Talk:Princess Lilibet of Sussex/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merger with Archie's page

I'd like to suggest that this page be merged with "Archie Mountbatten–Windsor" and renamed something like "Children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" or "Family of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex", this would better reflect the status of the children and their parents wish for them not to be public figures. BENEDICT W B (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

We don’t simply merge pages about siblings, unless they are a duo known for collaboration or doing mutual works. Otherwise, they are two separate individuals. Also, their parents don’t seem to want them to be private citizens. Brining up issues about Archie’s skin color in an interview plus naming a foundation after him are not really signs of privacy. Keivan.f^Talk 17:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely disagree with this merger, they’re still far from being private citizens. Copper1993 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Italian Wiki

I got this from the Italian Wiki page. Mabye add some of It?

Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor British noble, member of the royal family, second child of Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex Tongue follow Edit Lilibet Diana Full name Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor Birth June 4, 2021 (0 years) Dynasty Windsor Dad Henry, Duke of Sussex Mother Meghan, duchessa di Sussex Royal Family of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Realms Badge of the House of Windsor.svg

Royal family HM the Queen HRH the Prince of Wales S.AR the Duchess of Cornwall HRH the Duke of Cambridge S.AR the Duchess of Cambridge HRH Prince George of Cambridge HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge HRH Prince Louis of Cambridge The Duke of Sussex The Duchess of Sussex HRH the Duke of York HRH Princess Beatrice of York HRH Princess Eugenie of York HRH the Earl of Wessex S.AR the Countess of Wessex HRH the Royal Princess HRH the Duke of Gloucester S.AR the Duchess of Gloucester HRH the Duke of Kent S.AR the Duchess of Kent HRH Prince Michael of Kent S.AR Princess Michael of Kent S.A.R. la Principessa Alexandra Lilibet "Lili" Diana Mountbatten-Windsor ( Santa Barbara , June 4, 2021 ) is a British noble , member of the royal family , second child of Henry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan Markle .

Nothing new here. We already have this information on this page. Keivan.f^Talk 19:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Announcement

From their website On June 4, we were blessed with the arrival of our daughter, Lili.

"She is more than we could have ever imagined, and we remain grateful for the love and prayers we've felt from across the globe.

"Thank you for your continued kindness and support during this very special time for our family." My bits The message adds that anyone wishing to send gifts is asked to "support or learn more about" organisations working for women and girls.

They have not released any photos of their daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.245.179.51 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also remember that with her birth Prince Andrew has moved to 9th in succession but hasn't changes anything for the Cambridge

This is not a forum. Avoid making unconstructive comments on the talk page that are not helpful for improving the article. Keivan.f^Talk 19:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I know last thing, include a photo of when the duke and duchess announced the pregnancy.. Also was announced on the royal family's official instagram page.

Photographs released by the royal household or any other organization are usually copyrighted. Wikipedia can only accept photographs that are in public domain. As such, no formal portraits of Harry and Meghan, or any other members of the royal family can be uploaded to the Commons unless it is made free by the copyright owner. Keivan.f^Talk 20:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Why she probably won't have a title

Shouldn't "Akin to the decision her parents made for her brother Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, it is unlikely that she will have a title" be changed to something like "Akin to her brother Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, it is unlikely that she will have a title" due to the fact that her parents claim that they didn't choose for Archie to be without a title. G2ac13 (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed it right now. Keivan.f^Talk 19:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for her brother mentions "...he is customarily entitled to use Prince Harry's senior subsidiary title..." so shouldn't this article mention that as a daughter of a duke she usually would be Lady Lilibet?.–Collinanderson (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between having a title/being entitled to use a title, and choosing to use that title or not. As grandchildren of a monarch they will be prince and princess even if they don't choose to be called by that title. Camilla chooses to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall rather than the Princess of Wales. This distinction should be made clearer here I think. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Camilla is the Princess of Wales, even if she doesn't use that title, as she is married to the Prince of Wales. Camilla will be the queen consort when Charles ascends the throne, even if Clarence House says she will use the title princess consort. Archie Harrison and Lilibet Diana are children of a duke, therefore they are entitled to the titles of children of a duke, but their parents choose not to have them use one. Similarly this situation is also the same for the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor is technically a princess as the granddaughter of a monarch; however, her parents choose not to style her as such. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Genuine question on the nickname "Lili"

When the nickname is notable, doesn't it usually come after the middle name when written? Like I don't care enough about it to actually try and (potentially wrongly) change it, but shouldn't it be Lilibet Diana "Lili"... and not Lilibet "Lili" Diana...? I legit don't actually know so this is a serious question. 47.20.177.163 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That’s usually the case, but I think in their announcement they put it in between the two names, rather than putting it at the end. In any case, both ways work properly in my opinion. Keivan.f^Talk 17:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Article title?

Given she'll be commonly known as "Lili", I'm wondering if this article should be titled at "Lili Mountbatten-Windsor" instead. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chessrat: Yeah, I have been thinking about it too. Even in their statement they constantly refer to her as Lili, instead of Lilibet, if my memory serves me well. Keivan.f^Talk 18:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears that I was right. Here’s the link to the statement 1. Keivan.f^Talk 18:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Most media sources I've seen refer to her as "Lilibet", despite her parents' statement, unless I'm mistaken.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Date format

Shouldn't it be mm/dd/yyyy as she was born in the US? Grangehilllover (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It was, until someone changed it. I guess it needs a consensus to avoid edit warring. Keivan.f^Talk 22:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I would think so. Stereorock (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

June 4 2021 vs 4 June 2021

As Lilibet was born in the US, surely her DOB should follow June 4, 2021 like her mum is August 4, 1981? It'll certainly be listed that way on her birth certificate. Grangehilllover (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. American English in general should probably be used if this birth announcement of an article is to be kept. Surtsicna (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, per MOS:DATERETAIN it should only be changed based on strong national ties to the topic or with consensus on the talk page. I guess you could argue she has strong national ties to the U.S. given her birth, but you could also argue she has strong national ties to the UK given the only reason this Wikipedia article exists is because of her relation to the British royal family. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, newborn children of celebrities are only deemed notable if they are surnamed Windsor. But it would be neat if the father and son had British spelling while mother and daughter have American spelling. Surtsicna (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This is an American-born child, born to a notable American mother who is an American citizen and who is resident in the United States and who will lives as a private citizen in the states of California. That her great-grandmother is the Queen isn't sufficient to overcome these strong national ties. MOS:DATERETAIN is mis-applied. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page. The article was using DMY first. You want to change it to MDY based on her ties to the U.S., but that being a strong enough reason is in doubt given that her ties to the British monarchy are the sole reason this article exists. That leaves reaching consensus. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Use MM-DD-YYYY for Lilibet Diana and DD-MM-YYYY for Archie Harrison. Lilibet is American-British and Archie is British-American. cookie monster (2020) 755 15:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Abbyjjjj96 that MOS:DATERETAIN applies as the ties to the US are not stronger than the ties to the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dl2000: I noticed you changed the date format (after someone decided there was consensus to change it, diff) so you might want to give your thoughts on it here. I did think Surtsicna was a bit hasty in calling consensus and changing it. The date format isn't an urgent matter and there is no harm in waiting for the discussion to play out more. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Abbyjjjj96: Seems your position is the reasonable one here, especially on a WP:CONLEVEL basis. Certainly needs more time and less rush job, no proper consensus is evident. This may be moot if the article winds up being merged e.g. to an article for the family as a whole. Dl2000 (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I may have hastened the matter (sorry) because I would not like us to waste more time discussing something so minor. Using American English here would make the family biographies evenly split between British and American English, but it is hardly the end of the world if one standard is used for all of them. Surtsicna (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability is heavily UK leaning: hence UK English. Place of birth is virtually irrelevant. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not just the place of birth, to be fair. The children are growing up in the United States. They will presumably speak American English rather than British English. I do not see anything in WP:ENGVAR suggesting that the subject's preferences are worth considering, but insisting on British English in the biography of a person with California accent might look a bit contrived. Surtsicna (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think accents has much to do with it either. Plenty of royal family members, even monarchs, could barely speak English. They will later be prince and princess and will always be part of the royal family. The Duke of Windsor spent half his life in France. Does that mean he was seen as only half British? The current UK PM was born in New York: should his wiki article be in US English? Coverage will be very heavily UK slanted. Harry and the kids, will always be seen overwhelmingly as (possibly errant) UK royals living overseas, not US citizens with a UK heritage. Just my two cents worth... Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It is far from clear that they will ever be prince and princess; the article explains how and why. Of course accent in itself is not crucial. The point is that, unlike Boris, Harry's children will grow up American through and through. Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are being raised in the United States – both are American citizens – and they are American like Surtsicna said. They might be 7th and 8th in line to the British throne, but they are not being raised in the royal family or in the UK. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Look folks, when all else fails it's a good idea to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, something that some here are oblivious to or don't understand. You can argue endlessly with your personal opinions about her citizenship (which clearly is dual American and British), how important she is in the line of succession to the British throne, or where she will grow up. But the relevant guideline when there is uncertainty about British or American usage is WP:ENGVAR: "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety". The first usage is British, here; and it stayed that way after many edits expanding the article. So unless there is consensus to make an exception, it remains British. I also disagree that this issue is a moot point if there is a merge. This person eventually will have her own article, even if there is a merge now. By the way, as an American, I am not biased toward British English. It's just a matter of following the guideline. Sundayclose (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN is about cases "when an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article". This biography (and, quite bizarrely, the subject too) is barely a week old, so nothing has been established yet. It also allows for change following discussion. But which variety of English do you consider most appropriate for the biography of a dual US-UK national born in the US and growing up in the US? Surtsicna (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

How long the article has existed is irrelevant. Otherwise everyone could get into another endless argument about when the article is "established". Does established refer to a time frame? Does it refer to number of edits? Does it refer to number of words? Or is "established" arbitrarily determined by someone trying to make their case for a specific variety of English? This is a fully formed article about a notable person (although, like all articles, is subject to much expansion and revision) and was fully formed soon after the subject was born, so the guideline of using the first revision that introduced an identifiable variety applies. The guideline is supposed to reduce the ambiguity, and in this case it does. Consensus can always change application of the guideline, but unless there is a clear consensus otherwise, the article will use British English. As for my opinion about whether it should be American or British English, that's a moot point because we adhere to the guideline. There is no need for me to express a preference unless it appears that a consensus to ignore the guideline is emerging. And that certainly hasn't happened, and I doubt that it will. Sundayclose (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant when considering WP:ENVAR. The date format was first changed on the day the article was created. A discussion is currently taking place about which standard variety should be used, and no-one's opinion in it is moot. Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

No need for me to waste everyone's time bickering over repetition of the same argument. I said that MY opinion is irrelevant as long as the guideline applies, which it does unless consensus changes that. I am perfectly entitled not to express an opinion. Anyway, unless there is much more support for changing the guideline, no need for me to make further comments. Sundayclose (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Sundayclose, I agree that WP:ENGVAR is clear on this, and believe the best way to avoid continuous edit-warring over this is to follow that guideline and retain the first English variant used - British. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Leave it British English. We can always start a RfC to get it re-edited to American English. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we expect to see Lilibet's birth certificate? I would like to use it for illustration in a future RfC on this topic, if only for decoration. Surtsicna (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Time of birth

"11:40 PDT (18:40 UTC)" is incorrect. 1140 PDT is 1940 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.210.130 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Pacific Daylight Time is 7 hours behind universal time. 18-7=11. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

11:40 PDT = 18:40 UTC = 19:40 BST (UK local time at the time of the birth). -- DeFacto (talk). 16:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Trivial info

Remember that a lot of news sources listed Archie as Master are we to list Lili as Miss or Lady? Also her birth weight is 7Lbs and 11oz she was born at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. Also to point out Diana is her middle name not part of her first name.

Master and Miss are not noble titles, as far as I know. In the case of Archie the website of the royal family as well as other secondary sources specifically referred to him as Master Archie. I cannot find sources referring to Lili as Miss Lilibet. These are not prominent titles anyway. Her place of birth is already listed, yet information on her weight is trivial and should be excluded. Also, nicknames usually appear after the actual names of individuals. At least that’s how it’s been on Wikipedia. Keivan.f^Talk 19:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The news report by Buckingham Palace was just listed on Hello magazine regarding weight.

That info is announced for all members of the royal family, but from a biographical point of view it’s pure trivia. Keivan.f^Talk 19:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but by the same standards, this article is a birth announcement rather than a proper biography. Surtsicna (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

We do not yet know how Lili will be styled. Her parents have not made an announcement; indeed, the royal family has not yet updated their website to include her in the line of succession (as of 19 days after her birth). Her style will appear there when it is updated. Seeker095 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

May we please change the 'parents parameters' of this article's & Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's infoboxes, to match the majority of other bio articles? GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it already matches several other articles on members of the Royal Family, but there does seem to be a lot of variation on how it's done, so I don't know which way is actually correct. –Collinanderson (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's later revisit what her "common name" will be once it becomes more established

Right now, it makes sense to title the article "Lilibet Mountbatten-Winsdor". However, sometime in the future, this may need to be revisited. Her parents have indicated her nickname will be "Lili". It is not clear how much they intend to utilize this nickname.

In the case of Lilibet's own father, his nickname ("Harry") became his common name, as opposed to his original formal name "Henry", which was almost never used to refer to him. ("Harry" later became his formal name as well once he was wed and made a Duke in 2018).

If the Sussexes end up emulating the model which the Prince and Princess of Wales used with Harry, and utilize the nickname to such a widespread extent that it can be argued to be the child's common name, we should revisit the title of this article SecretName101 (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of what she chooses to be known by once she has grown up. We will then adjust the article's title accordingly. Keivan.f^Talk 06:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Only one of two Americans in the line of succession

The claim that only two people in line were born in the United States isn't feasible. For example, several members of the Lascelles family and the Greek royal family were born in the US and the line of succession could potentially stretch to over 5,000 people. It's likely that many of them were born in the US. The source really means 2 people in about the first 60, which is a bit weak and woolly. This looks like tabloid fluff that can be cut as a near duplication of the incontestable claim that she's the highest person in line born in the US. DrKay (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I would remove the claim honestly. She isn't currently a member of the royal family since she's not an HRH, and as the source says, even among the extended family, Maud Windsor was born first. You're right that some of the Lascelles were born in the US, and, for example, Princess Leonore of Sweden is in the line of succession and she was born in New York. Several of King Michael of Romania's grandchildren and great-grandchildren were born in the US, etc. Piratesswoop (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

For what it is worth, it is not clear that the Swedish royal family are in the line, as Carl XVI Gustaf's mother did not seek permission to marry. But yes, it should be removed. Surtsicna (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be added because it is accurate. Lili Mountbatten-Windsor is the only great-granddaughter and grandchild of the Prince of Wales to born in America." The Duke and Duchess of Sussex welcomed Lilibet "Lili" Diana Mountbatten-Windsor on Friday, June 4, in a hospital in Santa Barbara, Calif. The child, who joins 2-year-old big brother Archie Harrison Mountbatten Windsor, is the first of the 95-year-old monarch's great-grandchildren to be born outside of the United Kingdom, following her parents' royal exit. Despite being born on American soil, Lili is eighth in the line of succession to the British throne." source https://www.eonline.com/news/1277118/lilibet-diana-is-the-queens-11th-great-grandchild-meet-the-youngest-royals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebrown43 (talk • contribs)

The line of succession is larger than the descendants of the Queen, as I explained in my opening comment. DrKay (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It still should be properly noted for historical and accuracy purposes that Lili Mountbatten-Windsor is the first and only great-granddaughter who is a direct descendant of Britians current monarch Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles, to be born in the United States. Maud Windsor is not a great-granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II, nor a grandchild of the next King Prince Charles. In addition, Greece is a republic and abolished the Greek monarchy. Also, Princess Lenore of Sweden, just like Maud Windsor, are not the grandkids of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles. And yes, Lili Mountbatten-Windsor is a member of the royal family. Prince Charles is her grandfather and Prince William the child's uncle. To suggest, otherwise is highly unethical and bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebrown43 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you posting about? GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

I've suggested on the talk page, that the word "Pet" name be removed. The child's parents don't refer to their child as having a "Pet" name, in their official public announcement of Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor birth. Furthermore, the term might be seen as offensive to reference a multiracial child, as having a "Pet" name to some minority visitors to Lili's Wikipedia page. Below, I edit out the term pet name and switched it to She's referred to as "Lili" by her parents. Purplebrown43 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Johnnie Bob (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Pet Name and Nickname

Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor doesn't have a pet name. She does have the nickname "Lili." In the sourced CNN article, Queen Elizabeth's family pet name was Lilibet, most used by only close family members. In, Lili's case her parent's made it publicly known she would be referred to by the nickname Lili, short for Lilibet. In addition, a pet name is used for someone to show love or affection, not used publicly often. While a nickname is a shortened form of a proper name. That's publicly used, in place of a first name. Hence, the reason her parents use the name, Lili.

