A Potential Wife for Prince Harry

[Aotearoagal]

I understand the point you are trying to make but I hope that Harry gets married with the intention of being faithful to his spouse. It is my belief that if the goal is cheating then he should not get married at all.

jemagre I'd love to agree with you but there is a tradition of royal infidelity and "droit du seigneur" in his blood that goes back more than a thousand years. It's just how royals are. I'm afraid the odds are vastly stacked against Harry breaking the mold and making a successful love match. I expect he will know not to attempt to. I expect he will marry someone who knows the codes ...

 

[Osipi]

What was generally accepted in the past does not give the "right of way" that it would be accepted in today's society by anyone royal or not. The days of men having mistresses while the wives turn a blind eye to it have gone out the window as much as the "obey" word in the marriage vows has. Personally I see Harry as very much the settling down type and really enjoying his wife and especially his children. Harry is still only 26 and very much involved with his military service and like normal young men, grabbing the world by the horns. I will be very surprised if he doesn't make a genuine love match like his brother is.

 

[Aotearoagal]

Jemagre and Osipi I do hope you are right regarding Our Harry - but Osipi those days are no way long gone. Look at politicians, academics, businessmen, scientists - highly successful middle-class men very commonly have mistresses, let alone royals. Wives tend to look the other way so they can retain the privileges of being the wife.

 

[PrincessDianafan]

Are you condoning extramarital relationships just because they are royal? Royal or not, extramarital relationships are unacceptable!! Unbelievable. This is the 21st century. People should be allowed to marry whom they chose and whom they love! Sheesh! What a thing to say!!!!

 

[Osipi]

Jemagre and Osipi I do hope you are right regarding Our Harry - but Osipi those days are no way long gone. Look at politicians, academics, businessmen, scientists - highly successful middle-class men very commonly have mistresses, let alone royals. Wives tend to look the other way so they can retain the privileges of being the wife.

Of course it still happens in every aspect of society but I don't feel that in anyway it is accepted as a "normal" expectation in a marriage nor is it they way a certain group of people are expected to be with "codes". Even with Charles and Diana's marriage as much as it later has been dubbed an "arranged" marriage, it was never that way to begin with. I really think that over the years we're going to see royal couples that are totally devoted to each other such as the Queen and the DoE are now and Victoria and Albert were in history. The main difference now is that young royals are encouraged to marry for love rather than anything else.

 

[PrincessDianafan]

I think Harry is much more traditional than Wills. I think Wills marrying Kate with their "deep connection" is quite unroyal. Royals traditionally marry in a form that is much more like, say, an Asian arranged marriage. "Being in love" is somewhat irrelevant. The royal family have been wrestling with issues around this stuff for three generations now. The Charles & Diana "arranged marriage" not working out has led to the Wills & Kate engagement. I think Harry has the smarts to recognise that the type of marriage mostly likely to work out for him, is with an emotionally resilient, confident English aristocrat, rather than a "carefree Chelsy type". Remember, if he marries an upper-class gal who has been brought up in a stable aristocratic milieu, she will handle indiscretions and affairs. (Diana couldn't handle the marriage because she had been brought up in an atypical family situation and she was emotionally fragile).

What an unbelievable statement. Honestly! Yes, unroyal but obviously in love. So I suppose the other European weddings: Denmark, Spain, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden were unroyal as well. Honestly!!

 

[Aotearoagal]

Are you condoning extramarital relationships just because they are royal? Royal or not, extramarital relationships are unacceptable!! Unbelievable. This is the 21st century. People should be allowed to marry whom they chose and whom they love! Sheesh! What a thing to say!!!!

Where do I say that I condone such?

 

[MARG]

I think Harry is much more traditional than Wills. I think Wills marrying Kate with their "deep connection" is quite unroyal. Royals traditionally marry in a form that is much more like, say, an Asian arranged marriage. "Being in love" is somewhat irrelevant. (Diana couldn't handle the marriage because she had been brought up in an atypical family situation and she was emotionally fragile).

Ouch! Wherever did you get the idea that Prince William is sweetly UNroyal and. as such, is destined to marry someone with whom he has a "deep connection" whilst Harry is to be condemned in advance to at best to a convenient, loveless marriage, and at worst to become a sleazy womaniser and serial adulterer who would marry without love and expect said loveless spouse to quietly accept a cold, hard-hearted, callous cad for a husband?

I think Harry has the smarts to recognise that the type of marriage mostly likely to work out for him , rather than a "carefree Chelsy type". Remember, if he marries an upper-class gal who has been brought up in a stable aristocratic milieu, she will handle indiscretions and affairs.

Worse, that this somehow confers the honour of having "smarts" for doing so!

Hells bells, whatever has Harry done to merit such bile?

