyclopedic, neutral name but I don't think we can ignore that most publications refer to it as Megxit (I disagree with Deb unfortunately here on there being only a few outlets using it), and that people will type that into the search engine more than anything else. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

and, perhaps open an RFC on renaming this Withdrawal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from royal duties? I think I'd prefer that title but WP:COMMONAME would seem to indicate otherwise.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Good idea, . I will work on it in a few hours... and see if there are any comments or input for the RfC before then.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I went to start the WP:RFC and read that page. It says RfCs are not to be used for renaming/moving pages. Do you or anyone else know what the best step is from here?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That's silly! any idea?♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks like the correct approach is to go to WP:RMCM. I can post that with Withdrawal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from royal duties or something shorter like Sussex withdrawal from royal duties. Any thoughts, anyone, about that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , Yeah, I incorrectly used an RfC to discuss the possibility of moving an article to a new title, then started the page move discussion. Most of the discussion with respect to the move occurred in the RfC, so it was still able to be moved. However, yeah, we should definitely use WP:RMCM. FWIW, though, I suspect it will be a WP:SNOW oppose—this is just a logical guess, though. Doug Mehus T · C  19:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I started the discussion here because I was looking for possible alternative titles, thinking that someone might come up with something better. Quite surprised at the apparent preference for the tabloid simplification of the topic. Deb (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd support Withdrawal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from royal duties, even if I can see the argument of keeping it as Megxit. A redirect to that would hardly be a problem, and Megxit would still be documented in the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"Megxit" is dreadful but alternatives such as "Withdrawal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from royal duties" are worse. They reminds us of how the entire thing was blown out of proportion. With "Megxit", we can at least pretend that this is a substantial international relations event (or however we categorize it). Surtsicna (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Worse?? I don't think so. You're just pissed off because the article was kept ..♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they are just worse. In that I agree with Britishfinance, who wrote much of the article and argued it should be kept. Surtsicna (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am really surprised that you want to go along with the tabloid title instead of a meaningful one. Deb (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Particularly as he's the author of articles like Royal touch and a royalist. sorry you lost the AFD Surtsicna and made a poor error of judgement but it would have been written regardless of me.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is somehow both disturbing and laughable, but the next time you comment on me or speculate about my affiliations will be the time you find yourself the subject of an ANI report. Deb, I am in favour of the tablod title because the topic warrants a tabloid title. Surtsicna (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks?? You are the author of numerous articles on royalty, you dislike seeing articles which are anything but positive about royalty, that's not attacking you, it's the truth.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Surtsicna, I oppose the title because it just isn't how people are referring to this matter and it isn't in any way descriptive of what's actually happening/happened. Only yesterday I was in a pub in the heart of England where people were discussing the topic in the bar. I would really have expected to hear one of them using the term "Megxit" if it were in common use, so I kept my ears peeled (if one can do that), but not one of them said it. They called it "this business of Harry and Megan moving to Canada" or similar. I don't accept that it is the common name and I think the project is doing itself a disservice by using the term. Deb (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with . The further that times goes on, the less that I see Megxit used, and it's used largely by tabloids. IMO, there is an issue with Commonname and Encyclopedic tone to use Megxit as the title. I also think there' far too much content about how the name was derived rather than focusing on the actual topic of withdrawal from royal duties.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would oppose renaming this article to "this business of Harry and Meghan moving to Canada." At present, "Megxit" appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME, but if a new WP:COMMONNAME emerges, I'd be quite happy to rename the article then. I agree with that there is far too much content about how the name "Megxit" was derived. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not a good name, not descriptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violet Chains (talk • contribs) 08:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The title doesn't have to be descriptive, it should just be the commonly-used name for the subject, which appears to be "Megxit" for the time being. Similarly we have an article called Brexit rather than the previous "United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I propose that section Megxit be split into a separate page called Sussex Royal Foundation. The content of the current page relates to a notable event involving the British Royal family and Commonwealth countries whereas the Sussex Royal Foundation has already generated significant coverage in top-tier, reliable, independent sources, so an easy WP:GNG pass can already be established for standalone notability. As well, since the pair are media darlings, it holds that the Sussex Royal Foundation will continue to generate even more significant coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, assuming WP:CORPDEPTH isn't already met. Moreover, in the recent AfD, cogently, and rightly in my view, argued that Megxit is larger than the Sussex Royal Foundation, stating, in response to discussions on refactoring Megxit into or renaming Megxit to Sussex Royal Foundation, "No, not to Sussex Royal Foundation--the whole thing is bigger than just a business venture." Doug Mehus T · C  00:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. It seems WP:TOOSOON until they actually have activities to report. But, Megxit is the media frenzy and break from the work of the royal family and the foundation will be the nature of their work going forward, so I see it as two different topics. It seems to me to be best to wait until there is coverage that shows work underway by the foundation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I have no problem with holding off on actually implementing the split. I was just thinking it'd be good to be proactive in having the discussion and then, perhaps in one, two, three, or more months' time, using that consensus as the basis for implementing it. Doug Mehus T · C  00:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we first wait for the foundation to be established and then move that section into the new article? I think it's too soon at this point to create a separate article. Keivan.f  Talk 01:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not certain whether it's been incorporated formally or not. Assuming it will, although incorporation isn't a required status, then yes I'd have no problem with holding off. I'm just proposing to have the discussion, and then use that discussion later. I'd trust the editors use their good judgment as to when to implement the split. Doug Mehus T · C  01:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would now definitely oppose this slitting proposal as it was just confirmed that they don't plan to use the name Sussex Royal and that they won't establish a foundation, but a non-profit organisation instead. Keivan.f  Talk 00:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Not Yet. There is currently no such foundation, we should wait until it exists (if indeed it will -- are the Sussexes actually royal now?). But when it does exist, then yes. -- 125.254.27.222 (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Right now they are royal figures, and they'll probably continue to be but they won't carry out public duties, like the Duke of Edinburgh, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York, and the Duchess of Kent. The Duchess of Kent also goes by the style Katharine, Duchess of Kent in her professional life and does not use the HRH style, which is very similar to what Harry and Meghan will do, but that doesn't mean that she's not a member of the royal family. Keivan.f  Talk 04:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Not Yet (but eventually yes). The details are too nacsent now, and it is not clear what names/titles can be used (I am sure that a larger and more detailed agreement is being done in the background, hence why the deadline is quoted as "Spring 2020").  It is also useful to have the two items in one article for the moment for readers.  I also agree with  however that Megxit will probably remain a standalone article as it has simply gotten too big now, and I suspect several books are going to be written about these weeks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is separate yet. If this Sussex brand actually does something, then maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violet Chains (talk • contribs) 08:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It looks like the Sussex Royal brand will be DOA due to opposition from the royal family. A new page should come with the launch of the foundation once the details, including the name, are worked out. Bartholomite (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given it looks like they won’t be able to use Sussex Royal I oppose the split to that article. There probably will be a time that a split is needed but that should be to whatever they eventually call their charitable foundation Davethorp (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Google seems to have given up on including the English Wikipedia Megxit article in an infobox
It's still not listed on any Google Canada web search, sadly. :(