Source Archewell link: https://archewell.com/news/congratulations-to-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/

Instead of it should be listed, on her Wikipedia page as Her parents' nickname for her is "Lili" a shortened version of Lilibet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebrown43 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Purplebrown43, no, a nickname is more usually a familiar or humorous name coined by someone unrelated, and later adopted by others as a replacement for a proper name. 'Lili' is more a pet-name or hypocorism, an abbreviation of the full name, expressing fondness or familiarity - like Mike for Michael, Liz for Elizabeth, Charlie for Charlotte, etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the use of the word "pet" can be seen as having racist undertones. We have to keep in mind Lilibet Montbatten-Windsor's multiracial background and certain terms or words may be seen as insensitive, to minority readers visiting her Wikipedia page. Plus, in comparison, her cousin Princess Charlotte Wikipedia page uses this description, She has been affectionately called "Lottie" and "Mignonette" by her parents no mention it being a "pet" name. Plus, Lili's parents never used the word "pet" name in describing their child's name "Lili", in their official statement to the public, on their website. I would suggest leaving off the word pet, for her. And instead, go with something like She's referred to as "Lili" by her parents.Purplebrown43 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Purplebrown43, feel free to tweak it if you think it's a bad choice of word, as I did when I thought 'nickname' was not a suitable word. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Defcato. Purplebrown43 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems as though the same change should also apply to the subject's great-grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II. Edited per this discussion. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Birth and family

Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor was born at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, California, on 4 June 2021 at 11:40 PDT (18:40 UTC). She is named after her paternal great-grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, whose family pet name for her is Lilibet, and paternal grandmother, Diana, Princess of Wales. She's referred to as "Lili" by her parents.

References

Purplebrown43 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. I "wordsmithed" it a little bit — see main discussion thread above and my edit to the article. Note that I also edited your post above only to the extent of wrapping the references in template:talkref. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Lilibet not in line of succession

The official line of succession to the British throne (here: https://www.royal.uk/succession) does not mention Lilibet so she is not (yet) 8th in line to the throne. This could be oversight but it's beginning to look deliberate; it's been a month now. She might never join the list. Darmot and gilad (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It is an oversight. The official website is not known for being up to date. She has been in the line since birth, and reliable sources have stated so. Surtsicna (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

She is listed accurately on Debretts. The BRF's site often does not update their list in a timely manner and probably ended up condensing their list in the first place because they had the Duke of Kent's descendants listed incorrectly. Mia and Lena Tindall didn't get added until eariler this year when their younger brother was born--in fact, based on the Wayback Machine's screenshots of the site, all three Tindall kids and August Brooksbank were added at the same time and they finally changed Princess Eugenie's name to her married name (Beatrice too) nearly three years after she got married. See the Succession page on March 31 and the updated, current version from April 10 after Philip's passing. I'm assuming they updated the site to memorialize Prince Philip and afterwards, someone finally got around to adding the two new great-grandsons, the Tindall girls, and updated Beatrice and Eugenie's names all in one go. My guess is we won't see another update until at least after Princess Beatrice's baby is born.

Trust me, Lilibet is in the line of succession. The Duke of Sussex' daughter hasn't been barred. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I came here to post the same comment. I just looked at that same link. In 7 weeks, the website folks couldn't take 60 seconds to list her in the line of succession? There may be a question about surrogacy or not. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Uh, baptism first? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it took them months to even add the Tindall kids onto the list. It took Philip dying for whoever updates the page to finally add them in. I wouldn't be surprised if they're just waiting for Princess Beatrice's baby to be born so they only have to change the page once. Piratesswoop (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources say she's eighth in line, she's definitely eighth in line. Additionally, Wikipedia doesn't promote conspiracy theories.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

She has been added to the succession now, at 8, pushing DOY down one. Darmot and gilad (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Death of Lilibet

Geotv is reporting that Lilibet has died: https://www.geo.tv/latest/363133-kate-middleton-working-to-pacify-meghan-markle-drama-after-lilibets-death Can someone confirm with another source?

fr24 is reporting the same: www.fr24news.com/a/2021/08/kate-middleton-works-to-pacify-meghan-markles-drama-after-lilibets-death.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.175.225.1 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Based on the text of the story and the attached video, it seems like someone mistakenly (or at least I hope it was mistakenly) put the word "death" in the headline instead of the word "birth". Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This is the Daily Express's version of the story, which matches the story the IP posted but with the word "birth": [1]. I think we can just ignore the Geotv article as just a (very bad) typo. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Meghan's name

Is there any reason why her mother is written as Meghan Markle instead of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex in the infobox? Lulusword (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It's standard practice on nobility and royalty articles to use the mother's own name rather than the marital one. DrKay (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Reason, yes, as given above. Good reason, no. It's something that has spilled over into Wikipedia years ago from genealogy blogs, and its very unfortunate since it's clearly and incomprehensibly contradictory and leads to hundreds if not thousands of valid questions like this one, which would be totally unnecessary if only common sense prevailed. Her name, in this case, as a matter of fact, was not Meghan Markle when either one of her children was born. This is one of Wikipedia's worst policies and one that makes it impossible, reasonably, to take this project seriously as an encyclopedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline saying that the mother's maiden name must be used in the infobox. It is just custom that has developed over the years. It isn't just in royalty articles but a majority of biographies on the site. I think you'd need to come to a consensus on village pump about this. Personally, it should be on an basis-by-basis case on what names to use in the infobox before/after marriage. cookie monster (2020) 755 02:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This practice did not originate on blogs. It is standard in genealogy publications. In any case, I would stick a {{citation needed}} tag on the claim that Meghan's name was not Meghan Markle when her children were born. Contrary to what has been claimed on Wikipedia in the past, Harry does have a surname, and there is no indication that Meghan ever adopted either of her husbands' last names. Surtsicna (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen a genealogy publication of any respectability which would clearly give Princess Madeleine of Sweden's mother's name as Silvia Sommerlath when Madeleine was born. If you have, so be it. What I have seen for decades now is a lot of unreliable genealogical garbage all over the internet. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A reader could interpret this in two ways, for all these royal bios infoboxes. Does using the pre-marriage name, give the impression that the child was born out-of-wedlock? or does it give readers an insight into the person's former name? GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Even the risk of the former should be enough to change this silly practice (especially in a BLP), and the insight should be readily available in article text about the child as well as about the mother. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

From a google search:

• Debrett's Kings and Queens of Europe (1988) (family tree on p.194): "Carl XVI Gustaf -- Silvia Sommerlath -- Madeleine"
• International Who's Who (annual editions, 1992-2000) (~p.265) "Carl XVI Gustaf m. Silvia Sommerlath 1976; one s., Prince Carl Philip Edmund Bertil, b. 13 May 1979; two d., Crown Princess Victoria Ingrid Alice Desiree, b. 14 July 1977, and Princess Madeleine Therese Amelie Josephine, b. 10 June 1982"
• Women in World History (2000) by Anne Commire (p.65): "Madeleine (b. 1982) Duchess of Halsingland and Gastrikland ... Born on June 10, 1982; daughter of *Silvia Sommerlath (1943 — ) and Carl XVI Gustaf"
• Hutchinson Almanac (2000) (p.896): " Sweden: Carl XVI Gustaf 1946 king, Silvia Sommerlath 1944 [sic] wife ... Madeleine 1982 daughter"
• Rulers of Sweden (2004) by sv:Bengt Liljegren (p.103): "Carl Gustaf met the German-Brazilian Silvia Sommerlath. They married in 1976 and have three children: Crown Princess Victoria, Carl Philip and Madeleine."
• Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels (2004) Volume 133 (p.69): "m. Stockholm 19.6.1976 Silvia Sommerlath ... Przssin Madeleine Thérèse Amelie Josephine"
• Almanach de Gotha (2004): "m at Stockholm 19 June 1976, Silvia Renate (b at Heidelberg 23 Dec 1943), D. Order of the Seraphim (Sweden) etc., dau of Walther Sommerlath and Alice Soares de Toledo ... Princess Madeleine Thérèse Amelie"
• Debrett's Peerage (2008) (p.106): "m. 19 June 1976, SILVIA Renate, only da of late Walther Sommerlath, of Heidelberg, Germany, and has issue ... HRH Princess MADELEINE Thérèse Amelie Josephine of Sweden, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland"

Thank you for going to all that trouble, but you've entitrely missed the point. This is about what the names of these married women are when their chldren are born, not when they got married. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

All those citations were published after her birth. The first one and the one edited by Commire don't seem to mention marriage. No-one complains about this when the mothers are listed as Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or Princess Margaret of Connaught, or Victoria of Baden, etc. The vast majority of articles use the non-marital name. I agree that this is the standard practice for this type of article, both here and in other encyclopedias. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

