Talk:Sarah Ferguson

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. Favonian (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Sarah, Duchess of York → Sarah Ferguson – Per BBC, Sarah, Duchess of York, will be known as simply Sarah Ferguson. She also uses her birth name on her official social media channels. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 20:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support a no brainer.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support in the event Prince Andrew, Duke of York is also moved. U-Mos (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral - Pending result of Prince Andrew, Duke of York RM. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Wait I would rather wait and see what happens with Andrew's page. We should not rush into moving pages while there is no clear consensus. Keivan.f^Talk 20:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  I completely disagree. 80.42.86.206 (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  Why do we need to wait for Andrew's page? The only reason I would consider holding off is the fact that she hasn't yet come out publicly and said she will not be using the title. If / when that occurs, I'd be strongly in support. Dinercoffee (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  Because we don't want to create discrepancies between pages per WP:CONSISTENT. And the BBC has already confirmed that she will not be known as Duchess of York anymore. Keivan.f^Talk 05:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  She is no longer Duchess of York. The page is titled Duchess of York. It's inconsistent already. Can guarantee if there's someone who wants to be awkward, it'll be you. 80.42.86.206 (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  As if your opinion really matters. Shut it and stop hounding me underneath every comment that I make. Keivan.f^Talk 06:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  I will now raise an official complaint regarding your insulting tone towards me. 80.42.86.206 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Go ahead. I'll make sure everyone is aware that you have been harassing me for the past two days, even resorting to posting unwarranted warnings on my talk page and tracking my past comments to post messages underneath them with insults aimed at me. Sounds like stalking, doesn't it? Keivan.f^Talk 20:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  And the BBC has already confirmed? No. The BBC predicts. Maybe the BBC has inside knowledge, but they are reporting on the future. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Keivan.f why would u? after all this time sarah is always monetizing her title, this is the right time because all patronage under her has been automatically revoked by the royal family. Kayanad (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Dont be ridiculous! Completely agree it should be removed! 2A02:C7C:9B20:7E00:867E:45CF:FC02:FBCA (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support, so long as the RM at the other article goes through, which I think it likely will.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 20:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support Ideally it might have been better to see what happened with Andrew's page, but I can see what way the tide is heading. PatGallacher (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  isn't that the definition of WP:CRYSTAL? DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wait a little...until we see what WP:RS use. It should be apparent pretty soon though, possibly before this RM closes and the change seems highly likely. Just to be clear, what happens on the Prince Andrew, Duke of York page is utterly irrelevant. There's a strange obsession with "consistency" on these royal family pages. Where else on WP would it matter what the article name of an ex-husband is? This is a question of WP:COMMONNAME as used in WP:RS and nothing else. DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NCROY, consistency is specifically a consideration for royal titles - as well as being, you know, one of the key criteria for article titles in general. U-Mos (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Untrue. Consistency is mentioned one time and doesn't stand up to the fundamentals of WP:COMMONNAME. Are we really to ignore COMMONNAME for a woman's article title to be tied eternally to a former husband because of that. Likely, this will be academic as his article change looks like going through. But, seriously, tying it to his article title is archaic. We just need to apply normal principles of how the RS refer to her. DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, consistency for article titles of royal bios? went out the window years ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Common name does not sit above the core article naming criteria - they are considered together. This is about consistency across royal family article titles, not tying a woman to her ex-husband for life. Ferguson has continued to use the Duchess of York title following her divorce until this point. U-Mos (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. She released a book last year under her name and title, so… GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm changing to Support as there's now evidence that the WP:RS are using "Sarah Fergusson" consistently. DeCausa (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support change to Sarah Ferguson -- Vicomte Guiy de Montfort L'Amaury 21:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  100% support 2A07:E403:402F:C00:DC1B:4B19:CC10:8F52 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - They've officially given up their titles as per WP:RS. The fact the subject themselves has done this should override as per WP:COMMONNAME. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - Duchess of York should be removed as it clearly states she will not be using it. 80.42.86.206 (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support WP:COMMONNAME, she no longer actively uses the Duchess of York title. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 05:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support: she will no longer be using the title, and appears to be the primary topic for the basic nme — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support apppears to be the primary topic over the other Sarah Fergusons, a local politician and a journalist. Iffy★Chat -- 08:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support, courtesy title disused. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Support: It has been announced publicly that she will no longer hold a title. A no-brainer. 2A00:23C6:70C2:801:75F0:A283:72FD:E704 (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Support: she is now Sarah Ferguson. 146.200.69.90 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like WP:SNOW. PatGallacher (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Support the Wikipedia headline description should be simply SARAH FERGUSON. 2A00:23CC:BF08:D401:A999:1BB7:96EE:DF3C (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait: given she was a Duchess by virtue of marriage. So would be dependant on Andrew’s talk page result. However, she technically hasn’t been the Duchess since divorce so… But has made use of the title and been referred as such since divorce. I guess one could argue the sources and if they still refer to her as such moving forward. Although, it was mentioned she wouldn’t use it any longer. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755 Support: technically her patronage/organization was removed too. so she didn't have any engagement that belongs to the royal family. so it's just simply Sarah Ferguson. Kayanad (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait and follow Talk:Prince Andrew, Duke of York#Requested move 17 October 2025 per @SmokeyJoe meamemg (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Support WP:COMMONNAME estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Support page should be renamed

Strong Support As others have said, surely a no-brainer. She isn't the Duchess anymore.

Strong Support: As per BBC

„His ex-wife has now lost her duchess title and will simply be known as Sarah Ferguson.“ ;

„For all these years, she has kept the courtesy royal divorcee title Sarah, Duchess of York. Now, she reverts to her maiden name of Ferguson.“

—2001:4DD7:B595:0:1089:14A4:D42C:2750 (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wait and follow Talk:Prince Andrew, Duke of York#Requested move 17 October 2025. Also, note that it is conceivable that Andrew will retain the title as a technicality, and should that happen, Wikipedia should wait for sources to demonstrate that Sarah is no longer afforded the courtesy title that she lost a technical right to on divorce. If the Prince Andrew article is moved, moved this one immediately. Don't put too much faith in the news sources "is giving up" statements, wait for multiple sources to report "has given up". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Wait Supposedly, the titles remain in place until the Commons votes to approve their removal. I don't know what the policy is on official titles that the bearers no longer desire to use.Pascalulu88 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that is nonsense. There isn't going to be a Commons vote on this issue, they have stopped using these titles with immediate effect. PatGallacher (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

    Source? They have stopped?

    Maybe alternatively, when did each last use the title? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

    • • See just about every source on this issue. PatGallacher (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

        Actually, I’m good with the prince’s quote “I will therefore no longer use my title …” SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Sorry, but these exchanges really are ridiculous. Anyone would think reading them that The Supreme Court was wrestling with an especially fine point of International Law. He's been stripped of his title, and she of hers. Whether or not these titles are de-jure or in abeyance or locked in a cupboard is surely irrelevant to the matter at hand. They don't belong to these two any longer. As things stand, both articles are misleading. Just change it, for God's sake. Enough with this UN thing. 2A00:23C6:70C2:801:75F0:A283:72FD:E704 (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  He hasn’t been stripped and she isn’t, technically, the Duchess since divorce, although allowed to use the title, as a curtsey, until Andrew remarries (if he still possesses him). Case being, she released several books as “Sarah, Duchess of York” since divorce. The announcement on Friday extends to her though, and therefore, since Friday, she will not make use of it.

  As for your last statement, I do not understand what it means, as Wikipedia is built as a community, discussion and reaching consensus. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per common name. Sarah Ferguson has always been her common name. This is an encyclopedia, not Burke's Peerage. TFD (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  While the move is justified, Sarah Ferguson has always been her common name is, at best, dubious. There were clearly periods since 1986 where that was not the case. A crude example: ngrams. DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  She just released a book last year under the name “Sarah, Duchess of York”. By your logic then we should use people’s real names and not artistic ones (e.g.: Lady Gaga = Stefanie Germanotta), or else Wikipedia would fan pages?! GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  DeCausa, you misspelled her name as "Sarah Fergusson." Even so, her misspelled name was more popular than "Sarah Duchess of York" except from 2009-2019. If you spell her name "Sarah Ferguson," ngram clearly shows that is the common name.

  GrandDukeMarcelo, my logic is that articles should use peoples' common names, whether that is their real name, their artistic name or what they put on their bookcovers. Sarah, Duchess of York, is btw a legal name since her divorce from the Duke of York. The criterion is, "What would a reader type in?" In this case, I think readers are more likely to type in Sarah Ferguson" than anything else. Do more people say "I wonder what Sarah Ferguson's title is?" or "I wonder who is the current Duchess of York?" TFD (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support change to Sarah Ferguson. Sarah Ferguson herself has literally changed her X (formely Twitter) account to Sarah Ferguson, previously she had it as Sarah, Duchess of York. The fact her name on Wikipedia hasn't changed and we are STILL debating it is insane. She is now Sarah Ferguson, period. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellefromhelle (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support with this page remaining as a redirect to the main page Sarah Ferguson. A similar change is being proposed that I support to the Prince Andrew article. Beatrice and Eugenie should, however, still be referred to as princesses. Dash77 (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support as it is her most common name. Elme12 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support, this should have been done last week, don't see why it needs discussing.LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)