Talk:Princess Lilibet of Sussex

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The idea of monarchy is really outdated, but it still exists, so their is gonna be an article on them.86.16.64.23 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)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

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)

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

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)

She’s now technically Princess Lilibet

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)