All those citations are about the mothers' names at the times of their marriage, not about the mothers' names when their children were born. Makes no difference when they were published. They are all irrelevant to this discussion. This, specifically, is about what we, specifically, are calling mothers and fathers at the time of their children's births, not their marriages. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If the proposal is to list parents by the names and/or titles at birth, would we list Gustaf V's parents in the infobox as "Prince Oscar, Duke of Östergötland" and "Princess Sophie, Duchess of Östergötland"? Or Elizabeth II's as "Prince Albert, Duke of York" and "Elizabeth, Duchess of York"? Surtsicna (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

And similarly, Princess Sibylla of Sweden, Duchess of Västerbotten or Princess Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden or Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden in my three examples. The idea is clearly unwise and would lead to more confusion in readers not less. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Another excellent example of the confusion this causes can be found here. Readers in a vast majority, those who are not familiar with Wikipedia's idiosyncrasy, are likely to assume Estelle's father goes (when she was born as well as today) by the name of Daniel Westling. One should not need to click and go on to his article for the aha experience. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is it that we don't use the current name of both parents? Which is more important? For example: Someday, at Prince George of Cambridge's article, his parents name/status will change. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

What about dead/historical people? Surtsicna (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's less use than the alternative. If the parents of Lord Frederick Windsor are "Prince Michael of Kent" and "Princess Michael of Kent" or the parents of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, are "Prince Andrew of Greece" and "Princess Andrew of Greece", what does that tell readers? I simply don't believe that readers will find that illuminating or somehow less confusing than using the women's own names. DrKay (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are extreme and very unusual examples as well being as titles, not actual names as per passports and driver licenses.

The "women's own names" are not their maiden names when they have married and chosen to change them. A persons current name is that person's "own name". Each named person decides that, not Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"Duchess of Sussex" is a title not a name. Her name as per passport and driver's license is Meghan Markle. DrKay (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The "women's own names" are not their maiden names when they have married and chosen to change them. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It still doesn't make any sense. Anne Boleyn, Anne of Cleves, Anne of Denmark, Anne of Bohemia, etc all chose to be called Queen Anne. Putting Queen Anne or Queen Catherine or Queen Mary and so on into multiple infoboxes isn't an improvement. It will also mean changing literally thousands of articles which no-one has ever complained about it and at which no-one is ever confused. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Meghan Markle changed her name upon either of her marriages. Surtsicna (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You've focused too much on the single phrase "women's own names" (which I was the only person to use, by the way). The phrase is merely a convenient short form. Note the longer form in my first comment in this section "mother's own name rather than the marital one". This itself is a convenient short-form, similar to Celia Homeford's "non-marital name". Cookie monster and GoodDay use the short-forms "maiden name" and "pre-marriage name", which are less accurate though typical since most non-marital names are maiden names (but not always). The names can be defined as the highest title or name held in their own right through heredity or by creation and not a gendered title or name deriving from their spouse's title or name. For example, use "Elizabeth II" (highest title held in her own right) not "Elizabeth of York" (birth name) nor "Elizabeth Windsor" ('maiden name' as defined on her marriage certificate) nor "Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh" (married name). Similarly, use "Lady Diana Spencer" (highest title held in her own right) not "The Hon Diana Spencer" (birth name) nor "Diana, Princess of Wales" (feminine form of her husband's title). The same rules can also apply to men, if desired. For example, "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" (highest title in his own right) not "Prince Philip of Greece" (birth name in English) nor "Philip Mountbatten" ('pre-marriage name' as defined on his marriage certificate or 'legal name', by which I mean the name used on legal documents such as his naturalization papers and marriage certificate). DrKay (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

As long as our readers aren't misled into reading the mother's maiden name, as though the child was born out of wedlock, we can continue as we have in these infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As long as there's an obvious risk of that, and the idea is more confusing than not, not good information, then we should not continues with it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

DrKay we have no idea what the Duchess of Sussex's legal name is on her U.S. passport or California driver's license. It might not be Rachel Meghan Markle. It might be Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or Rachel Meghan Sussex or Rachel Meghan Wales. Or Rachel Meghan Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor-This-Is-A-Long-Surname. It doesn't do good to speculate. All we know is that she uses the name Meghan. Not Meghan Markle. Just Meghan. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know about this stuff, but let’s just use her maiden name Meghan Markle. We don’t know her legal name. Ethan2345678 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There's still the risk of misleading readers into thinking the children are illegitimate or at least were born illegitimate. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The first line of the article is "Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor (born 4 June 2021) is the daughter of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex." No-one can be misled. DrKay (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

No, not there OK, but severely confused by the definite contradiction in the info box. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no contradiction in using her last name in the infobox and title in prose. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You write as if you know that her last name is Markle and was Markle when the girl was born. Can you source that reliably and verifiably? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, the birth certificate has been released. She has apparently used "her full legal name, Rachel Meghan Markle."[2][3] Surtsicna (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but it clearly says "birth name" of parent on that form & I think we are discussing Meghan's surname when her daughter was born, not when Meghan was born. What we did learn (not?) from that document, however, is that Harry's birth surname was "His Royal Highness". That could be considered quite a shocker. But as the great Mae West said: "Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

We may require a RFC on this topic. If so, would it concern only royal bios or all bios, which list the topic's parents in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I see a clear consensus right here. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't you people have anything better to do? There are thousands of articles here on Wikipedia that are complete rubbish, how about spending some time improving or deleting those? Just change the mother's name to match her name when the subject was born and it will be fine. Yes, I have read all of the above comments, I'm not just venting. There is no policy that states that the mother's maiden name should be used in the infobox of the subject. DONE. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It is fine as it is too so how about we do not change anything? Done much more easily. Surtsicna (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

If we institute, as demanded by the above comment and others here, a policy of using the name when the subject was born, we will have "Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh" on Prince Charles's article and "Elizabeth, Duchess of York" on Elizabeth II's article, and "Mary, Duchess of York" on George VI's article and so on. I just don't see how that can possibly be justified on the basis that the alternative is (to quote) "definite contradiction" and "confusing". It just doesn't make sense. Editors arguing for that option need to explain why "Mary, Duchess of York" is less confusing or less contradictory than "Mary of Teck". DrKay (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any policy change at all, and this article's talk page is not the place to do that. I'm just trying to get y'all to quit this silly arguing and DO SOMETHING (with regards to this article). The other point I was trying to make was that, there is currently no existing policy that requires using the mother's maiden name. So we can use it or not, or change it to Bozo the Clown for all I care, (retracted by author) although I personally feel that it should just be the mother's married name with no title, the same as we do for probably 99 percent of the BLP's out there(Retracted, see below). — Johnnie Bob (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "mother's married name with no title". Take the most obvious royal BLP, Elizabeth II. What is her mother's married name with no title? "Elizabeth Windsor"? "Elizabeth"? I'm at a loss to understand what such a name would be or where to find sources for it. DrKay (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

DrKay, thank you. I have looked at that article as you suggested above, and have also read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) and a few other sources, and will now change my opinion, that the article should stand as written, to retain consistency with the aforementioned policy and the other child's article Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. I believe now, as Surtsicna stated above, that we have a consensus. Do you agree? Any other comments before we close this discussion out? — Johnnie Bob (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This is about a good example in questioning policy, which is allowed here, especially when a blanket policy often causes more confusion & contradiction than necessary. We are here to try to inform reliably, not to cause more confusion than necessary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting we change one & not the other. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

People seem to be forgetting infoboxes are not a requirement. they are optional. what the infobox does is summarize personal information on the article. Why can't we just have her name as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex? cookie monster (2020) 755 17:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I concerned, Wikipedia has many page about royal children, In majority of pages have mother/father’s birth/maiden name in the infobox. (E.g. Prince Frederik of Denmark has father’s birth name in the infobox) So changing all of pages in Wikipedia to first name+title (E.g. Queen Anne-Marie of Greece) takes a lot of time. In addition to that, most tabloids refer her as “Meghan Markle”. Ethan2345678 (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Should infant Lilibet be categorized as a "woman" ?

@DrKay: These two categories, Category:21st-century American women and Category:21st-century British women have recently been added. Lilibet had already been categorized as a "child". My usual understanding of "woman" is consistent with the Wikipedia article for such. Sampajanna (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The article specifies that woman means "female human". The entire scheme of women by century categorizes human females, regardless of their age. Category:Incidents of violence against girls is a subcategory of Category:Incidents of violence against women because all girls are women. Dimadick (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick : If we are both referring to the same Woman article, it states as follows in the lead: "A woman is an adult female human. Prior to adulthood, a female human is referred to as a girl (a female child or adolescent). The plural women is sometimes used in certain phrases such as "women's rights" to denote female humans regardless of age." Sampajanna (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm against including them both. She's not a woman (and by that I mean "adult" female human). The two categories Category:21st-century American people and Category:21st-century British people are sufficient. Take a look at how the articles on her cousins and brother have been categorized. Keivan.f^Talk 23:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Why was a hypocorism link added to Lili's Wikipedia page?

