Harry and Meghan: Relationship Musings


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Folks, it’s best to wait for an announcement before getting into all this wedding talk.

“Wait and see” as William once said on him and Catherine.
 
Folks, it’s best to wait for an announcement before getting into all this wedding talk.

“Wait and see” as William once said on him and Catherine.

Whether it happens or not, though looks likely--wedding planning is fun. As long as people don't become too invested in what they want, rather than what will work for H&M and others personally involved, the speculation and reading various ideas and reasons why is interesting.
 
I think she'll have a British designer wedding dress, and a separate dress for the reception, an American designer.
:previous:I hadn't considered that option and it's a good one Cocoasneeze.?
 
I'm the odd one here thinking, that Harry and Meghan are privately engaged, were already, when she did that Vanity Fair interview. I'm thinking the announcement will happen in the end of November or beginning of December, most likely the latter. Wedding in the end of May.
I think she'll have a British designer wedding dress, and a separate dress for the reception, an American designer.

I think the same thing on all of this, except not sure on wedding month.

With regards to the security situation in London. Just yesterday the head of MI5 said the terror threat level is unprecedented and fresh attacks are inevitable.

So anything that can be done to help mitigate that, like a wedding at Windsor instead of London will certainly be taken into account.

I agree, I think many are underestimating the impact terror threats is having on the security planning for public events.
 
Last edited:
Folks, it’s best to wait for an announcement before getting into all this wedding talk.

“Wait and see” as William once said on him and Catherine.

Words of wisdom my dear Dman, but this discussion is already out of control.
We will soon discuss the colours of the underwears of Meghan "girlfriend-bridetobe-justnotyet-betterthanKateanyway-americanprincess" Markle.
Can't wait, sounds promising ...
 
I want Westminster. No St. George.



I'm with you!
This will probably be the last major royal wedding until the Cambridge kids grow up- (well, the last one to possibly take place in the Abbey).
I think the RF should go all out!

Westminster Abbey, carriage rides, balcony-
the whole razzle-dazzle.

NOT something low-key (and St. George is bound to be more low-key) than the Abbey.

Security concerns aside, there are many events in London, and they go on as usual. Why not this, too?

And for the dress, Jenny Packham would be an excellent choice.
 
the whole razzle-dazzle.

It is notable that its Americans who INSIST on this, yet they won't pay a penny towards the cost [unless obv] tradition holds and the Brides Father 'picks up the tab'...?
 
It is notable that its Americans who INSIST on this, yet they won't pay a penny towards the cost [unless obv] tradition holds and the Brides Father 'picks up the tab'...?

I'm sure Americans pay a great amount towards tourism, which is a large part of argument for keeping the monarchy right? Or is the tourism income coming from people living there now?:lol:
 
Time line for me: (well what seems practical)

-not engaged yet but are under understanding will soon be
-she moves in end of November under fiancé visa (6 months to wed)
-they spend the pre-season together, she goes home to see family for Christmas while he is at Sandringham
-meet up for a vacation between Christmas and New years, one year anniversary of first trip they took. Possibly proposal then.
-Scotland with his family for New Years to tell family. Announce early January

Wedding end of May. May 26 seems likely date:
-Saturday so no concerns for not being bank holiday
-weeks after Kate is due so no worry about baby or her not attending
-before all the big events in June

Also allows for a good honeymoon before June. They could go for a 10-12 day honeymoon and be back for Trooping. She could make her first official debut, after wedding, at Trooping of the color. She would be able to attend Trooping, Order of the Garter, and Ascot as his wife in June.

In October they make their first big trip abroad married, to Invictus in Australia.



I am leaning towards St. George's. 800 people is more then enough room for such a wedding. Likely have seats left open. Unlike the Cambridges there wont be hundreds of politicians and other figures that aren't personal guests. There may be some required guests but certainly not that many.

I love your timeline, but I am still thinking it will be Westminister Abbey (or maybe I am just hoping).
 
It is notable that its Americans who INSIST on this, yet they won't pay a penny towards the cost [unless obv] tradition holds and the Brides Father 'picks up the tab'...?

Is that *that* weird to understand? The Americans don't have a royal family and if Meghan and Harry get engaged it would bring a little bit of them into Royal Europe. No wonder they want the full monty.

On a more sober note, as you appear to be one of the more realistic people, a royal wedding costs. And that also depends on what one calls 'costly'.
Or do you mean that Americans should rather focus on the huge amount of pounds that go into this territory than how glitzy and glamorous it all should be?
 
Yes, lets turn this into an American vs Brit issue just because a few posters here prefer an Abbey wedding. :ermm: :lol:

I'm sure Americans pay a great amount towards tourism, which is a large part of argument for keeping the monarchy right? Or is the tourism income coming from people living there now?:lol:

Great point. :D
 
Tourism contributes to the 'common weal' as in other countries, and of course Americans come into that too, [as do Brits].
However they do not contribute to Duchy of Cornwall income, or the Sovereign Grant, which will be paying for this...
Why is it thought that the wedding of the youngest son of the heir [who will NEVER be King] is of worthy of greater pomp, and expense than that of the youngest son of the reigning monarch [the Earl of Wessex] ?

As for Tourism being a reason for 'keeping the Monarchy'.. it isn't 'in my book'. What is, is that it is a cornerstone of our unwritten Constitution, and a living link to our History...
 
Last edited:
Yes, lets turn this into an American vs Brit issue just because a few posters here prefer an Abbey wedding. :ermm: :lol:



Great point. :D

Yes, and the American vs British discussion will get this forum shut down...again.
 
I just say let the Americans have their wishes and dreams for a full monty wedding, some Brits are more sober and look at the, say, more technical parts. That's it.
I don't have a particular preference for a venue (yet). I do think that if Harry marries at the Abbey, he is the last.
 