Thanks, AfD. :(

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  22:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox for Megxit
and (who I keep wanting to refer to  for some reason),

I'm wondering if an infobox could be useful for this article (i.e., Infobox event, but feel free to suggest another infobox template better suited if there is one) as it would allow for easy placement of a prominent image and, potentially, help to fast track this article (it's on track to upgrading to B-class) to GA or even FA status. I actually think this article has the potential for the special designation of "level 1 vital article" (i.e., Google or Facebook) eventually given the significant role it has played in reshaping the Royal family and even the Commonwealth. It is as big as Princess Diana's unfortunate and untimely death, I think, and I don't think that's over-stating it.

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  15:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, in this case an event infobox could work as it might allay AfD fears that Megxit would become the title of a much bigger article covering their future ventures (which I think will be something like the Sussex Royal Foundation, or whatever they name it). Britishfinance (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sussex Royal section
,, et al.,

This section seems overly puffery to me, though I realize it was only just created. For example, CBC News Network and other sources in Canada have reported that Prince Charles' Duchy of Cornwall receives a generous public taxpayer-funded grant or other monetary allocation. Indirectly, up to 100% of Harry's and Meghan's income is publicly funded and I think we should mention that, both in the Background and Sussex Royal sections. In the Sussex Royal section, I think we should mention some of the mass media press coverage surrounding the controversy of them, in their quest for "financial independence," potentially benefiting privately off the backs, directly or indirectly, of public subsidies.

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  21:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There are two independent issues, I think: (1) the possibility of private citizens living off Duchy of Cornwall money (which the British public seems to be opposed to, although it is not actually "publicly funded"), and (2) the possibility of commercial revenue being generated from the "Sussex Royal" brand (which faces even stronger opposition). There is press coverage of both issues, but they shouldn't be confused. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Not directly publicly funded, but indirectly in that the Duchy of Cornwall or Prince Charles receives, presumably, the majority of his/its income from the public. Since he and the Duchy of Cornwall fund most of Harry and Meghan's income, there is concern that they would be profiting from their Royal connection. I think it's important to distinguish these two issues, but we should address it, at least in a short paragraph or so, eh? Doug Mehus T · C  05:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm hazy on this stuff, but I thought that the Duchy of Cornwall received its income from a real estate portfolio, not from the taxpayer. That money is then split between Prince Charles and his sons. Even so, there is sensitivity regarding its being used for purposes other than royal activities, and there are currently two very brief mentions of that sensitivity in the article, which I agree could be combined and expanded. That probably implies a new section on "Funding Arrangements," which it may be premature to start work on just now. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think in the long-term, Sussex Royal will probably become the dominant section and some of the main UK papers have done bigger articles on the plans for it (which seems quite extensive); because it involves them both, it can't me merged into their BLPs, and could even become the main Topic of this article (e.g. Megxit as a sub-section). Regarding the Duchy, my understanding is that Charles (or the Crown) owns this as Real Estate and it derives its income from rents and farming.  There are often headlines in the UK media of the Duchy getting tax-payer money, but these are really farming grants availble to any UK landowner.  thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think "Sussex Royal" should become the page name and Megxit a sub-section. Megxit will be historically notable and we could/should, in future, perhaps update the tense of the Lede to say that it was a notable event in worldwide popular and political culture and the Lede closes by saying that it was succeeded by Sussex Royal or SussexRoyal.com. In short, I see both as being potentially deserving of standalone WP:Notability. As the page author, what do you think ? Doug Mehus T · C  15:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , As to the Duchy, yeah I'm less concerned with the farming grants as Charles' ultimate source of income (that is, how did he acquire the lands in his estate?). If it was through his ancestors' tyranny over the taxpaying British public from centuries ago, he's ultimately still benefiting from a generous public subsidy, eh? Doug Mehus T · C  15:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Too much of a stretch for me - keep going back in British history and you have the land getting taken off somebody (Romans, Vikings, Normans etc.); some of these Duchys go back centuries. Britishfinance (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Perhaps true, but how did they inherit or acquire that real estate portfolio? Going way, way back, but it's, indirectly, income generated on the backs of the early BC and, possibly, BCE British taxpayers, no? Doug Mehus T · C  15:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , taxpayers, in the sense you mean, are a modern invention. I'm pretty sure that the Earldom of Cornwall was stolen fair and square by William the Conqueror. Before that, ownership of the lands goes back to pre-Roman chieftains and the probably fictional Cador (who gets mixed up with the legend of King Arthur). But all that is off-topic here. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Re Alanscottwalker edits
I have reverted a group of edits by ASW that I can’t support: Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing à proper référence to an RS re Meghan being the reported driver of the decision
 * Debolding the term “Megxit” in the lede
 * Removing a final sentence in the lede of Harry saying “he had no option”
 * Replacing the above final sentence with a repeat of the start of the lede that Harry (he, not we) had decided to step down?
 * The first sentence is about what the Washington Post says so cites the Post, and the New York Post is improperly added after because it can't be what the Washington Post says and it is a tabloid.
 * I did not debold Megxit in the lede, or at least I can't find such an edit
 * Your last two are actually the same thing, I replaced with sources about what Harry said about his decision because you have constructed a paragraph, where the "assumed" blame is Meghan based on speculation about living people, but the BBC article refers to that as the "Meghan myth".  It's as if you want the impression to be 'his wife made him do it so he had no other option', and that is false light. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah sorry the "debolding" - I now see what you were doing, that was my mistake. My "no other option" is not an implication that his wife gave him an ultimatum (which is not supported), but that because of the press/trolling etc. "they had no other option" (which I think is what he is saying).  However, that this could be misconstrued, why don't we add the full sentence from that speech as the last sentence in the lede, being "The decision that I have made for my wife and I to step back is not one I made lightly … there really was no other option".  I think that would address all of our concerns, and I do think that his speech is important, and his sentiment that he was in a way forced (and by implication from the media predominantly), is an important one to capture? I will stick it in and you can revert if you don't think it works. thanks. Britishfinance (talk)
 * OK Have to go now, but the section of that quote in the body article should be expanded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think that's what he is saying, FWIW. In general human decisions are many factored, while it can perhaps be "assumed" (terrible thing to do with living people) that his wife (and for that matter, son) were among factors going into his decision, this is a man who has perhaps been, like many people do, reviewing  how he wants to live, all his adult life (he speaks of years of dealing). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point ASW, and goes to the need to at least give full sentences (notwithstanding that the overall context might still be off). Agree that the "Motivations" section would do with expanding given his speech, and I suspect more material to come. I am mostly away now so will leave it to you and others to progress. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