I thought it was agreed, to leave off any terms or linkage to "Pet names" for a multiracial child. The usage of that type of term may be perceived as insensitive to minority visitors of Lili's wiki page because the same approach is NOT taken for her cousin Princess Charlotte. For example, according to Charolette's wiki, no mention is made of her affectionately being called "Lottie" and "Mignonette" by her parents, as being a hypocorism or pet name. But this distinction continues to is only be made for baby Lili. Even though her parents have never referred to Lili as being a "Pet or hypocorism" name, in their official announcement of her full name. Why was the original corrected statement changed, to add a hyperlink to the term hypocorism?! I don't see such a term being used or linked for Princess Charlotte. And she goes by a diminutive form of her first name, like Lottie and Mignonette. Purplebrown43 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The original name correction has been restored to the article. Purplebrown43 (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

??? Charlotte's nicknames are mentioned in her article too... Do you see racism everywhere you look? 72.136.95.67 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, absurd to refer to this as racism. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:E18D:6532:3617:8E87 (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I read and do facepalm. Are you serious? Sira Aspera (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Is it necessary for her to have a Wikipedia article? She may meet WP:GNG (although she's only 2 days old and the news of her birth only came out within the last hour or two). I believe the rationale for keeping Archie's article was due to his parents being a part of the royal family at the time? They are no longer working members, so this is basically the equivalent of creating a Wikipedia page for the newborn baby of two celebrities. The only new information here is her place of birth which would easily be added to her parents' articles. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The rationale behind her brother Archie’s notability was not that he’s a son of Harry and Meghan, but that he is among the first 10 in the line of succession to the British throne, and that he’s the grandchild of Prince Charles, the future sovereign, making Archie a potential future prince. The same applies to his sister. Keivan.f^Talk 17:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The idea of monarchy is really outdated, but it still exists, so their is gonna be an article on them.86.16.64.23 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Creating an article about a newborn was never a sensible idea. The content of this article is identical to the content of the article about her toddler brother, and that is because there is really nothing substantial to say about them. And how could there be? Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I would have argued in favor of your viewpoint if the allegations of racism within the institution didn’t exist. These two children are essentially the first modern mixed race people in the royal family and their mother alleges that they have been denied their rights, etc. I’m not promoting anyone’s arguments here, but merely stating that they are constantly in the news because of their position in the line of succession and their parents’ actions. Keivan.f^Talk 22:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, their parents' actions. The children are what WP:BLP would call low-profile individuals: "someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention". Everything in these articles is about what Harry and Meghan did. The children are only ever covered as part of Harry and Meghan's lives. Surtsicna (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I cannot say that you’re wrong. But I guess the same would apply to George, Charlotte and Louis. I guess it’s because of their position in the line of succession as the first 10 individuals that one could argue for their notability. In other words, if their grandfather wasn’t Prince Charles, the future king, they wouldn’t have had an article to begin with. Hopefully the articles will get expanded over time. Nevertheless, I think the children should be treated equally; we either have separate articles for both, or none for neither of them. Also, to be fair, the article about her brother made it to Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/March 7 to 13, 2021, so there's definitely some degree of interest. Keivan.f^Talk 23:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there a guideline saying the first 10 in line need to be covered? I don't agree with your statement that they should all be treated equally, there is a big difference in George (3rd in line, expected to become king) vs Lilibet (8th in line, not expected to become queen unless there are mass deaths and/or abdications). I would even say there is a notable difference between Archie and Lilibet given their parents were working, senior members of the royal family when he was born, he was present on some official engagements, and much of the media coverage around racism pertains to him specifically. I almost wavered on my opinion on this article after considering there are articles for other lesser known children in the family (i.e. Princess Margaret and Prince Edward's children), but Lilibet was born after Harry and Meghan stopped being senior members of the royal family. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Harry and Meghan being senior or junior or whatever it is that you like to label them with. The child being 8th in line makes her important from a constitutional perspective; it’s as simple as that. As grandchildren of a future monarch they will be in the exact same position as Margaret and Edward’s children, unlike Eugenie’s son for example. Not to mention that Margaret was not really a figure involved with public duties, but was rather part of the fancy events and gatherings throughout her life yet that doesn’t alter the level of notability for her children, who are grandchildren of a king. Any coverage related to racism pertains to them both, as their mother specifically talked about Archie and any future children that the might have and this was reflected in the media reports as well. Additionally, to say that this child will or will not make a public appearance is WP:CRYSTAL. We usually don’t see much of royal children when they are newborns as they will gradually start to accompany their parents. And she might as well appear in her parents’ videos or events for charity causes, just like her brother whose birthday was marked in this manner last year. They are not that private after all, if their parents keep showing their faces. Keivan.f^Talk 03:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

But why is Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor's being 8th in line more important from a constitutional perspective than August Brooksbank's being 12th? Or Lucas Tindall being 23rd? None of them will ever inherit. Margaret's children are adults; nobody is saying that the Sussex children will not grow up to be more than footnotes in their parents' biographies. But right now, the articles are identical in content, being mere birth announcements or genealogical entries at best. Surtsicna (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You are right. None of them will inherit, but August and Lucas are not grandchildren of the Prince of Wales, meaning that chances of them becoming a prince is zero. And I’m not saying this to imply that they’re important because they are of royal blood or something. What I’m arguing for is that due to their position they are already public figures. Look at Archie, George, Charlotte, and Louis’s articles, all of which are not mere birth announcements. They are not even past the age of 10 but they have all made official appearances here and there, whether it be going on a tour or taking part in their parents’ charitable causes. That is why I think children whose faces are shown multiple times a year are not really private individuals. As far as I have seen, this girl is also getting the same level of coverage as her brother and cousins despite being 3 days old. Keivan.f^Talk 12:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

By official appearances, do you mean a three-month-old babbling in his mother's arms at tea and biscuits with archbishop? Malia and Sasha Obama's consciously attending their father's inaugurations was not cited as a proof of their notability. Jacinda Ardern's daughter appeared at a UN general assembly, first baby to do so, but we do not have an article about her either. The reason Wikipedia articles about Archie and Lilibet exist is not that they have important constitutional positions (they do not) nor that they appear at important functions (they do not); the articles exist solely because of the immense press coverage of their parents. Surtsicna (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

We cannot really expect much from a toddler other than some babbling and crying, can we? I guess his cousins’ appearance in a video clapping for NHS also falls under the same category. And you’re right. They are important because of their parents. As outdated and ridiculous as it may sound, Jacinda Ardern and Obamas are not people notable because of their family lineage, whereas the whole thing that makes royalty notable is their lineage and ancestry, in other words who their parents and grandparents are. And grandchildren of monarchs and heirs apparent are usually among the most senior in terms of family rankings. Keivan.f^Talk 15:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I have mixed feelings about Wikipedia articles for minors when their parents have chosen to raise them as "private citizens", i.e. Archie and Lilibet. It has been established that Malia and Sasha are not indivudially notable to have their own Wikipedia articles. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I would support merging Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor into the Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex articles. They are minors and their parents have expressed interest in raising them as private citizens. Wikipedia has a duty to protect minors. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Malia and Sasha Obama are not 'royalty'. Being related to the president does not make you significant by itself.86.16.64.23 (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Being related to anyone does not make you significant by itself as far as Wikipedia is concerned; see WP:INVALIDBIO. And Lilibet is evidently not royalty either. Surtsicna (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

it makes no sense to merge I suggest we treat the top 10 royals in the line of succession equally and stop putting up barriers for the two Sussex children. I do wonder what some motives are to belittle them while cooing over all other royal children it is very suspicious. Not only are the Sussex children both high ranking US citizens they are also the two that have the opportunity to become president. No other royal children have that and I think that is remarkable given the history of the UK and US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyAvia (talk • contribs)

The notability or otherwise of the extant article was discussed in all three Cambridge baby articles when they were suckling, just as it is discussed for several minor royal house members including adults, and there were many against. So no, it's not about Archie and LiliSira Aspera (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s completely inaccurate to state that Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor is ‘clearly not royalty’. Her parents may not be active working royals, but that doesn’t stop them being royal. The York princesses aren’t officially working royals either. 2A00:23C7:8905:CC01:D949:5279:C157:E637 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not think she's notable, the only stories about her are really about her parents having a baby, not her. As per WP:INVALIDBIO her parents' notability does not confer notability on her. I would make the same argument about all famous peoples' children. Until they become notable in their own right they should not have an article. 'But they are X in line to the throne' is not one of the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia; 'Importance' does not confer 'Notability' any more than their parentage does. JeffUK (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

African-American?

