Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

~~{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=~~

}}

Line 303:

The public opinion section of the article contains referenced YouGov polling regarding particular responses to the interview. Is the information mentioning the trending Twitter hashtag 'abolishthemonarchy' useful alongside properly conducted polling data? Using hashtags as part of a trend does not necessarily mean an endorsement of its actual meaning, and mentioning this specific hashtag does not account for others which provided different views. The CNN reference does observe the trend, but perhaps a separate section would be more appropriate to mention this (as well as other social media trends potentially) as at the moment professional polling data alongside a Twitter trend seems incongruous. Just a thought. [[User:RedTeme|RedTeme]] ([[User talk:RedTeme|talk]]) 17:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

:{{ping|RedTeme}} Thanks for starting a discussion on the talk page. I actually agree with you; and the reasons that you provided for the removal of this specific sentence are valid in my opinion. Not to mention that it’s not really reflective of what the whole population thinks, mainly because it may have been used by a specific group who support the couple. And there’s also the issue of method and how the data get collected, which as you said, with a hashtag on Twitter we don’t really have much to work with in terms of method and accuracy. Nevertheless, I wanted it to be discussed on the talk page so that other users might also get a chance to provide their opinions. If everyone is against including it then we’ll simply remove it. Otherwise, it can be moved to another section titled “On social media” or something along that line. [[user:Keivan.f|Keivan.f]][[user_talk:Keivan.f|Talk]] 20:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not public opinion. You can’t use the same YouGov polls that were commissioned by tabloid papers with leading questions. It’s interesting that the polls about how young Brit’s feel about Harry and Meghan have been systemically removed. Why does this page exist? Is it some sort of propaganda tool?this is not encyclopedic at all and will be reported. whoever is in charge of this page does not understand what encyclopedia means. [[User:DigitialNomad|DigitialNomad]] ([[User talk:DigitialNomad|talk]]) 16:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

:{{re|DigitialNomad}} I have looked at some of these polls and the ones I looked at didn't have leading questions. Could you be more specific about which polls concern you?The problem with polls about young Brits is that we then have to balance that with polls of old Brits (for reasons relating to [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:DUE]]). As the article doesn't talk about polls which target one group over the other, I don't see the problem. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 19:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

==GoFundMe==

Line 490 ⟶ 493:

:"Wikipedia's voice" is stating the facts, my interpretation of how we have presented these facts is that they imply Meghan was mistaken, not lying (i.e. she said what she said because she does not understand what constitues a legal marriage in this country). If you feel differently, I would be more than happy to hear your suggestions on how to improve the text. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 08:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

::{{ping|SSSB}} please cite a source for your claim. You are the only editor who objects to the inclusion of additional sources and are heavily [[WP:INVOLVED]]. [[Special:Contributions/79.73.131.59|79.73.131.59]] ([[User talk:79.73.131.59|talk]]) 13:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

:::I don't object to new sources. Only with the copious [[WP:OR]] that comes with them. What claim do you want me cite? [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 14:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

::::I asked you to cite a source for your claim that Meghan was mistaken when she confirmed that she was married on Wednesday. You alleged that this was because she is American. Harry said exactly the same thing and he is (a) British and (b) as a 36 year-old member of the royal family knows all there is to know about royal marriages and certainly a lot more than you. [[Special:Contributions/79.73.131.59|79.73.131.59]] ([[User talk:79.73.131.59|talk]]) 14:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

:::::I haven't personally alleged any of those things. [[Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Private exchange of vows]] doesn't alleged any of those things. I only said that I thought (I, nobody else) that [[Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Private exchange of vows]] implies that they were mistaken, meaning I was not in a position to address your claims that it implies they were lying. Meanwhile, Harry and Meghan themselves stated (through a spokesperson) that they didn't get married on 16 May.<ref>https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/22/meghan-and-harry-finally-admit-there-was-no-secret-backyard-wedding/</ref> Several additional sources in [[Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Private exchange of vows]] say they didn't get married on 16 May, including from other people involved in the 16 May ceremony. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 14:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