What do the new arrangements mean?
I have read the royal statement, but I admit to being a little confused: Editors will need to keep a watching brief for related articles that need changing, I suspect. Meanwhile, this article will need to be cleaned up a little once things settle down. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are the Sussexes still "royal," given that they no longer use HRH titles?
 * Does the "Sussex Royal" brand still exist?
 * Does "They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties" exclude Duchy of Cornwall money?
 * Does "they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments" mean Harry steps down as Captain General Royal Marines? (my local news says he does, and he also steps down as Honorary Air Commandant RAF Honington; Commodore in Chief Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command; and Commonwealth Youth Ambassador).
 * Does "Buckingham Palace does not comment on the details of security arrangements. There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly-funded security" mean no more British-funded security while the Sussexes are in Canada?
 * Will there be Canadian-funded security?
 * Are the Sussexes actually authorised to live in Canada at all?
 * Very good point . I am going to start a section under the "Final Agreement" to list the known details per the best RS, that will hopefully coalesce any disagreements into one specific area.  I also think that there is likely going to be a more substantive agreement in the next few weeks which may refresh some of these items. Britishfinance (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have started to build the actual list of "main details", "other details" and "items not discussed". I think that the two "Reactions" sections need cleaning up as the reactions to this agreement (and the whole affair) are now more important than the "early reactions". Britishfinance (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a good few of the above points have been answered now in the "Final agreement" section? Britishfinance (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for that. I also agree that the reactions to the final agreement (and the whole affair) are now more important than the "early reactions". -- Netwalker3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding Wikipedia editor opinion and opinion
British Finance: 1) Why would we call a source an opinion when it is labeled an opinion? Because its an opinion and its not a fact. On a larger issue, This article is not going to improve and be BLP compliant until it stops trying to suggest opinions are facts. See also, WP:WEASEL.

As for the unsourced "newspaper of record" and the other unsourced things pumping artciles you wish to add in different places it makes it look like you want to appeal to authority and add your own spin (See also, NOR), even with a source for 'of record', it's irrelevant, either the information is worth including or not, Wikipedia editors are not in the business of attempting to 'gild the lily'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You have the wrong impression . I want to ensure that this article sticks to the highest-grade refs possible. We have almost 100 refs here the vast bulk of which are WP:RS/Ps.  I wanted to note The Hindu and The South China Morning Post as newspaper of record (which they are, per their own individual WP articles – it is not OR), so that this section doesn't turn into a "dump" of all general RS (including the crap that I read about her US family talking about Megxit, and a load of other mid-grade RS sources on this topic etc.).
 * In addition, the SCMP piece is written by their deputy editor who is the staff. In contrast, I specifically identified Armstrong Williams as the source for the The Hill piece.  Ultimately, every article is a journalist's opinion, but a differentiator is whether it is a staff journalist or an outside writer.  I think you are of the same view as myself (I am not from the US, so did not know the NYP was a tabloid, as WP:RS/P says it is the same credibility as The Bustle, but I will take your word for it); however, I think you are being unfair to me – how is my "own spin" in this article or attempting to "gild the lilly"?  That is really unwarranted. Britishfinance (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Then stop gilding the lily, it's makes no sense to say her article is not an opinion when it is labled an opinion right on it. As for your 'newspaper of record', this article is degraded by it. It absolutely is unsourced here, so cannot stay (Wikipedia is not a reliable source) and adding a new irrelevant source for the statement itself, would be back to bad irrelevant writing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me squeeze this reply in as it is to the paragraph above, I thought that when the WP article of say The Hindu gives references to support that it is a “paper of record”, that I didn’t have to repeat those refs in other articles? Otherwise the amount of refs gets even higher? If I felt that The Hindu’s status was disputed/borderline then maybe I might re-reference it, but surely I don’t have to repeat the refs in this article too? Britishfinance (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No. all statements of must be sourced in this article, especially when it's making a claim.


 * But even so, it's irrelevant unless you have a source that says, 'Megxit was reported by newspaper of record so and so' (at least, it may still be irrelevant, depending on the depth of the source, but it's getting closer to having a basis for arguing it is relevant.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, can you not see when you say a newspaper reported something you suggest a fact. This is especially poor form when 1) it's an opinion or 2) the alleged 'fact' is from some anonymous source (those should say "according to an anonymous source . . ." not according to the newspaper). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, are you sure your editing is not trying to win a WP:NOTABILITY or WP:AT dispute, you think you [still] have to win? Those need to be put out of consideration as skewing irrelevant for article text, the article text needs to be WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, and save eg. assertions about 'paper of record' stuff for other internal forums.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is hard to have a discussion with you ASW when you don't assume some level of good faith here and other agendas? I am trying to improve an article about a topic that has gained global notability and, given the number of junk-RS out there on it, is useful to readers.  Every high-grade RS in the en-speaking world is using "Megxit" – its notability is not in doubt. What is interesting are the themes that high-grade RS are reporting on regarding "Megxit", and that is worth chronicling. You have shown clearly in earlier edits that you do not like term, but that is your view (and you are not alone in that).  However, you are blaming me for the global notability of the term and its widespread use by high-grade RS? Not very fair. Britishfinance (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not blaming you for notability. How much more clearly can I say it. Notability is irrelevant.  The focus in writing the text of the content of the article cannot be on trying to prove it notable (because notable is not a content policy) -- as long as there is an article you can rest assured the notability debate is done.  What is relevant now, is BLP, V, NPOV, and NOR, not notability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to follow this discussion and determine what exactly each of you wants. Your post,, makes things clearer (for me anyway - maybe others aren't confused). When you say — what do you think needs to be done?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have started with diffs, CaroleHenson: for where this started, It looks like someone else has removed part of the problem later.  Going forward, I would like greater attention to WP:Weasel, not stating opinions as facts reported, and attributing opinion as opinion, and if a source is an anonymous, the source is anonymous.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I wanted to add. On "Megxit" the sources do suggest there is controversy around that term -- when a controversy happens, we relate the documented controversy, we don't suggest or try to imagine there is no controversy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is I who added the Vanity Fair article on the issues of the Megxit name, and I created a separate section "In trolling" to highlight this (even though the evidence is that it was not a notable trolling name, appearing very infrequently and on no database). Note also per the discussion above, that Vanity Fair, despite their misgivings of the title, continue to use "Megxit" even today in their articles: Yes, HBO Max’s Prince George Show Will Tackle “Megxit”.  You are not representing things fairly here ASW. Britishfinance (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you think I have been unfair. My only interest with the '"Megxit" troll issue' was 1) to state facts as facts, and 2) document the controversy.  I was not trying to be unfair. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting back to what the proposed request: Aren't there already statements in the article that state that there is a controversy in using "Megxit"? And, what specifically would be the proposed language and source?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That was an older issue, which was brought back up here again, by British Finance, see Talk:Megxit. But if you see any ways for more improvement, there, that would be wonderful, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But aren’t these obviously opinion pieces in this section (there are no objective facts)? These are discussing broad themes, that I think are important and interesting to this event (and from the highest grade RS).  Are you saying that I should still reference the journalist name and that was is their opinion? For example, you didn’t reference earlier that the “Meghan Myth” was the opinion of an individual, and not the BBC? Is that not fair? I did not say you were “gilding the lilly” or using your “own spin” there? That is my confusion. Thanks.  Britishfinance (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was delighted when that was attributed to Dymond, I should have done it up front, but I guess I trying to fit into the bad practice set-up in this article - see the next sentence it has an opinion but does not give the name of the person who opined, it should, it definitely should. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You accuse me of "golding the lilly" (and say some other very unfair things against me), for not attributing articles of staff journalists as opinions when the pieces are obviously opinion pieces, however, when you attributed a term to the BBC (e.g. "Meghan Myth"), when is the creation of a single BBC correspondent (the royal correspondent, so potential COI issues), and you deleted the footnote that no other journalist has used this term, except in attribution to that journalist as OR (when it is clear from any google search), that is not fair. Britishfinance (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not fair? I said attributing to Dymond is great. Thanks. I think we need more and clearer attribution to named sources who express opinions, here not, less.
 * And yes, unsourced statements and original research should be removed, as I did, that is totally fair of me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that opinion pieces should be attributed as such, and I think Wikipedia generally does a bad job of this generally—too often not attributing WaPo opinion pieces as such because WaPo is notionally, a "reliable source" (despite its tendency to have left-wing political bias, particularly under the Bezos years). That said, this attribution can occur in-text or in a footnote. Moreover, original research in the form of editor explanations, interpretation, and the like, can still occur in a footnote (but not in the article itself), as I understand it. So, I don't know why  would've removed 's footnote. Footnotes and references should almost never be removed. Doug Mehus  T · C  16:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not remove any footnote or a note, I edited out part of a note that was unsourced and original research; and no, notes are not a place for Wikipedia editors to add their original research or unsourced statements. I am not sure what you mean by attribution in a footnote, when discussing attribution, I think what is meant is WP:INTEXT (see also, WP:NEWSORG (attribute opinion to author)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what edit is being discussed here. However, as a general rule. WP:OR does not belong anywhere, even in footnotes. As to "newspapers of record," we generally consider them reliable about facts. The political opinions of their editors are just that: opinions. However, if a notable (named) person has an opinion, then it is a fact that they have that opinion, and that fact is often worth recording. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * and, in footnotes, I generally mean statements of common knowledge that don't need to be cited, but which help to clarify or explain something. --Doug Mehus T · C  03:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The only thing that belongs in footnotes is citations to the source, sometimes (but it's not done that often) including at the end a direct quote from the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion re: Netwalker3's good-faith content removal
Per WP:BRD, I have reverted 's entirely good-faith content removal here because I think that was a well-sourced interesting bit of trivia, worthy of inclusion in this article. Much of this article is trivial in nature, so it's in keeping with the spirit of the article.

Let's discuss it...should we:
 * Keep the content;
 * Delete the content;
 * Refactor the content (please describe how); or,
 * Add additional citations

Please cite either policy-based reasons or common sense ones.

Thanks,

--Doug Mehus T · C  19:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the trivia should go. It detracts from the important issues, which are the definition of their new role, the sources of funding of their lifestyle, and the impact on the Commonwealth. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, I think the article needs a significant cleanup and trim-down. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Royal Titles
I notice that the HRH titles are gone from sussexroyal.com, but I can't find any sources other than tabloids commenting on the change. Has anybody else seen a reference? -- Netwalker3 (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the Daily Mail is also reporting that the "Royal" in "Sussex Royal" is no longer permitted. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , It's definitely been confirmed that, as part of the Sandringham Summit outcome, they can't use HRH. That's interesting about Sussex Royal, though. I still think we can use that for our section header, since there's discussion about it, but they may not be able to. I personally am fine with using the Daily Mail source, but suspect will want a better source. :-P Doug Mehus  T · C  01:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You miss my point on HRH. I was not talking about the new policy on the HRH title, but the actual changes to sussexroyal.com in line with that policy. As to dropping the "Royal" from "Sussex Royal," that now seems confirmed. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

They are dropping all use of Royal, including Sussex Royal:, "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use 'Sussex Royal' or any iteration of the word 'Royal' in any territory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violet Chains (talk • contribs) 07:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit sourced to a tabloid
An editor has repeatedly added this edit sourced to this tabloid. Sundayclose (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Did they "relinquish" or was it taken away?
A recent article:

Buckingham Palace announced that the two will lose their royal patronages and honorary military titles. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/harry-meghan-mental-queen/2021/02/26/83cd9afe-781e-11eb-9489-8f7dacd51e75_story.html

Prince Harry and Meghan lose their patronages, won’t return as ‘working royals’ “Following conversations with The Duke, The Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service,” the palace said in a statement, which sounded a bit pointed to many. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/meghan-harry-royal-patronage/2021/02/19/eb797014-72b1-11eb-8651-6d3091eac63f_story.html Peter K Burian (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Harry NOT Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
Under the Megxit Final_agreement section ('Main details' subsection), please note the following: "They will retain the Royal Highness style but will not use it, and will be called Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex." Has this been an oversight on Wikipedia articles that refer to him as "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex"? ... Sampajanna (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia titles are governed by the WP:COMMONNAME policy, which says that we should use the name which predominates in reliable sources. In this case, that still include "Prince Harry" even if perhaps that's not the title the palace uses any more. See for example . Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Should it at least be noted on Harry's Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex section? Sampajanna (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, He is still entitled to his princely title by birth, which isn't inherent to the HRH. Additionally, he is referenced as Prince Harry without the Royal Highness styling on the royal family's website. --Bettydaisies (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Article name
Would it be better to name the article “Withdrawal of Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” instead of Megxit. Megxit is an informal term and insinuates the entire operation was Meghan’s idea, which it has been confirmed already that both agreed on the move. Unlike “Brexit”, this term is never used officially, A more formal name would be more fitting to Wikipedia standard AlienChex (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's potentially worth considering. For context, see the extended discussion at the original Articles for deletion/Megxit, where it was considered for deletion when it was very current news. The debate on the whole kept the article, but there was a fair amount of discomfort with the name. It's unambiguously a "tabloidy" title, but it was also really heavily used, and I think I came to the conclusion that it was pretty much the common term for it at the time. However, there never really has been a concrete proposal via requested moves with an actual, specific proposed title that would be preferable, and if there's a better clear name for it that's definitely seeing better use, then that discussion might be worth having. I don't really like "Megxit" but it's a very clear title that saw lots of reliable source use. ~ mazca  talk 12:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, this is an interesting case, depending on which part of WP:Article title we choose to focus on. WP:COMMONNAME suggests that 'Megxit' is fine, and even preferred, over any longer and clunkier alternatives. On the other hand, many reliable sources do not really use 'Megxit' at all and refer to the whole process by saying "withdrawal", "stepping down from official duties", "departure" or similar. WP:POVNAME suggests that the current title, implying as it does that Meghan alone and not Harry was the driver of the split, should be changed.
 * As you say, the problem is finding an alternative. I don't think there is likely to ever be a single, pithy alternative that is more commonly used than Megxit, but as a whole, I think the variety of descriptions used by the media are more common than 'Megxit' - it has a plurality, not a majority. Would be interested to hear more from others on this. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely agreed. If this article was named something else, I don't think I'd be arguing to change it to Megxit, but literally every other option I can think of is very cumbersome, and I don't like them either. The clumsy names of the participants, who either need to be referred to as "Harry and Meghan", which feels unnecessarily informal, or "Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", which is a redundant mouthful. Similarly, using "withdrawal", or "departure" without describing what they're withdrawing/departing from sounds stylistically strange to me. And to be honest, "Withdrawal of Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, from the British Royal family" definitely exceeds my limit for title length. I think in my personal encyclopedia I'd probably go for "Prince Harry and Meghan's withdrawal from the royal family" as the best of a selection of poor options. I'd love to hear better ideas if any exist. ~ mazca  talk 19:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a tabloid-y title, but the most succinct re WP:COMMONNAME (though "Megxit" hasn't necessarily been used exclusively by tabloids, per say.) People are far more likely to google "Megxit" Than "Withdrawal of Duke and Duchess of Sussex from Royal Family" etc, etc.I think "Prince Harry and Meghan's withdrawal from the royal family" (perhaps at a "British" in there) is good length-wise, but then you have the debacle of titles, and it sounds strange to just have the mononymous "Meghan" when its not part of a title, the way "Prince" Harry is (also when referred to as the couple, I've noticed they're generally "the Duke and Duchess of Sussex", etc. So it's definitely a debatable issue at hand.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think it should be changed to something more formal, with "Megxit" redirecting to the article and something like "often dubbed Megxit" mentioned in the lead. Suggestions from the previous archived discussion on this are "Withdrawal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from royal duties" and "Sussex withdrawal from royal duties" (which both currently redirect to this article). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Wikipedia is better than this.  We don't need to be misogynistic when there are accepted alternatives.  What is the formal process for review or change? 24.130.46.152 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The title is incorrect - the matter is not a 'Meghan Exit' but a 'Harry and Meghan Exit'. At this stage, it is not important what the title is as long as it is changed from the current incorrect one. Thus, any other correct title is appropriate. I'm providing potential titles here (in order of practicality and correctness): 1) Royal duties withdrawal of Prince Harry and Meghan, 2) Royal duties step back of Prince Harry and Meghan, 3) Prince Harry and Meghan's royal duties withdrawal, 4) Prince Harry and Meghan's royal duties step back and 5) Prince Harry and Meghan's withdrawal from the royal family. "Megxit" should still redirect to the article. The lead should explain that the matter is sometimes incorrectly called Megxit. Cjmalta (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The title is incorrect - the matter is not a 'Meghan Exit' but a 'Harry and Meghan Exit'. At this stage, it is not important what the title is as long as it is changed from the current incorrect one. Thus, any other correct title is appropriate. I'm providing potential titles here (in order of practicality and correctness): 1) Royal duties withdrawal of Prince Harry and Meghan, 2) Royal duties step back of Prince Harry and Meghan, 3) Prince Harry and Meghan's royal duties withdrawal, 4) Prince Harry and Meghan's royal duties step back and 5) Prince Harry and Meghan's withdrawal from the royal family. "Megxit" should still redirect to the article. The lead should explain that the matter is sometimes incorrectly called Megxit. Cjmalta (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there any progress on the change. As, the articles title is normally used by tabloids and it should be replaced by something formal. There has also been some recent dissatisfaction form Prince Harry of the term. So I overall, I think it’s best to change it. Theeveralst (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Theeveralst : If "the articles title is normally used by tabloids" and commonly adopted otherwise, even to Harry's dissatisfaction, then giving it a formal name could be tantamount to instigating change to the English language itself. Sampajanna (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

What are you taking about? Theeveralst (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Theeveralst : Perhaps the second sentence in the lead may provide deeper insight. Sampajanna (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Megxit is not only by far the most popular WP:COMMONNAME for the event (by a considerable margin), it has been used by almost every major global quality news outlet in referring to it (the article almost has the full WP:RS/P list all using the term); it is also the most obvious search-term for anybody looking to find out about the event. It would be bizarre to call the article anything else? 78.19.236.182 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Megxit is, by some margin, the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME, and per the article, has been used by almost every quality RS in Western Media. As with Brexit, it is what a reader would search for on Wikipedia for the event. 31.187.2.186 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the name itself borders on libel, as Harry has emphatically stated it was his idea to get the whole thing started. Aaron Bruce ( talk ) 20:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That is nonsense. Megxit is the name used by almost every reliable source in global media. In Wikipedia, we don’t rely on Harry or Megan’s “truth” to decide; only what quality sources say.  The overwhelming majority used Megxit. 5.90.62.13 (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)