Not sure she would be classified as such here in the UK, but in the US would she be classified as black? 80.194.73.125 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

She looks Irish so anyone thinking she's black is clearly blind. 72.136.95.67 (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Haha I see what you mean. Despite the one-drop rule coming from purely racist intentions, the term has been “reclaimed” by the Black American community. As Lilibet Windsor is an American girl with a quarter-black mother I don’t think it would be unreasonable to classify her as African-American, rather than just “of African American descent”.2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:E18D:6532:3617:8E87 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a good demonstration of how friabal is the concept of "race" and the like, such as "ethnicity", "ancestry" ... especially if related to physical appearance and classification of that. She has an African American grandmother, but no one who looks at her would guess if she wasn't baby Sussex, so with the known family tree. It can be claimed by those who want it and in turn claim whatever ethnic identity they want, but it is difficult for an outside observer to "classify" it as African American rather than simply as "of African American ancestry." The problem with this, of course, is that both things are racist: so much to say that it is black for the "use one drop of blood" principle so much to deny it because aesthetically it doesn't look like it. It's really problematic and the various radical identity activism movements waging war on social media each with a different idea of ​​SJ don't help. Sira Aspera (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No suchthing as an African American unless you come from Africa.................................................. 69.232.152.198 (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Photo

here's a link to a photo of Lilibet - https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a36332859/prince-harry-meghan-markle-daughter-lilibet-diana-first-photo/ 188.30.46.5 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

How is this relevant to improving the article? The photo is copyrighted, not compatible with our licensing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Minors privacy

Why doesn't this violate WP's child privacy rules (WP:PRIVACY and WP:MINORS)? Their parents are clearly raising her and her brother as private citizens and the names and other information about the children are not included in other wiki pages even when they are public know. Example: Pippa Middleton's page does not name her children, even if the names are public in the newspapers. Not even the Radford family page lists the children, even though they literally have a TV show about them and that's what they are known for. In addition, clearly this page, like Archie's, is not encyclopedic: they are two children and their parents are outside the Royal Family. How can they be relevant? Sira Aspera (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

As the male-line grandchild of the King of the United Kingdom she is relevant! Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

She is seventh in the line of succession now Mctaylor214 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Interesting Geek (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Given that Lilibet is a male-line grandchild of the King, surely her title is now Princess Lilibet of Sussex Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

She’s now technically Princess Lilibet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since she’s now Princess Lilibet the article should be edited to reflect this. 2603:6080:DC01:780E:2C06:452E:2650:3988 (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This appears to already be in the article in the Titles and succession section. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I attempted to add this, including a reliable source, but people keep reverting it. Very strange. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Aoi Chessrat you are more then welcome to do a bold move. cookie monster 755 20:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I already did; it got moved back despite me including a citation. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, these changes need to be made on both this page and the one for her brother Prince Archie… without being reverted. The letters patent are a definitive source, and makes it clear that both are prince/princess, up until the time that the law is changed. We can always add that they have no legal obligation to use the title. Gillespk (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Chessrat I have requested the pages be moved accordingly. cookie monster 755 20:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I re-added this into the text with additional sources. Cross-referencing these comments I left at Talk:Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Silly

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's silly to clarify that "she's not obligated to call herself a princess". What are they gonna do? Put her in jail for not calling herself a princess? Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

HRH Princess Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor

According to the letters patent of 1917 the grandchildren of the current monarch are given the titles of His/Her Royal Highness Prince/Princess of … As Charles 3rd has become king, Harry’s children automatically receive those titles.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/03/23/craig-prescott-modernising-the-monarchy-moving-beyond-the-1917-letters-patent-and-the-george-v-convention/

Iimmiekins (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Iimmiekins (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DrKay (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is is not a crystal ball. Reliable sources do describe Lilibet and her brother as princess and prince, respectively, which is she is included under the British princesses category and included in the UK princesses template. However, there has been no official source updating their titles as of yet. They are still Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor and Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, respectively. cookie monster 755 20:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Supposed "legal" titles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Talk:Archie Mountbatten-Windsor#Supposed "legal" titles DBD 20:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

She is legally a HRH Princess now whether they choose to use it or not. Lady Meg (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lady Meg: Please note your view at Talk:Archie Mountbatten-Windsor#Supposed "legal" titles so it can be considered with the comments of other editors. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

She was/is also legally Lady Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor. Unfriendnow (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

-Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor

-Titles and Succession (addition):

Children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (2012)

The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour. (London Gazette 8 Jan 2013)

-Source: https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#2012 Saltyspoon45 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not relevant here as it doesn't effect Lilibet in any way. DrKay (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Harry isn't an eldest son. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It is relevant.

Neither Archie or Lilibet are the children of the eldest son of the PoW (2012).

Therefore, Archie and Lilibet SHOULDN'T have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour. Saltyspoon45 (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Half right, half wrong. Neither Archie nor Lili are the children of the eldest son of the PoW, but that's not really relevant here as they are grandchildren of the monarch, which does entitle them to "the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names". However, it seems that like their uncle and aunt Louise and James, their parents may have decided to not have them use them. Piratesswoop (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing speculative sources for Royal Highness and Prince style

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

News outlets like ABC and CBC is speculating their titles without official sources. We need more reliable sources. For example ABC said that:

For example Archie, 3, could assume the title of HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. His younger sister, Lili, 1, could become HRH Princess Lili of Sussex.

This is speculation. We need to remove those sources.Justi7 (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to remove such sources as the only sources left are from CNN, Manchestereveningnews... which clearly stated the style of 'Her Royal Highness, Princess Lilibet of Sussex' regardless of whether she chooses to use the style he legally holds. CBS, ABC, TheGuardian further confirm that Lilibet indeed became a Princess and legally holds the style Royal Highness in accordance with the 1917 Letters Patent which is a legal document and states that grandchildren of a monarch shall 'at all times' hold the style of Prince/Princess and Royal Highness. It's also only natural that she be styled that way as she is a Princess from Sussex and holds the style of Royal Highness. Stop ignoring reliable sources (not speculative sources) that you don't like and revert version that has been agreed upon. Minhle20002013 (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Manchestereveningnews wrote “Archie and Lilibet entitled to be Prince and Princess” which doesn’t confirm the name. The Guardian also said “entitled” with again no offical name. CBC news stated “They have not said whether the children will use their new royal titles.” and again no offical name. CNN sources wrote a name but without a offical source. Reliable sources needed have that. Justi7 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

-Manchertereveningnews wrote and confirmed the legal, technical title:

"In 2021, it was suggested Charles – in a bid to limit the number of key royals – intended, when he became king, to prevent Archie becoming a prince. To do so, he will have to issue a Letters Patent amending Archie’s right to be a prince. Until that potentially happens, Archie remains a prince, whether his parents choose to use the title or not.

If it does not happen, Archie continues to technically be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. Meanwhile, if the title is used, Lilibet will be able to use the title HRH Princess Lili of Sussex. Like Archie, Charles would have to issue a Letters Patent to remove this. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s titles will not change."

-CNN also wrote and confirmed the name:

"Following the death of the Queen, Harry and Meghan's children have become His Royal Highness Prince Archie of Sussex and Her Royal Highness Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

The change is a result of conventions created over a century ago. Under rules set out by George V in 1917, the grandchildren of the monarch automatically receive royal titles."