 

[rossop7]

I reckon Harry will end up marrying the most "normal" girl ever in the Royal Family, nothing aristocratic, nobel, no royal connections etc, just an "average", private citizen (maybe not from the UK) & that'll be fine. Maybe she'll come from a rich family, maybe she won't but I do see him ending up with someone who in a traditional, old sense would not normally be considered royal marriage material

 

[Lumutqueen]

Define "royal marriage material"?

 

[Esmerelda]

I actually think Harry seems more down to earth than William although they're both very modern guys.

 

[melissaadrian]

Islam is about the benovalence of god. Judaism is believed to be enshrined in the first bible and is thorough. Lutheran is a broad view. The Anglican church supposition is acceptable to those that holds it views though even they differentiate between presbetyrian and protestant and it is the English Church which is Anglican and The Church of England which is Presbetryian. .. only some will understand this ...

The Anglican view is simple and does not hold many tenets. Tenets are to do with belief if you understand anything to do with anything to do with religion whatever it is to you.

A lack of understanding is not easy to adapt to. It is inadequate and why it only holds stature in one country in europe. It is inadequate along with interpretation of holy cathlocism (which is not the same as Roman Catholicism) which is true catholicism and bridges the gap between the first and second bible. The Church of Ireland along with some Orthodoxian view understand and appreciate the difference.

It is up to you to educate yourself with elders. You lack yourself and it is why you show your lack of yourself. You simply are not good enough to make any decision in relation to religion. Deferentiate and Educate !

Duke.

Wow you just boosted religious intolerance up another peg. To assume I have not studied other religions? That I am ignorant of the beliefs and systems of other churches? Where did you come by this conclusion. Just because I did not copy and paste some three paragraph rant from a theology site to sound like I am educated, and instead sound like some intolerant judgemental religious nut, doesn't mean I have no understanding of other religions. Perhaps I don't know every little basic fact of every religion, but I pride myself in being open to them all. I have gone to passover and Chanakah celebrations, I have gone to Dwali and though I have never, if my Muslim friends invited me to Ramadan, I'd happily go. I think it is far more important to be open to learning, or at least embracing other religions, then it is to be able to sound like some theology text.

You would not have to learn every religion, a woman who married Harry, would have to learn 1. And as anyone who converted to another religion, she'd recieve conversion classes before hand. And while yes there is a difference between catholocism and the church of England, it would still be easier to adopt the differences, then to change from say being muslim.

 

[melissaadrian]

Where did anyone suggest she was going to marry Harry?
I can see the British people accepting it, and if Harry is made happy by this girl the Queen will allow the marriage to take place. If HM didn't want Alice as a granddaughter0-in-law Harry could give up his place in line for the throne.

But I ask again, where did anyone say she was going to marry Harry?

Hmm....I wonder where I may have got the idea? Could It be perhaps because her name was brought up, on a thread for possible brides for Harry?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Hmm....I wonder where I may have got the idea? Could It be perhaps because her name was brought up, on a thread for possible brides for Harry?

Iluvbertie posted to article for ladies who may "fit the bill"; nobody ever specifically said "I want Alice Dellal to marry Henry" did they now?

I think one of the ladies on this list might fit the bill - with the added advantage of being ladies that may very well come within his circle - age, schools and money.

Yes I know some on this list a male and some are married but some aren't.

Britain's 50 most powerful posh people under 30 | Mail Online

 

[rossop7]

Define "royal marriage material"?

I mean in the most stereotypical, old-fashioned traditional sense of the usual types of women who married into the Royal Family. Women from certain upstanding/aristocratic families, women from a certain class/upbringing who went to the "right" schools & engage in the "right" behaviour that befits future princesses & all that really old, out-dated stuff they used to insist upon for any & all members of the Royal Family when considering a wife. I say I don't see Harry following that line as a total mark of positivity too as I think it's nonsense to only be "allowed" to marry certian people from a certain background/upbringing etc.

I just see Harry not being bothered by where the person has come from but more who they are & whether he/they are happy & I think the Royal Family has modernised enough to also not be bothered by it & just let him marry whoever he chooses (& especially since by the time Harry will marry he'll probably have slipped down the line of succession with William probably/hopefully having kids by then). Total speculation but I just see him marrying basically a potential "anybody", not someone who necessarily grew up in the usual Royal bride environments or went to posh schools etc, just some normal, average, could be any of us type of person who just makes him happy. Maybe I'm just being silly but I can see him marrying someone who is literally the girl the next door, could have worked Tesco's, totally down to earth type thing, not necessarily someone brought up in all the usual Upper class environments etc that usually Royal brides tend to come from.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Except IMO, none of the most recent royal brides have been the stereotypical old fashioned usual royal marriage material.