::::::I've read the source you cite. Where did the spokesperson say {{xt|they didn't get married on 16 May.}}? I don't see that anywhere. [[Special:Contributions/79.73.131.59|79.73.131.59]] ([[User talk:79.73.131.59|talk]]) 15:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

:::::::The source didn't use those exact words. The second paragrapgh states: {{tq|A spokesperson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex told The Daily Beast that they exchanged “personal vows,” but acknowledged that this private event did not constitute a “legal” or “official” service.}} Another source: {{tq|[Welby said] "The legal wedding was on the Saturday."}}<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/30/archbishop-of-canterbury-harry-and-meghans-legal-wedding-was-on-saturday</ref> [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 15:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

::::::::I changed the wording because the link provided failed verification. I found a discrepancy between the wording and the wording of the source. Why then did you restore the original wording? [[Special:Contributions/79.73.131.59|79.73.131.59]] ([[User talk:79.73.131.59|talk]]) 16:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::Did you? Where? Because looking at the above, it looks like you changed the wording, but not the meaning. We aren't quoting the source, so the wording does not need to be the same [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 16:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::Of course, there is nothing wrong with changing the wording. But if it comes with little or no gain (because the meaning is the same) and the same edit contains a tonne of [[WP:OR]], I am not going to go out of my way to preserve the change of wording, because it has little or no gain. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 16:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::{{ec}} In my edit of 16:17, 14 May I quoted the source. You now say "We aren't quoting the source..." We were quoting the source but you removed the quotation. Why did you do that? [[Special:Contributions/79.73.131.59|79.73.131.59]] ([[User talk:79.73.131.59|talk]]) 16:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

{{Od|::::::::::}} for the reason outlined in my comment at 16:33 today. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 16:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

:Why do you think there is "little or no gain" in quoting a source? [[Special:Contributions/79.73.131.59|79.73.131.59]] ([[User talk:79.73.131.59|talk]]) 17:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

::Because the current wording has the same meaning. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 17:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

:::So you have an objection to Wikipedia quoting sources, yes? [[Special:Contributions/79.73.131.59|79.73.131.59]] ([[User talk:79.73.131.59|talk]]) 17:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

::::No, if you want to change that to a dircet quote, go ahead. If you're going to add [[WP:OR]] (or any other violations of policies) at the same time I will perform a blanket revert (because there is no gain from a direct quote in this case). [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 17:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

:::::When you removed the direct quote you inserted wording which did not correspond to that of the source. You therefore added "original research". Why do you think that what you add is not "original research" but what other editors add is "original research"? [[Special:Contributions/79.73.131.59|79.73.131.59]] ([[User talk:79.73.131.59|talk]]) 17:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

::::::If we are talking about the sentence I think we are talking about, I see no original research. Can you be more specific about which part we are talking about. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 17:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

:::::::If you don't know what you are talking about it is pointless to continue the discussion. [[Special:Contributions/79.73.131.59|79.73.131.59]] ([[User talk:79.73.131.59|talk]]) 18:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

::::::::I think you are talking about "...a spokesperson for the couple confirmed that they merely exchanged "personal vows", and the private event was neither a "legal" nor "official" service". The source says "A spokesperson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex [said] they exchanged “personal vows,” but acknowledged that this private event did not constitute a “legal” or “official” service." Everything that is said in the former is said in the latter. Therefore, there is no [[WP:OR]]. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 21:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Line 496 ⟶ 517:

Note that all posts in this thread from the IP address 95.148.229.85 were made by a permanently banned user, [[User:Vote (X) for Change]]. Their posts should not have been allowed to remain on this page and should have been deleted on sight. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 09:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

:Addendum: ~~both~~ 79.73.133.199, 79.73.131.59 and 89.240.117.137, who have posted above, are also the same banned user. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 10:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

::{{re|Viennese Waltz}} if this is the case, then the IP needs to be blocked. You need to consider a [[WP:SPI]], so that the IP adressess can be blocked. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 15:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

:::Thanks, I had already drawn this page to the attention of an administrator who is familiar with this banned user, who has now semi-protected the page. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 15:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