Both articles refer to the 1917 letters patent, a legal document, which wrote "…the grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of these our realms." Minhle20002013 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

And this is called speculation. News outlets wrote different things or the things they cannot verify. Justi7 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to summarize what the reliable sources say. If multiple reliable sources are reporting something, we cannot just ignore it because we disagree with what the reporting is. If sources conflict with each other or there is concern that the sources got the answer wrong, we can simply attribute the statements (e.g., Multiple sources have reported that...). Minhle20002013 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Note parallel discussion at Talk:Archie Mountbatten-Windsor#Removing speculative sources for Royal Highness and Prince style (and elsewhere on that talk page). Aoi (青い) (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

The title and style of the person has changed under the 1917 Letters Patent issued by King George V. The person in this article is now legally called HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex. 110.33.35.84 (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: That doesn't force her to use that title. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Date format

I know that British people and Wikipedia pertaining to European use the reverse date formats (date-month-year) that American people and USA based Wikipedia uses (Month-Day-Year), but Lilbeth has one American parent and extended US family not to mention the fact that that she was born in the state of California so why are we using the British format for listing her birthday when she’s clearly growing up out of the UK and clearly will be more accustomed to American traditions/culture. I’m sure her father will bring some British customs to the family home, but Harry seems like an flexible guy wouldn’t surely not mind how his daughter will write down the date format someday in the future like example if she was writing an check to someone. 2601:547:CC01:9090:E4D6:9A04:902C:F53E (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussed in 2021 (archived here). The consensus was to use British English and European format dates, as notability comes primarily through British royalty. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This was discussed previously in this discussion in the archive. The discussion didn't result in a clear consensus, so the article was left using dd/mm/yy format per MOS:ENGVAR, which states in relevant part: When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety (in this case, British English). Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

She's not a 'Lady' she's a 'Miss'

As stated on the Royal Family's website her only current title is 'Miss' 184.146.162.149 (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A daughter of a Duke is legally a lady. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/titles-included-in-passports/titles-accessible#bookmark11 King4852 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Title and succession

Okay, I just read this section that stated, "however her parents' wishes have always been that she not use any title" The sources offered for it don't specifically state the parents saying such a thing. Therefore, this portion of the article is incorrect and should be removed. Purplebrown43 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Following the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's use of Princess for their daughter, a preferance has been made known and the palace will now update their website to reflect the changes. Therefore, Lilibet is now Princess Lilibet, technically from the 8th of September 2022. GandalfXLD (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2023

Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor to Princess Lilibet of Sussex. AmeliaWoooooodddsss (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The matter will be settled through the requested move discussion above. Favonian (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The late Queen's view on the use of the name Lilibet

There is actually no proof that the Queen approved of this name choice or that she said those words. What utter nonsense. This page is obviously the unofficial work of a Sussex fan. 82.30.177.12 (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The statement is sourced to The Independent, which is considered a reliable source per WP:RS/PS. If you have another reliable source that refutes this, please present it here. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

She approved of having the child named after her (as with most of the women in the family who have at least a middle name of 'Elizabeth'). She never approved of the nickname 'Lilibet' which was her personal nickname that only a handful of people used. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Princess Lilibet Diana

I know a bunch of people are against moving the article. Could we just add a few sentences in the Titles section (for now) that states an official spokesperson from the Duke and Duchess confirmed that she was baptized as “Princess Lilibet Diana”. There are several sources including the the official site for the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles which confirm that. I guess we’re just waiting for an “official confirmation” from the Palace before doing anything else? Lady Meg (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Her title had been updated on the Royal site.

https://www.royal.uk/succession Cibrian209 (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Title Confirm - British Royal Family website

The British Royal Family Website confirm that Lilibet is now known as Princess Lilibet of Sussex. Added website Source/link to information. https://www.royal.uk/succession 2.101.175.238 (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Title change - request to change infobox

With changes being brought about in the Title of Princess Lilibet, the infobox should be changed from person to royalty. Shubhayanb85 (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Princess of Sussex

It’s official she is a princess. The Royal family’s website has confirmed that from today onward she’d be know “Princess Lillibet of Sussex”. Request to change the info box since she’s a an princess. 2405:201:C00A:A889:DD26:9302:B153:2CF9 (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. Similar to Archie, now that the Royal website has confirmed this, it no logner seems controversial, so performing an early close. Let me know if there are any problems with this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor → Princess Lilibet of Sussex – There is now a reliable source https://debretts.com/royal-family/line-of-succession/ Twilight 16:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Debrett's has no authority on royal titles. Wait until the palace has formally started using it. Keivan.f^Talk 16:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I thought the rule was to consult secondary sources, not primary ones. AKTC3 (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  The secondary sources report on what the primary source says. And the primary source, in this case the palace, has not referred to the children as Princess Lilibet and Prince Archie. The secondary sources also report that the change will take place "in due course". Wikipedia is not meant to lead in these instances; it should accurately reflect a change when/if it happens. Keivan.f^Talk 17:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not under the control of the royal webmaster. There are multiple sources confirming that the royal website WILL be updated, Wikipedia is under no obligation to wait for whatever internal issues they have to be resolved. The children have been entitled of these titles since their grandfather ascended to the throne, and now their parents have made clear they intend to use them. Wikipedia has waited for far too long for these little court games to end, it's unfair to deny these children their birthright.Twilight 00:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has waited for far too long for these little court games to end, it's unfair to deny these children their birthright. Please don't speak on behalf of Wikipedia. That statement alone shows that you are not objective. And yes, you should wait for the so-called "royal webmaster" to confirm what the children's actual title will be as they did with William and Catherine's children immediately after Queen Elizabeth died. Because they are the main source of information for whatever it is that news websites and tabloids report on. Keivan.f^Talk 00:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not speaking on behalf of Wikipedia, infact I'm criticizing Wikipedia. The royal website is A source of information, not THE source of information. If there are multiple secondary sources confirming that the palace acknowledges these titles, there is no need for Wikipedia to wait for their convenience in updating a website. Wikipedia should be independent and not subservient to any institution. As for the exact style, we have a secondary source confirming 'Princess Lilibet of Sussex', we should stick to it until it's proven there is a more appropriate one. With regards to myself, I can only say that on this matter I am as objective as you are. Twilight 01:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's not about Wikipedia being subservient; it's about being accurate. In one breath you say we should not be following what the palace website says, while simultaneously stating that it was the palace that confirmed it to secondary sources that these children would be getting a title. So it is THE source of information in this instance. And a website update is not necessary; an official statement would also be enough. So the natural thing to do is to wait until the official form of their title is confirmed by the palace. She could be "Princess Lilibet of Sussex", "Princess Lili of Sussex" or "Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex". Princess Margaret for example, was officially referred to as "Princess Margaret Rose of York" before her father's ascension. And no secondary source can confirm which form will be approved because the palace has not issued a statement. And whether we like it or not, it is the King that has the authority on royal titles, not some news website, newspaper, or tabloid. Keivan.f^Talk 01:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Royal webmaster has confirmed it. Changes should be good to go here just like for William and Catherine's children.

  https://www.royal.uk/succession Cibrian209 (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose A single secondary source jumping the gun should not cause us to rush to make a change that might be inaccurate. The secondary source I saw talked about the Princess title but said nothing about Sussex. When the primary source is updated, we can find a secondary source that reports that fact and be confident that it's accurate and not just speculation. Jwolfe (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. As I understand the relevant British law, the children have legally been Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet since their grandfather became King Charles. This is a reliable source and I think the other publications are also reliable for a story like this.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  The relevant letters patent also make Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn prince/ss. Yet we do not title their pages after what we feel or understand their names should be, but after what their official name and title is according to the palace at the moment. Incidentally the secondary sources have to look up to palace for confirmation regarding these children's title and so far there has been no change in their status per those secondary sources. Keivan.f^Talk 18:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support as soon as the Royal Family's own website is updated to reflect the change. OGBC1992 (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for now - While there is no dispute that the change will happen, considering the Palace has already confirmed that they will change it on the official website, it is unclear whether Lilibet will be called "Princess Lilibet of Sussex" or "Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex". Once the Palace website makes the appropriate changes then this article should be moved. Estar8806 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Support. Source https://www.royal.uk/succession Cibrian209 (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Strong support - https://www.royal.uk/succession has been updated to use title of princess. 2A02:C7F:DCF5:3600:AC52:E002:10E:7249 (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Strong Support (obviously) now that it’s official. Lady Meg (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Keivan.f I disagree with that assertion. We’d title them after what is the common title used so long as it is also a title to which they are entitled. The palace does not need to explicitly consent to the use of that title: the standing letters of patent give royal consent to it. Therefore, if it is a name that is in active use by the individual, that is all we need. With the aforementioned Lady and Viscount, they do not make use of the title, and that is why we don’t title the a Prince and Princess. It is irrelevant as to how the palace refers to them.