Catherines parents have earned their money, and have no titles and no provable links to royalty. St Andrews is a very good university, but anyone can get into it, if you can afford the fees.
Autumn Kelly has no title, I don't think her family is that rich and again no links to royalty.
Sophie has the traditional royal wife thing of keeping quiet and looking good, but she has a wavy background with again no money or title.
Sarah well I think you can see what i'm going to say.
Diana, was the daughter of an Earl and had possible links to royalty and the only traditional thing was that her marriage was one of convenience.

I can understand what you are saying, however, I don't think William, Peter or Edward cared about where their brides came from but they married them for who they are like you suggested. Every recent groom has chosen his own bride, they haven't been forced into an arranged marriage to some foreign princess etc.

Autumn, Kate, Sophie and even Sarah didn't grow up in the royal bride environments, they lived normal lives they worked for the money they earnt, they obviously aren't spoiled brats etc.

Could you give me a list of the "usual royal brides"?

 

[melissaadrian]

Iluvbertie posted to article for ladies who may "fit the bill"; nobody ever specifically said "I want Alice Dellal to marry Henry" did they now?

And yet, that was not the post I quoted was it. It were the posts which singled her out from the list. And when you single out Alice Dellal, in a thread about Harry's future wife, you give the perception of naming her as a possible wife, whether you intend to or not.

 

[Esmerelda]

St Andrews is a very good university, but anyone can get into it, if you can afford the fees.

I can understand what you are saying, however, I don't think William, Peter or Edward cared about where their brides came from but they married them for who they are like you suggested. Every recent groom has chosen his own bride, they haven't been forced into an arranged marriage to some foreign princess etc.

Could you give me a list of the "usual royal brides"?

Actually, you can go to St Andrews providing you make the grades and don't mind taking out student loans which many people would need to do for any other university.

Completely agree with the second part. Everyone should be able to marry for love and most modern Royal families recognize that.

 

[Lumutqueen]

And yet, that was not the post I quoted was it. It were the posts which singled her out from the list. And when you single out Alice Dellal, in a thread about Harry's future wife, you give the perception of naming her as a possible wife, whether you intend to or not.

Warren removed the post you quoted, so I don't know which one you quoted. However if it was the one where MRSJ asked if Alice Dellal was Alex Dellals brother, then that still has no suggestion that someone wants Harry to marry her?

Actually, you can go to St Andrews providing you make the grades and don't mind taking out student loans which many people would need to do for any other university.

You can, however if someone is of the usual "royal marriage type", she will be able to afford going without the loans.

 

[rossop7]

I didn't mean to imply that other Royals who've married/plan to marry in recent times have married these stereotypical "traditional" Royal brides. Of course as you point out mostly the recent brides have been fairly normal & in a traditional royal bride sense maybe atypical as they were not aristocracy or nobility etc, they've still been perhaps more on the "posher" end of the "normal" citizen scale (if you want to call it that...they were all mainly more well-to-do/wealthy, able to send their kids to good private schools, mixing with aristocracy & those around them but not aristocracy themselves etc). What I mean to say is that I think Harry may go even further from that old-fashioned idea of the stereotypical royal bride, further from it than any other royal family member has done.

Kind of like how Zara is marrying basically just your average bloke, yes he's a famous rugby player but he's basically an all round, nice average bloke, went to school, did jobs like working in a chippy (supposedly he'll be the 1st ever member of RF that's ever held a job like that), found something he was good at & has made a name & successful life out of it. I see Harry going along that sort of route, marrying some girl that literally is as far from the old stereotype of a future princess as has ever been. Not to say that everyone else has been marrying that old stereotype but that Harry will be the one who really does go far, far from it. It'll literally be some girl no-one knows from the social circles, not known within high society etc, no-one who you could put on a list of "potential wives" etc, a complete unknown entity. Anyway, just my impression of him, so total speculation/imagination on my part.

 

[jemagre]

I too think Harry will marry a nobody. Lets hope so. I also hope that Harry marries for love and that the marriage is a successful one even if the marriages the aristocracy produces is filled with affairs. I certainly understand the points that Aotearoagal is trying to make but I hope that Harry breaks the mold and goes for someone that he is willing to work with in terms of a successful partnership. Oh and William too.

 

[Aotearoagal]

Ouch! Wherever did you get the idea that Prince William is sweetly UNroyal and. as such, is destined to marry someone with whom he has a "deep connection" whilst Harry is to be condemned in advance to at best to a convenient, loveless marriage, and at worst to become a sleazy womaniser and serial adulterer who would marry without love and expect said loveless spouse to quietly accept a cold, hard-hearted, callous cad for a husband?

Worse, that this somehow confers the honour of having "smarts" for doing so!