== "Taxpayers" ==

Can anyone square the statement in the 'State-funded securtiy' section, "The Duke and Duchess also stressed that they used the money they made from their Netflix and Spotify deals to pay for the renovation costs of their UK residence Frogmore Cottage, which was initially paid for by British taxpayers' money" with the fact that the Sovereign Grant receives no tax money? I understand the article content is sourced. But, the media consistently gets British royal financing wrong. --[[User talk:Miesianiacal|'''₪''']] [[User:Miesianiacal|MIESIANIACAL]] 20:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

:The soverign grant is paid for by the government. The government's money is taxpayers' money, it doesn't grow on trees. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 09:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

::The Sovereign Grant is a paid-back percentage of the Crown Estate's profit that the Queen hands to her treasury every year. The Crown Estate's profit does not derive from taxes. Information on the Sovereign Grant can be found [[Sovereign Grant Act 2011|here]] and [[Finances of the British royal family#Sovereign Grant|here]]. Additionally, the Queen receives income from the Duchy of Lancaster that is used for state-related royal financing. Frogmore Cottage sits in Windsor Great Park, which belongs to the British Crown.

::The media states the renovations were paid for by tax money, but there is no explanation of how that happened. If it is true, it is out of the ordinary for the upkeep of Crown-owned properties and should therefore be easy to prove. But, it seemingly cannot be. Meaning it's more likely that jouralists see "paid for by government" and immediately assume that means the use of taxes. --[[User talk:Miesianiacal|'''₪''']] [[User:Miesianiacal|MIESIANIACAL]] 18:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

:::What the journalists are trying to say is beside the point. Something being unusual and not being easy prove mean nothing. What is the point is that we follow reliable sources say. If reliable sources state it was tax payers money, then so must we. What is worth noting is that the cited source only says that they paid back the cost of the renovations, it provides no information as to who "lent" the money. We need a source for that. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 18:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

::::Indeed, the source doesn't even use the word "tax". I assumed it did because it's being used to support a statement about tax money and other media articles have inaccurately said taxpayer funded the renovations. --[[User talk:Miesianiacal|'''₪''']] [[User:Miesianiacal|MIESIANIACAL]] 19:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

:::::The source does link (in the same way we might wikilink) to another one of its articles that does claim it was "cash from the tax payer funded Sovereign Grant".<ref>https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/09/prince-harry-meghan-markle-frogmore-cottage-cost</ref> I did some research to find a source that debunks the claim that the soverign grant is tax payers money and found the funding page on the Sussex's website, which talks about the Sovriegn Grant in relation to their cottage. It claims:

::::::"The Sovereign Grant is the annual funding mechanism of the monarchy that covers the work of the Royal Family in support of HM The Queen including expenses to maintain official residences and workspaces. In this exchange, The Queen surrenders the revenue of the Crown Estate and in return, a portion of these public funds are granted to The Sovereign/The Queen for official expenditure."<ref>https://sussexroyal.com/funding/</ref>

:::::In other words the Sussex's are claiming that the Soverign Grant is publically funded. It may not be funded by the public directly, but the argument is that the Sovreign Grant is funded by money from the treasury. If there were no Sovriegn Grant that money would be spent on the "public" (whether it be education, transport, the home office, NHS or whatever.)I suggest we change the wording and cite this source to justify the change. But we also need to be careful not to overcite this source. It is a [[WP:PRIMARY]] source and is also likely to contain bias, it is one sided. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 10:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

::::::The Sovereign Grant does indeed come out of the UK treasury... After the profit from the Crown Estate has been deposited. So, the latter becomes public funds, though it is not collected by taxation. Since the amount of the grant is determined by how much the Crown Estate earned--"normally the Sovereign Grant for a given year will be equal to a prescribed percentage--initially 15%--of the Crown Estate’s surplus revenue in the financial year two years prior"[https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/leg_sovereign_grant_secondreading_140711.pdf]--the grant is considered money paid back to the Queen from what she handed over.