Tourism contributes to the 'common weal' as in other countries, and of course Americans come into that too, [as do Brits].
However they do not contribute to Duchy of Cornwall income, or he Sovereign Grant, which will be paying for this...
Why is it thought that the wedding of the youngest son of the heir [who will NEVER be King] is of worthy of greater pomp, and expense than that of the youngest son of the reigning monarch [the Earl of Wessex] ?

So Harry should have lesser pomp because Edward did? We will just ignore important circumstances and differences? If we're making such comparisons, wouldn't Andrew/Harry or Anne/Harry make more sense? Why is Edward always mentioned?
 
I imagine this will be the last major royal wedding until George and Char come of age. So why not indulge in the royalness of it all? I would think that Westminster Abbey would suit both the private and personal along with the spectacle in a way Windsor could not.

While America is not going to fit the bill, they do provide moral and sometimes financial support to the royal family and their individual projects.
 
Andrew/Harry or Anne/Harry make more sense

Andrew and Anne are both children of the REIGNING monarch, Harry isn't...
 
So Harry should have lesser pomp because Edward did? We will just ignore important circumstances and differences? If we're making such comparisons, wouldn't Andrew/Harry or Anne/Harry make more sense? Why is Edward always mentioned?

Anne was married in the Abbey 44 years ago and Andrew 31 years ago. Not a viable comparison to today's times. IMO.

I'm an American and avid follower of royalty in general and the British Royal Family in particular. I don't care where the wedding is held or how big it is. I want Harry to be happy. And I will enjoy it vicariously no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Andrew and Anne are both children of the REIGNING monarch, Harry isn't...

Well that's a convenient argument, lol. Using such logic, why should Harry even be allowed to marry at St George's? I mean, he is not the Queen's son. He should have even less pomp than Edward! :lol:
 
Well that's a convenient argument, lol. Using such logic, why should Harry even be allowed to marry at St George's? I mean, he is not the Queen's son. He should have even less pomp than Edward! :lol:

Hey, maybe Harry can have a PRIVATE family wedding after all then! Without any media or televising the wedding! I vote for the couple to get married outside of UK then! I'd imagine at least some Brits would have issue with this.:lol:
 
Reminds me of the outcry from some American posters when Kate was "just" titled Duchess of Cambridge instead of "Princess of Something". They just didn't understand ...
Again , there's a world between some wishful thinkings (and let's say some rose tinted dreams) and the actual facts of how the Monarchy really works.
 
Remind me of the outcry from some American posters when Kate was "just" titled Duchess of Cambridge instead of "Princess of Something". They just didn't understand ...
Again , there's a world between some wishful thinkings (and let's say rose tinted dreams) and the actual facts of how the Monarchy really works.

I think it's better to leave Kate out of this....
 
Anne was married in the Abbey 44 years ago and Andrew 31 years ago. Not a viable comparison to today's times. IMO.

I'm aware of when they were married. Point is, Harry is one of only two children, Edward is the last of four. The latter shouldn't be referenced every time we discuss what Harry should or shouldn't have.
 
why should Harry even be allowed to marry at St George's? I mean, he is not the Queen's son

Peter Phillips [also the Grandson of the Monarch] married at St George's. The Wessex's were married under unusual circumstances [following the War of the Waleses]. Had times been 'normal' it is entirely possible that Westminster would have been the venue...
 
She might wear an American designer for pre wedding stuff, but her wedding dress will be a British designer. That's pretty much a guarantee for any bride of Harry's. The most untraditional I can see is Erdem.

I agree. If she wants to start winning the hearts and minds of the British public, choosing a non-Brit to design her all-important bridal gown is not the way to do it. It sends the wrong idea from the jump, and I think Ms Markle is too clever and savvy for that. She knows that the eyes of the world will be on that dress. For the sake of symbolism and to signal her 100% commitment not only to Harry but to her new family and country, she will go British for the wedding dress.;)
 
Peter Phillips [also the Grandson of the Monarch] married at St George's. The Wessex's were married under unusual circumstances [following the War of the Waleses]. Had times been 'normal' it is entirely possible that Westminster would have been the venue...

Sounds like more convenience to me. ?

If we shouldn't consider the circumstances in Harry's case, then I'm not sure why they are relevant with Edward.
 
Sounds like more convenience to me.

Your response to everything that doesn't chime with your view ?

You still haven't replied to the point that Harry isn't the Son of a reigning Monarch, nor the the eventual heir ?

What Circumstances EXACTLY, raise this wedding above others of identical or superior Rank ???
 
Last edited:
Jenny Packham's designs are awful. No thank you.
And I have to say I am a proud American as well.
Comparing Edward and Harry is moot. Different circumstances. Harry is the son of Diana and is wildly popular and Meghan being American will add huge international interest. Her being biracial will also do a lot toward minting the BRF as modern and inclusive.
And yes, pomp please, because this will be the last major wedding for a while.
 
The reality is that NONE of the considerations you raise Scriptgirl will make one iota of difference to the decisions made on this Wedding...

The BRF is unconcerned with 'international interest', the regularity [or otherwise] of Weddings, the Racial make-up of people 'marrying-in', or 'modernity' [as perceived by outsiders].
 
Last edited:
It appears the issue for some is that a wedding at St George’s Chapel Windsor will be a lesser wedding for Harry. William’s was at the Abbey, Harry’s should be there sort of thing.

Every wedding is special whether it’s at the local parish or Westminster Abbey. So in that sense it’ll be good day.

For a couple for aren’t even publicly engaged, we’re a long way down the path here but I realise it’s fun to speculate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom