Talk:Rachel Johnson

File nominated for deletion on commons
file=c:File:Rachel-Johnson-01-1.jpg|patten=No permission indicated subpage= Message automatically deposited by a robot on 07:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harideepan (talk • contribs)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rachel Johnson.jpg

Article about Meghan Markel
I don’t understand why her article from 2016 is deemed irrelevant by the wikipolice. In it in she suggested Meghan Markle was not the right wife for Prince Harry. In the Mail on Sunday, she wrote that if the couple had children, “the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA”. TimMonksfiekd (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of what it says. That doesn't make this particular article significant. Why do you think this is the example of her style that most warrants inclusion, over quoting any other article she's written? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to other articles being quoted. But this is an example of her attitude, a can’t give a monkeys about the person I’m talking about as long as I can turn a good line, and patronising superiority. It has also been cited as an example of the media that has led to the Sussexes downsizing their Royal commitments. In all, pretty significant. TimMonksfiekd (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Cited by what source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/09/hes-very-tortured-prince-harrys-growing-anger-at-the-press TimMonksfiekd (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)