::::::I suggest simply changing the end of that sentence to, "the Duke and Duchess also stressed that they used the money they made from their Netflix and Spotify deals to pay for the renovation costs of their UK residence, Frogmore Cottage, which were initially paid for out of the Sovereign Grant," using [https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a25295234/prince-harry-meghan-markle-frogmore-cottage-windsor-home/ this source] and have those last two words pipe to either [[Sovereign Grant Act 2011]] or [[Finances of the British royal family#Sovereign Grant]]; let those articles do the explaining. --[[User talk:Miesianiacal|'''₪''']] [[User:Miesianiacal|MIESIANIACAL]] 22:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

== This is no longer about Oprah Interview ==

This entire page needs to start over. It’s no longer a page about the Oprah Interview. To go point by point and add commentary from talking heads on every single point is unprecedented for Wikipedia. On this page we stick to the Oprah interview, if anyone wants to expand on the topic or understand more about any of the topics covered they can google it and find the wiki page for that topic. I will begin the clean up of this page and will lose it after Diana’s Bashir interview page [[An Interview with HRH The Princess of Wales]]. Anyone have any comments on this? Please give me other examples where what someone said in an interview is followed by every commentary about what they said ? [[User:DigitialNomad|DigitialNomad]] ([[User talk:DigitialNomad|talk]]) 18:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

:Can you please stop comparing every single page related to Harry and Meghan to other pages? That's not how articles are written on Wikipedia. And no, we don't have a policy that dictates pages should not be updated. Pages on a court case, an interview, a documentary, a murder case, etc. can be updated when new facts come to light. For example, Meghan stated that her children would not be getting a title. Considering the fact that has turned out not to be true, excluding that crucial piece of information would be misleading to the reader. And to say {{tq|if anyone wants to expand on the topic or understand more about any of the topics covered they can google it and find the wiki page for that topic}} is not a sound reason to delete information here. The reader comes in, reads and absorbs the information on the surface of it and might not even look it up, leaving them with a distorted version of facts. Even the page on Diana's interview (to which I personally contributed) contains information on its aftermath. What do you want this page to be like? "Harry and Meghan did an interview with Oprah. They made these allegations. The end"? [[user:Keivan.f|Keivan.f]][[user_talk:Keivan.f|Talk]] 20:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

::See Kevian, this is the problem with these pages, so much is added on here that can be interpreted differently, and every single time your interpretation is what makes it in. This is not a fact checking page, yes you can have a section with aftermath, however it should be brief. It is not wikipedias purpose to fact check what someone has said, mostly because it shouldn’t include so much of what someone has said that it requires extensive interpretation, and adding of different point of views. And the content you’ve added is mostly up for debate in terms of how it’s interpreted. Again I’m going to give you Meghan’s exact quote and not the interpretation of any third party. You said that Meghan said, the kids would not get titles. But that is how you interpreted what she said, her exact quote does not say “the kids will not get titles” what she actually said is: they had discussions about it, and they want… never said it was finalized and that the queen had changed the convention. It was not reported on as if the kids were definitely not going to get titles. So again, if she says there were discussions about it, then why do we need to follow up with how the discussion ended? That’s not the job of Wikipedia. People can read the news today.

::“””””” And that was when they were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess — not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol — and that he wasn’t going to receive security.

::“You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.

::Right? And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie”""””

::There is no evidence that these discussions didn’t happen, however once Charles became King he didn’t change it. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t discussed. multiple outlets have reported that he planned to change the convention. [[User:DigitialNomad|DigitialNomad]] ([[User talk:DigitialNomad|talk]]) 15:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

:Also, unlike the articles on Harry, Meghan, and other individuals, this is not a biography. Not to mention that the whole interview was filled with gossipy salacious stories, claims, rumors, and allegations, and if we are to give them a platform, an equal platform can be given to the counter claims and allegations. The whole interview was about "who allegedly said/did what". It was not a scientific interview on worldwide issues which would require careful examination of each response in return. [[user:Keivan.f|Keivan.f]][[user_talk:Keivan.f|Talk]] 20:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

