Harry and Meghan: Relationship Musings

[Osipi]

I think they stay at Balmoral until sometime in October if my one brain cell is working today.

Personally, I don't see any announcement made until Meghan's contract with Suits is completed. Best to clear up any commitments before making another one.

 

[Countessmeout]

Wasn't Prince Nicolas of Sweden born only a few days after CP's and Sofia's wedding ? Princess Madeleine attended the wedding ceremony though.

Two days. The wedding was June 13, Nicolas born on the 15th.

I don't see any reason to believe they would wait to announce an engagement before the baby is born. That seems ridiculous. Wedding perhaps, but engagement? Royal weddings take months to plan. If they announce an engagement at Christmas lets say, the wedding could easily be early summer after baby Cambridge is born.

Any announcement before November also seems highly unlikely. When the announcement is made, Meghan will be expected to be in London. She will be expected to be making appearances and wedding plans. Suits doesn't stop filming until late November.

IMO the earliest we will see is December or January announcement. After she is done filming and after the big anniversary. Perhaps January so she has some time to be living in London with him and be seen by the public.

I do think we will see her at Invictus, but not at official events. Until she is at least engaged, that wouldn't be considered appropriate.

 

[hel]

Given the different perceptions of the interview, I thought an analysis might be helpful. So, what is the interview really about:

18% - Introduction/closing and author's interaction with and impression of Meghan (a lot about where she lives; (being a) food(ie) - includes quotes from Meghan
15% - About Suits and acting in general
13% - About Meghan's childhood/family - includes previous writings from Meghan and quotes from the VF interview
11% - About prince Harry (who is he? No comments from Meghan)
8% - About begin mixed-race - quote references her freckles (other than that recycled material)
8% - About what the royal family might think
7% - about dealing with the media (because of relationship with her boyfriend - she never calls him Harry!) - includes quotes from Meghan
6% - Friends about Meghan
5% - About her relationship with Harry - includes quotes from Meghan
4% - About developing social awareness and philanthropy - includes quotes from Meghan
4% - About how others (especially the media) react to their relationship (including criticism)

Thanks for such an exhaustive breakdown, Somebody. I'd gone through and got the 5% about her relationship with Harry, but didn't have the patience to break down the rest.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

I'm thinking the announcement will come after she's completely done with her contract with suits, my bets are in December. I'm still firmly thinking, that they're privately engaged though.

These articles coming out today, IMHO, are so vastly different, than the ones that came out after the VF interview, and I think it's no coincidence. I think the British press got some sort of briefing, most likely about IG, and some ran with it, and added their own spin, like DM.

 

[Abbigail]

I agree that an announcement before Christmas seem most likely, as it does allow them to spend the holidays together and I can that being important to them. And yes, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they are already engaged. If so, they have probably started to do some planning, in terms of an announcement and all that comes with it.

 

[duchessrachel]

How Meghan will appear with Harry 'ahead of engagement' | Daily Mail Online

If true about Westminster Abbey; St George's Chapel will likely be the only option.

Which is rather a shame, as there will be no balcony appearance or carriage drive through the London streets. And of course Windsor will only hold limited number of people, so no thrill of the large London crowds. The bride leaving Clarence House in the Glass Coach, I expect for St George's it will be a Car.

I always felt let down when Sophie and Edward made their short carriage drive around Windsor; it just felt so grey and dismal.

I thought the best bit of Sophia and Carl Philip's wedding, was their long drive around Stockholm, and the cheering crowds.

I still can't see why it can't be Westminster Abbey?

Maybe Harry has no problem with St George's, but I'm sure he would also have loved the Abbey.

I thought it had already been announced somewhere that they can get married in Westminister Abbey, or did I dream this up?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I thought it had already been announced somewhere that they can get married in Westminister Abbey, or did I dream this up?

It wasn't announced they could exactly. In an article in May, the Daily Mail wrote that the Church of England (no other attrribution) said they could marry in the Abbey as divorced persons could since 2002.

 

[Rudolph]

Yes they're allowed to marry in the CoE, doesn't mean they will be allowed to marry in Westminster Abbey.

 

[Osipi]

Yes they're allowed to marry in the CoE, doesn't mean they will be allowed to marry in Westminster Abbey.

This is very true. Westminster Abbey is what is termed as a "royal peculiar" A royal peculiar is "a Church of England parish or church exempt from the jurisdiction of the diocese in which it lies and subject to the direct jurisdiction of the monarch.

With this being said, in order for Harry and Meghan to marry in Westminster Abbey, they would need the permission of the Queen and also the Archbishop of Canterbury.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/05/prince-harry-meghan-markle-westminster-abbey-wedding

 

[Rudolph]

It's up to individual ministers to agree to perform a marriage involving a divorcee.

Westminster Abbey is a very symbolic church. I think Windsor is more suitable for the 6th in line marrying a divorced woman.

 

[Osipi]

The thing is, that possibly in the eyes of the CoE (or church), Meghan has never been married.

I'm personally holding out for St. George's Chapel at Windsor myself. It just seems to "fit" Harry and Meghan's personalities as I see them than a more formal Westminster Abbey wedding.

 

[Rudolph]

From what I understand, the CoE recognises civil unions meaning it would recognise civil divorce.

 

[Curryong]

Well in May 2017, the DM asked the officials of Westminster Abbey if there would be a bar to any marriage of divorcees and Catholics marrying there in the Abbey and the spokesman said no.

And what any of us think about locations doesn't matter. It will be up to the bride, groom and the Queen.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...gement-rumour-royal-wedding-Westminster-Abbey

 

[jacqui24]

Well in May 2017, the DM asked the officials of Westminster Abbey if there would be a bar to any marriage of divorcees and Catholics marrying there in the Abbey and the spokesman said no.

And what any of us think about locations doesn't matter. It will be up to the bride, groom and the Queen.

I think one fact that has to be cleared here is DM did NOT break that story. It was lifted from Sunday Express. Specifically from Camilla Tominey. I believe that was an exclusive from her, and then others ran with it once that piece was published.

Obviously the point here is credibility matters.

 

[Abbigail]

It's up to individual ministers to agree to perform a marriage involving a divorcee.

Westminster Abbey is a very symbolic church. I think Windsor is more suitable for the 6th in line marrying a divorced woman.

They may not marry at WA but I don't think "suitability" is going to be the determining factor. Also, lets remember that Harry is one of only two sons of the heir to the throne, is very popular, has quite a few high profile connections/relationships (Barack and Michelle Obama, for example) and would be marrying an American which brings even more curiosity and interest. So there's a strong case to be made for an Abbey wedding. If they marry elsewhere, I'm inclined to believe it's because they desire a smaller, more intimate wedding.

 

[Rudolph]

There is no impediment as long the minister agrees to the wedding. We'll have to wait and see but Windsor seems a natural fit for Harry and Meghan

 

[HRHHermione]

I really hope this engagement happens soon- this would be such a fun and special wedding to watch. I'm hoping for an announcement in early December, right after she finishes filming Suits.

 

[Somebody]

Just an odd note too about where they marry. Its my understanding too that in "the eyes of God" and the church, if a person has never been married in church, "in the eyes of God", they've never been married according to religious beliefs and church tenets. That's why some royal couples have had both civil and religious weddings. With Charles and Camilla, it was a civil ceremony and a blessing in the CoE to make it legit in the CoE.

You must be misinformed. Marriage is considered a sacrament in the Roman Catholic Church, but not in the Anglican Church (nor in other protestant churches; orthodox churches, however, follow the Roman Catholic reasoning). This also means that the Anglican Church recognizes each and every civil marriage independent of whether the ceremony was a combined civil/religious service (as most common in England), a civil wedding with a blessing of the marriage ceremony afterwards - which typically also includes vows (uncommon in England, but common in many parts of the worlds where a civil wedding needs to take place before the religious ceremony) or only a civil wedding with no religious ceremony. So, Meghan is considered to have been married and now divorced by the Church of England.

In this respect, her situation is different from Queen Letizia who only had a civil wedding and divorce (not recognized as a holy matrimony in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church) and therefore, was not considered a divorcee in the eyes of the church: no annulment (another difference between Roman Catholics and Anglicans) was necessary for her to marry the prince of Asturias in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Osipi]

Thanks for the correction on that. I was going by what I knew from the Roman Catholic church.