If Lilibet’s parents use the title for her, that would be enough so long as the standing letters of patent remain in effect. SecretName101 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The letters patent simply state the wish of a monarch, which can be modified or overridden by his/her successors. And there's no need for new letters patent either, as was the case with Louise and James when they were born. If Charles wishes to keep them untitled they will remain untitled. And the Royal Family's website is a reflection of that wish at the moment. There's no indication that "Princess Lilibet of Sussex" is her common name or that it is indeed the correct form of address. You are simply jumping the gun assuming what her title should be based on a document published 106 years ago. Not to mention that secondary sources have stated that the change will take place in due course. Altering this article's title would be WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. Wait until it's confirmed. Keivan.f^Talk 18:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

And those letters of patent have NOT been overriden by Charles. Your characterization of Louise and James is UTTERLY WRONG. They are still entitled to use the title of Prince or Princess, and are a prince and princess of the UK. Their parents simply opted not to utilize the title (the monarch had no role in that decision). If Charles objects to anyone allowed to use those titles by the current Letters of Patents' use of the titles, he'd need to issue a new letter of patent nullifying the one currently in effect. As has been widely reported, Lilibet and Archie are currently a princess and prince of the UK entitled to those titles. SecretName101 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that the letters patent were overridden, I said a previous monarch's wish can be overridden and there's no need for new letters patent as was the case with Louise and James; and apparently the parent or the monarch's wish is enough. If we are to take into consideration the parents' wishes, then we should also take into consideration the King's wish at the moment, which is for the kids to remain untitled. And as I said, we have no sources on hand to indicate the child is indeed titled "Princess Lilibet of Sussex" or anything like that. It's none existent because the very institution that should confirm it has not even endorsed it yet. Keivan.f^Talk 19:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support - the Letters Patent state they she is legally a princess by operation of law; now we have a reliable secondary source to back this up. Make the change! Gillespk (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Palace website has now confirmed what was obviously correctly in law since the accession on King Charles—Lilibet is legally a princess. Now, let’s please put this silliness behind us and make the change! Gillespk (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose We have to wait royal website for confirmation since her name could be Princess Lilibet or Princess Lili or Princess Lilibet Diana. Justi7 (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neither common nor endorsed by the institution from which they derive whatever notability they may have at their age. Surtsicna (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  It is indeed endorsed by the institution by the currently-governing letters of patent. If the institution wishes to disallow these titles, they'd need new letters of patent to be issued by the monarch. SecretName101 (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is factually incorrect. Letters patent, in the United Kingdom, are legal instruments generally issued by the monarch granting an office, right, title (in the peerage and baronetage), or status to a person (and sometimes in regards to corporations and cities). In other words, letters patent (not letters of patent) are legal documents published at the order of the monarch and the institution that should endorse them is the monarchy of the United Kingdom, whose website has not afforded the children with "Prince/ss" titles. Keivan.f^Talk 19:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  A website does not take any precedent over an actual legal instrument. To suggest so is beyond goofy. That’s like saying that because Donald Trump once misspelled her name in a tweet, his wife’s name should be recognized as “Melanie” not Melania. 😆 What is posted on a website is irrelevant. The active letters patent permit the official use of these titles by the Sussex children, so if the Sussexes opt to utilize them, that is the end of the story unless and until Charles or his later successors issue new letters patent. SecretName101 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  We are talking about the website of the British monarchy not a celebrity magazine website. And if what the monarchy says is irrelevant so is her parents' wishes. The letters patent simply relay the monarch's orders and the website representing the current monarch makes it perfectly clear that these children do not carry princely titles. Your example of a misspelled name is not relevant. You cannot misspell a name from "Princess Lilibet of Sussex" to "Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor". Keivan.f^Talk 22:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  By your logic, we could not have recognized Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the house until the congressional website was updated to recognize him and not Pelosi as the speaker. Because clearly official websites are the legally binding authority. We must wait until their webmaster catches up. SecretName101 (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  A one-year old toddler cannot be compared to an adult that is voted into office and takes an oath before assuming a position. And there's no higher authority that could deny them that position. In this instance there is a higher authority and that's the monarch of the United Kingdom. Keivan.f^Talk 22:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  “when…Charles acceded the throne after the queen's September death, Lilibet gained the right to the title“

  also reflected in countless other sources:

  https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/08/duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-daughter-lilibet-christened-with-princess-title

  https://news.sky.com/story/amp/prince-archie-and-princess-lilibet-why-harry-and-meghan-waited-until-now-to-use-royal-titles-for-their-children-12828952

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/08/princess-lilibet-prince-archie/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_world-europe

  https://www.npr.org/2023/03/08/1161983289/prince-harry-meghan-royal-titles-children

  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64890702.amp

  or does your personal complete misunderstanding count as a more reliable source?

  The only point of question is whether Charles will consent to them utilizing the HRH prefix. It is cut and clear they have had the right to use prince and princess since he ascended to the throne. SecretName101 (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  The sources you cited here just reaffirm what I said earlier. The BBC states: Buckingham Palace has said the royal website - which currently lists her and brother Archie with the titles Miss and Master - will "be updated in due course" to reflect the title. It does not say when or even what title. Is it going to be "Princess Lilibet of Sussex", "Princess Lili of Sussex", or "Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex"? Or is Charles going to come up with a new statement or letters patent before that? This is all speculation which shows that this move is premature and a clear example of WP:CRYSTAL. Keivan.f^Talk 22:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it is most evidently not endorsed, and I do hope I will live to see the day when Wikipedians stop acting like they know what names and titles people bear better than those people themselves. Surtsicna (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to the day the Wikipedians quit thinking they know better than the universal consensus in reliable sources as to the effect the letters patent actually have. SecretName101 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

And where is this universal consensus that shows her title is "Princess Lilibet of Sussex"? Sources have only confirmed that she is entitled to be called a princess. They have in no way, shape or form confirmed what her actual title will be. And they can't. Because there has been no update or statement from Buckingham Palace. Keivan.f^Talk 22:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose until official statements/update from the BRF.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now—Article titles are governed largely by WP:COMMONNAME. There's no way to tell from just one day's news coverage whether "Princess Lilibet" will become the new COMMONNAME used by reliable sources. I think we'll get a better idea soon, given the increase in news coverage as the coronation approaches, but for now I think any move is premature. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but Jimbo Wales severely undermined that policy when he crowned Meghan Markle "duchess of Sussex" despite a talk page agreement that the article would be moved only if the new name became more common. It never did, and yet there it is. Surtsicna (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Meghan Markle is the Duchess of Sussex, which is why the title is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. If we governed article titles based solely on WP:COMMONNAME, then we would have various titles that would be unsuitable: Diana, Princess of Wales could simply be Princess Diana, or even just Diana; Elizabeth II could be Queen Elizabeth, or just The Queen.

WP:COMMONNAME is good, but it has to have its limits for the sake of Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision and Consistency.

Nonetheless as I said above, I oppose this move for now. Estar8806 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Strong support as I have laid out, letters patent still in effect entitle them to use this title, and their parents have decided to make use this title for them. That is enough. Countless reliable sources support this. SecretName101 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Support, has always been a princess but now the media and her family is using the title, it's time for an article move. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too soon. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support as multiple media outlets have been reporting on this and confirmation was made that Buckingham Palace would be updating their website to reflect the use of her title. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• For the record, as of 09:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC) the website https://www.royal.uk/succession has the updated titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A34:600:ADF4:A2C9:8A0D:FCE8 (talk)
• Strong support. Official website has been updated accordingly. Elme12 (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Official website has been updated accordingly. https://www.royal.uk/succession King4852 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The Royal Family has updated and reflected the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GandalfXLD (talk • contribs) 10:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support now that this has been officially announced and reported on by numerous secondary sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  just change it she is officially called a princess now Theeveralst (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support (as one who has previously opposed). The possession and use of royal titles is solely in the gift of the Sovereign, and his will has been definitively expressed on the royal website. Sure it's not letters patent or what-have-you; but it's an official communication of the desire of the fons honorem, and that's how this works. (I have sympathy with the COMMONNAME argument that we should wait to see if it 'catches on'; but let's be honest we're not going to be able to hold back the floodgates.) DBD 11:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  It’s questionable that it’s a gift of the Sovereign. Legally, the kids have been Prince and Princess since their grandfather became King, just as Prince Edward’s children are legally Princess Louise and Prince James, even though the family chooses not to use them in favor of the lesser courtesy titles they are entitled to use. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Opposition rationale has aged like milk. I'd urge them to reconsider so a quick consensus can be reached. --Killuminator (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I’d agree that it is time to just move it already. The titles were updated on the official websites. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HRH

Why is it written saying she has no HRH , Harry still has HRH he just doesn't use it, People need to wait , not adding their own opinions to a wiki page 142.189.68.60 (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Also when the Queen died there was talk about them having titles but no HRH so if they wanted to take away Prince Archie's and princess Lilibets HRH they would make it known until then they do have have Highness and her Royal Highness titles 142.189.68.60 (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

And, Harry IS still an HRH. The article implies that the title is not being used as in, it's no longer his title. That's not true. Regardless of whether he's going around USING the HRH, he IS still an HRH.76.202.192.102 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I had it confirmed in a telephone call to Buckingham Palace today, that P.Harry isn't any longer His Royal Highness, as this title has been put into abeyance. CobwebCottage (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

error type

The last editor of this page should correct his/her edit in the word " the first prince".Lilibet is a girl so she is a princess not a prince Qinlishu (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's fine. It says "prince or princess". Celia Homeford (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Charles III

There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III#RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house" which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)