::How can you give opinions of talking heads and anonymous sources an equal footing to what someone says from their own mouth? If this is so how you approach these pages, I find that highly problematic. Is that what you think you are doing? Providing “stuff” to balance Harry and Meghan’s Wikipedia page? Deeply problematic approach to Wikipedia if this is your perspective? That means you can be manipulated into adding stuff on here, someone just needs to be loud enough in the news [[User:DigitialNomad|DigitialNomad]] ([[User talk:DigitialNomad|talk]]) 15:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

:::Your comments about what she said with regards to the titles is fair. Yes, maybe discussions did take place. That doesn't change the outcome that what she feared was going to happen did not happen. And the article does not imply that she was lying about those conversations if that's what your concern is. It merely states that she had her own concerns, but she apparently was not entirely aware of how the letters patent work, and her children eventually got their titles.

:::There are various people who have been listed with their names here. They are not anonymous. And since the whole interview was filled with allegations coming out of their mouth, allegations coming out of non-anonymous people's mouth or people who worked with them that contradicts theirs can be given equal footing. We should neither believe Harry & Meghan, nor those who challenge their claims. Excluding one side would disrupt the page's neutrality and allow the main narrative to go unchallenged. That is contrary to what any article should be like. It is like having an article on Hitler's viewpoints but excluding the criticism, saying that people who are interested can go grab a book and read about it. And no, before anyone jumps to conclusions, I'm not comparing anyone here to Hitler. I'm giving an extreme example to make my viewpoints clear. [[user:Keivan.f|Keivan.f]][[user_talk:Keivan.f|Talk]] 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

:I have already removed parts which I felt were irrelevant to the main points in the interview. However, parts that discuss or address claims made within the interview should remain. [[user:Keivan.f|Keivan.f]][[user_talk:Keivan.f|Talk]] 20:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

::Hi Kevian, are you on every single page related and Harry and Meghan? I now see the pattern, your style is to add more? [[User:DigitialNomad|DigitialNomad]] ([[User talk:DigitialNomad|talk]]) 15:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

:::I can genuinely ask [[User:DigitialNomad|you]] the same question. I cover multiple articles on royalty, and I have other areas of interest. My contributions and creations attest to that. You on the other hand seem to be bent on the idea that removing everything from pages related to Harry and Meghan is the ideal way of maintaining encyclopedic articles. Let me break it to you: it's not. And FYI, it wasn't even me who set up the structure of this article two years ago. This was the work of multiple individuals and everything was added with their consensus at the time. I may have added sentences here and there ever since, but I'm hardly the only contributor to this page. [[user:Keivan.f|Keivan.f]][[user_talk:Keivan.f|Talk]] 15:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

::::why are you the only one who responded and so passionately too? [[User:DigitialNomad|DigitialNomad]] ([[User talk:DigitialNomad|talk]]) 15:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

:::::Because the page is on my watchlist. And why not respond? You put the matter up for debate and should be prepared to get a response from anyone. [[user:Keivan.f|Keivan.f]][[user_talk:Keivan.fTalk]] 15:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

::::::Are you passionate about these pages? [[User:DigitialNomad|DigitialNomad]] ([[User talk:DigitialNomad|talk]]) 15:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

:::::::You throw the word passionate around a lot. No, I'm not passionate about anything. I'm interested in the content of a page that I have contributed to. [[user:Keivan.f|Keivan.f]][[user_talk:Keivan.f|Talk]] 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