(walks away with pen and paper in hand checking off "learn something new today")

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

How Meghan will appear with Harry 'ahead of engagement' | Daily Mail Online

If true about Westminster Abbey; St George's Chapel will likely be the only option.

Which is rather a shame, as there will be no balcony appearance or carriage drive through the London streets. And of course Windsor will only hold limited number of people, so no thrill of the large London crowds. The bride leaving Clarence House in the Glass Coach, I expect for St George's it will be a Car.

I always felt let down when Sophie and Edward made their short carriage drive around Windsor; it just felt so grey and dismal.

I thought the best bit of Sophia and Carl Philip's wedding, was their long drive around Stockholm, and the cheering crowds.

I still can't see why it can't be Westminster Abbey?

Maybe Harry has no problem with St George's, but I'm sure he would also have loved the Abbey.

That didn't happen to Kate (married the future heir), and therefore it wont happen to Meghan either.

Some facts and thoughts from me again:

Former Royal Weddings:

Princess Elizabeth 1947: To and from Westminster Abbey in closed carriages and appearance on the balcony.

Margaret 1960: To and from Westminster Abbey in closed carriages and appearance on the balcony. (That had not happened today, I think)

Anne 1973: To and from Westminster Abbey in closed carriages and appearance on the balcony. (That had not happened today, I think)

Charles 1981: To and from St Paul's Cathedral in open carriages and appearance on the balcony.

Andrew 1986: To and from Westminster Abbey in open carriages and appearance on the balcony. (That had not happened today, I think)

Edward 1999: A televised Royal Wedding at St George's Chapel with a carriage procession in Windsor. Why? Because there was no appetite for a big Abbey wedding after the wars of Waleses, the divorces, the Diana craziness and her tragic death.

William 2011: A scaled-down wedding in comparison with the Abbey weddings mentioned above. Why? Due to the financial crisis.

To Westminster Abbey in cars and back to the palace in open carriages for William/Kate and the bridal party, and closed carriages for the Queen/Philip, Charles/Camilla and Kate's parents and appearance on the balcony.

A possible wedding for Harry:

The monarchy is as popular as ever with record high support in several polls since 2002, some of over 80%, but we live in a different era with a more critical press than we did in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

And remember: William is the eldest son of the heir, and he was as popular as Harry (if not even more) when he married, and there were still complaining from media and other people about the costs etc.

I'll therefor be very surprised if he gets a Abbey wedding with a carriage procession and a balcony apperance.

I think we'll see much of the same as we saw for Edward in 1999, A Televised Royal Wedding at St George's Chapel with a carriage procession in Windsor.

And I don't think it has anything to do with Harry and Meghan wanting an intimate wedding. It has more to do with him not being the future heir.

 

[Abbigail]

Harry is not Edward. The comparison between the two begins and ends with them being the youngest son of a monarch/heir and even that isn't all that significant when we consider that the heir to the throne only has two children. So I will never understand making any reference to Edward in regards to what Harry will or won't get or how big of a role he may play in the future.

The fact that Harry is Diana's son, the fact that he is just as (if not more) popular as William, the fact that he may marry an American (a biracial American at that) all make this a very unique situation. And I believe all that will be considered in deciding where his future wedding will take place.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

As far as closed carriages versus open carriages--except for Princess Margaret, the closed carriages from the wedding to BP were for November weddings. A little chilly for an open carriage.
All the brides except Kate and the Queen rode in the Glass Coach to the ceremony. Princess Elizabeth and her father rode in the Irish State Coach

Queen--November
Margaret--May
Anne-November
Charles-July
Andrew--July
William--April

 

[jacqui24]

Yea, I don't think the coach is coming out for this one.

 

[jacqui24]

One thing we all to take into consideration is that this is likely the last wedding of a senior royal until George marries. That's a LONG time. By the time Edward married, the boys were already teenagers. It wouldn't have been out of the world to think one of them will marry within 10 years. They obviously waited longer than that, but still at 15 and 17, it was possible there could be a wedding in just another few years.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I think Harry and Meghan will get married where they want to, be that WA, St. Paul's, St. George's, or a registry office. If they get married at WA, I think it'll be similar in size to William and Catherine's wedding. While Harry is popular, and his marriage to a biracial American woman will be noteworthy, he's sixth in line to the throne, so he's not getting anything larger than his brother got, or frankly, that his uncles got when they got married.