Hells bells, whatever has Harry done to merit such bile?

Bile? That's a bit harsh. I'm calling this based on my knowledge of aristocrats and their behaviour. It's an evidence-based assessment, not a values-based one. I am not expressing any moral assessment. The "deep connection" is in quotes precisely because I am not certain that it is such! Harry could never be cold or hard-hearted or callous. Quite the opposite. Please don't hang any ill-intent on me - I'm expressing an opinion as is my right, and shouldn't be insulted over it. By all means, argue a case!

 

[MARG]

Bile? That's a bit harsh.

Not at all, merely accurate IMO!

 

[Aotearoagal]

Not at all, merely accurate IMO!

I'm sure you are. Cheers & best wishes Marg dear, and have a fabulous day! I hope the aftermath of the earthquake is being sorted - Christchurch was such a gorgeous town.

 

[melissaadrian]

Iluvbertie posted to article for ladies who may "fit the bill"; nobody ever specifically said "I want Alice Dellal to marry Henry" did they now?

For heaven's sake, when you are on a thread which is entitled a potential wife for Prince Harry, and from a list of women which is posted as a possible source of wives, you choose and single out one name, how can you be confused that people may assume you are putting her out there as a potential bride? Maybe if you thought about what you typed, before you typed it, you would actually see where people come to that conclusion.

And stop quoting the quote I have repeatedly said was not the quote I was referring to. The article itself is not the post. If you can't grasp the concept that is not the one I am quoting, then I give up, you lack the capability to carry on an actual debate.

So before I lose any more brain cells, I refuse to carry on this pointless debate further.

 

[Iluvbertie]

For heaven's sake, when you are on a thread which is entitled a potential wife for Prince Harry, and from a list of women which is posted as a possible source of wives, you choose and single out one name, how can you be confused that people may assume you are putting her out there as a potential bride? Maybe if you thought about what you typed, before you typed it, you would actually see where people come to that conclusion.

Not understanding this post I decided to go back and reread the thread from my post to an article with a list of rich, posh people etc. I suggested that some of the girls on that list might be possible brides without naming any of them. A later poster simply asked if the Dellal girl was the sister of another girl. I have not read any post anywhere where anyone suggested that the Dellal girl was being proposed as a wife for Harry. If you could quote the post in question - where someone actually suggests that she could be a potential wife specifically rather than simply asking for confirmation of her relationship to another person I would appreciate it as then I might understand what is making you so hot under the colour.

And stop quoting the quote I have repeatedly said was not the quote I was referring to. The article itself is not the post. If you can't grasp the concept that is not the one I am quoting, then I give up, you lack the capability to carry on an actual debate.

If you could please post the quote you are referring to with its post number it might make it clear to everyone what you are on about.

So before I lose any more brain cells, I refuse to carry on this pointless debate further.

Your decision of course but I don't understand what you are on about so would like it cleared up - as it was a post of mine that started it (the one with the original link)

 

[Lumutqueen]

Thank you Iluvbertie, you've expressed what I have wanted to say all along in one post.

 

[Mermaid1962]

The Church of England is Anglican. There are High Anglican and Low Anglican traditions within the Church. The Church of England has 39 Articles that state the beliefs of the Church. Presbyterianism is a branch of the Reformed faith that emerged in Scotland and has no connection with the Church of England. They're actually closer in doctrine to the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. The word presbyterian means "rule by elders", which means that elders and clergy alone run the congregations: there are no bishops within the Presbyterian tradition, but there are regional groups of ministers and elders who meet as Presbyteries.

The Anglican church supposition is acceptable to those that holds it views though even they differentiate between presbetyrian and protestant and it is the English Church which is Anglican and The Church of England which is Presbetryian. .. only some will understand this ...

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have recently been doing some scrapbooking of memories of my parents' with my kids and their cousins and we were looking at my parents' marriage certificate from 1952. It says they married at the Church of England church in the town where I grew up. My baptismal certificate and confirmation certificate from the same church also say 'Church of England' but my wedding certificate and the baptismal certificate of my children all say Anglican. It was the same church. What had happened was that sometime in the late 1970s the Church of England in Australia started to change the name of its churches to Anglican - I suppose to remove the work 'England' from the name of the church. The minister who prepared me for confirmation and then married me was the same man and he hadn't changed his beliefs or been retrained to change from one church to another as the name was a simple name change and nothing more.

 

[Mermaid1962]

The churches are called Anglican here as well, although I have heard much older people call it the "Church of England," almost as a slip of the tongue.

Canadian Anglican Self-Government

The minister who prepared me for confirmation and then married me was the same man and he hadn't changed his beliefs or been retrained to change from one church to another as the name was a simple name change and nothing more.