::::::::Getting back to the Oprah interview, in this interview Meghan, backed by Harry, revealed that they telephoned the Archbishop of Canterbury (hereinafter referred to as "ABC" - "ABCDE" is the Archbishop of Canterbury's daughter Ellie) and asked him to marry them in private days before the event that was watched by millions around the world. He duly appeared and, although cagey about what happened, did not deny that he performed a wedding ceremony. On 8 March 2021 the couple's spokesperson described the ceremony as "a private exchange of vows." The statement was reported in full. On 21 March he made a further statement. Right wing journo Camilla Tominey condescended to reveal that it included the words "legal" and "official" but the headline went further and claimed it was an admission that the couple were liars. Asked about the accuracy of the headline on 22 July 2021 Tominey deflected the question, responding "I don't write the headlines." Were the couple to sue the ''Daily Telegraph'', Tominey and whoever wrote the headline for libel, they would win if the defence evidence consisted of nothing other than Tominey's 22 July comment. If the paper tried to rely on Tominey's paraphrase of the statement it would still lose because that would be hearsay and inadmissible as evidence. On 8 March 2023 the spokesperson made a statement that a decision on whether to attend the Coronation 'will not be disclosed by us at this time.' Again it was reported in full. Under cross-examination Mrs Tominey would have a hard time convincing the jury that while the first and third statements were reported verbatim 90% of the other statement was suppressed for any reason other than that if it was reported it would reveal her claim that the Duke and Duchess had admitted lying to be libellous, and probably criminal libel at that. In a newspaper interview on 30 March 2021 ABC alleged "If I had signed the certificate on a different day, I would have been committing a serious crime." The staff at the General Register Office who routinely sign certificates only after the marriage schedule has been posted back to them after the ceremony must be quaking in their shoes. [[Special:Contributions/89.243.8.4|89.243.8.4]] ([[User talk:89.243.8.4|talk]]) 13:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::Are you the user above [[User:DigitialNomad|DigitialNomad]]? If so, could you please make that clear, and also log into this account when continuing a conversation. Thanks. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|Escape Orbit]] [[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]] 16:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm failing to see how Tominey's comments about the couple's acceptance or refusal to attend the coronation is relevant to this topic. The entire comment is aimed at challenging her credibility I guess. Meanwhile, the rest is primarily about whether the couple should have sued her or the outlet for a specific headline, which is just speculation about what could have happened. Also, there is no mention of the archbishop's daughter Ellie in the interview (not sure how she's relevant), but the archbishop did state that he "would have been committing a serious crime" if he had not signed the certificate on the wedding day. What happens in other cases is not necessarily relevant, because we are talking about the marriage of a member of the royal family and their marriage certificates are traditionally signed on their wedding day. [[user:Keivan.f|Keivan.f]][[user_talk:Keivan.f|Talk]] 21:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::So can you not see that ABC is as big a dissembler as Tominey? The first Marriage Act in 1753 provided that if the archbishop falsifies any record he {{xt|shall be deemed and adjudged to be guilty of Felony, and shall suffer Death as a Felon, without Benefit of Clergy.}} So if the ceremony concludes at one minute to midnight and he signs the register at one minute past is he really going to be hauled off to the gallows? Confirming your next point, the very next provision of the statute reads:

{{xt|XVII. Provided always, That this Act, or any Thing therein contained, shall not extend to the Marriages of any of the Royal Family.}}

ABC knows that the marriage law for members of the royal family is different from the marriage law for people who aren't members of the royal family because every time he issues a licence for a royal marriage he carefully enumerates what those differences are. Tominey revealed in her 22 July 2021 interview that she had received death threats. This was shortly after it had emerged that she had misquoted uncontroversial remarks of the Duchess, creating the impression that Meghan was a habitual liar. [[Special:Contributions/89.243.8.4|89.243.8.4]] ([[User talk:89.243.8.4|talk]]) 14:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Could people please keep discussion on this talk page on topic and refrain from indulging in original research? Unless any of the above can be cited to a source, and that source discusses it in '''direct relationship''' to this TV programme, it doesn't belong here. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|Escape Orbit]] [[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]] 17:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

== Editing article for neutrality and reliable sources ==

I agree with some contributors here, I think that this page could do with some editing now that some time has passed and can be made into a better entry.

Hoping others can add some constructive edits, and we can get consensus here if there are disagreements. I am currently working on this, aiming for neutral, verifiable, reliable, and non-tabloid sources.

For example, under the "Veracity of Claims" -- "State funded security section" I have made some edits to this section that are reputative or irrelevant to the discussion of the claims. (I apologise for the messy edit history on the page today, the formatting was terrible while on mobile, but I made the edits and comments as transparent as possible) [[User:Cibrian209|Cibrian209]] ([[User talk:Cibrian209|talk]]) 21:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)