I don't necessarily think the size/location of their hypothetical wedding will hinge on their individual personalities as much as it will England's economic situation at the time and what else might be going on —*an election, a terrorist attack, etc. The taxpayers have to pay for this, at least part of it, and if things are tight and the economy stinks, they're not going to want to shell out for some huge to-do.

 

[Somebody]

The fact that Harry is Diana's son, the fact that he is just as (if not more) popular as William, the fact that he may marry an American (a biracial American at that) all make this a very unique situation. And I believe all that will be considered in deciding where his future wedding will take place.

What is so unique about being American? Is it being not-British, not being from a Commonwealth country or specifically being American? Honestly, I don't see the issue. Most monarchies have spouses from other countries among their ranks: for example, queen Silvia, queen Máxima, crown princess Mary, the heriditary grand duchess (and princess Claire) of Luxembourg, the princess of Monaco, princess Angela of Liechtenstein (also American; and for those concerned about her being biracial (something I do not understand at all); she is African American and married the second son of the Sovereign Prince), to name just a few.

And this is not limited to other monarchies: the Queen married a Greek, the (now) duke of Gloucester a Dane, his eldest daughter a Maori, Peter a Canadian (both are of course from Commonwealth nations), prince Michael of Kent a (divorced) 'Silesian', etc.

 

[jacqui24]

What is so unique about being American? Is it being not-British, not being from a Commonwealth country or specifically being American? Honestly, I don't see the issue. Most monarchies have spouses from other countries among their ranks: for example, queen Silvia, queen Máxima, crown princess Mary, the heriditary grand duchess (and princess Claire) of Luxembourg, the princess of Monaco, princess Angela of Liechtenstein (also American; and for those concerned about her being biracial (something I do not understand at all); she is African American and married the second son of the Sovereign Prince), to name just a few.

And this is not limited to other monarchies: the Queen married a Greek, the (now) duke of Gloucester a Dane, his eldest daughter a Maori, Peter a Canadian (both are of course from Commonwealth nations), prince Michael of Kent a Hungarian, etc.

From a diplomacy stand point, it matters to Americans. And yes, I understand we are Americans, and this is the British royals. However, Britain is in a precarious situation with Brexit. Diplomacy matters, and public perception matters. It could turn really good or really ugly here with this wedding. The good being we now have a home grown princess in the British royal family, and we'll always see her as one of our own. Or ugly if we feel our American princess was slighted. And the media here will go overboard with this wedding.

As for the continental royals, I have to agree with others who have stated before the British royals are different from them in terms how well we know the members. I, for one, wouldn't be able to name a lot of them other than the monarchs, with the exception of Monaco. They are the children/grandchildren of Princess Grace, after all.

 

[Pranter]

There only thing unique is that it's only the second time a member of the BRF would marry an American....past that Americans have been married into the British Nobility (and other countries Nobility) for decades and decades.

I think it's a bigger deal to the media than to anyone else.

LaRae

 

[O-H Anglophile]

From a diplomacy stand point, it matters to Americans. And yes, I understand we are Americans, and this is the British royals. However, Britain is in a precarious situation with Brexit. Diplomacy matters, and public perception matters. It could turn really good or really ugly here with this wedding. The good being we now have a home grown princess in the British royal family, and we'll always see her as one of our own. Or ugly if we feel our American princess was slighted. And the media here will go overboard with this wedding.

As for the continental royals, I have to agree with others who have stated before the British royals are different from them in terms how well we know the members.

As long as they have a nice wedding with some of the bells & whistles of a royal wedding, I really don't think it will matter. I hardly think if they do not have a huge wedding in WA with the Glass coach, etc etc it s going to cause a diplomatic incident.

 

[Skippyboo]

No CEO of an American company is going to decide whether or not to do business in the U.K. based on how Meghan Markle is treated.