Harry and Meghan: Relationship Musings

[MARG]

. . . . . All that has been said is that whoever he marries will also marry "the job" (and Harry has also said this) and that if it is Meghan, she has more obstacles to overcome than previous brides as she is not British. She has not lived here, doesn't have her own friends here (personal support mechanism) and there are cultural differences. From personal experience, there is a huge difference between living in the UK and living in the US.

This last comment isn't racist - it's about the differences in US/UK culture.

I agree that she definitely has some cultural mountains to climb, but if that is what Harry and she want then have at it. However, I am not of the opinion it will be easy, in fact, I think it would be easier if she had to learn a foreign language because the supposition is that that part will be a cake walk.

The English language as spoken in the UK versus the USA are two very different languages as the context and idioms can be quite opposite as with Australia and NZ. I watched an American political commentator become confused when reading an Australian twitter comment: "Couldn't organise a p***up in a brewery". He said he understood what p***ed meant but couldn't understand what being angry had to do with a brewery. I always wonder if someone cleared that up for him.

I am a Meghan fan because she is the one that Harry seems set on. She seems to make him happy and I very much remember the photo of he and William arriving at Pippa's wedding. William seemed quite happy and relaxed, Harry not so much!

 

[Iluvbertie]

Isn't Prince Charles' income funded by the public?

I understand we are going off topic here, but their palaces (including Prince Harry's accomodation), transport, everything is funded by the public as well as the Queen's investments.

I'm sure it isn't only her security. Their future country home's renovations will be funded by the public. Her lifestyle is paid by us, including her private holidays once she marries.

Back in the middle ages the government established two sources of income to provide a 'private income' for the monarch and the heir to the throne - The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. Although the monarch and heir don't 'own' these properties as personal properties they are the only ones who can get the income from them, when there is an heir apparent who is also the eldest son of the monarch.

In that sense Charles isn't supported by taxpayers any more than say the Duke of Devonshire is as his income is generated by property held in a sort of trust to fund the private and public lifestyle of the heir to the throne and his family.

The same with The Queen - she supports the extended family from the income of the Duchy of Lancaster's income.

There are clear rules around these Duchies which means that aren't exactly the same as other 'private property' as anything that belongs to the Duchies can't be sold on the whim of the 'holder' of the title. For instance, that means that when Charles becomes King, Highgrove will become the property of Prince William as Highgrove belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall and William with then be the Duke of Cornwall and so the 'owner' of Highgrove but he can't actually sell it either.

They aren't given taxpayer's money anymore than any other landowner is.

 

[cepe]

Travel costs for royal engagements are paid for by public money. It is detailed in the annual accounts.

Upkeep of the fabric of royal premises which the monarch is responsible for, including KP, is via public money but not internal decoration etc.

 

[Skippyboo]

Security is also paid by public money. So trips to Africa, visits to Toronto, the wedding in Jamaica, skiing in Verviers, multiple public funded RPOs have to go with him.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

If you're talking about those audio tapes then yes visual evidence is a lot worse than audio. All you have to do is google Meghan Markle and a lot of sexy photos and sex scene youtube videos appear in the search. That is a lot worse.
This courtship has been badly handled with all the previous hiding after that girlfriend announcement last November. William never hid Kate. Harry should have gradually introduced her and not just snog her in public at the Polo to show he's serious about her.
I'm not saying he won't propose, I'm sure he will surprise us, but all I'm saying is it would be better to live together for one year and gradually introduce her during that year before announcing an official engagement.

I don't see how video of Meghan acting in a "sexy scene"--not doing something actually herself but being an actress in a part-- is worse than what was at the time Charles's sex talk with his mistress. Meghan is not and never has been a star of adult films. She is an educated woman who is also an actress in a long running television show--not anything shameful.

I think the courtship has been handled magnificently--low key and private. If and when they are at the point that Meghan needs to be "introduced to the public" I'm sure they will do that. William didn't hide Kate precisely but they had lots of privacy at university when they first got together. I believe they dated a year before the news that they were a couple came out when Kate went skiing with William's family. But then quiet life at school again until graduation (and Kate did have a rough time for awhile with paparazzi when she lived in London later.) Since they met as college students they also knew each other for 8 or 9 years before getting engaged, a vastly different scenario than Meghan and Harry meeting as 30 somethings.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Those royals dated their BF/GF for several years and were gradually introduced to the public before getting engaged. That is the difference. AND they lived together before getting engaged.

This quicky one year visiting each other back and forth is madness to propose so soon. Only because of Meghan's age to have children!

How were BF/GF gradually introduced to the public before getting engaged? Gradually because they mostly dated for many years?

Living together before marriage is not a necessity--commitment to your spouse and life together is the necessity.

If Harry and Meghan have spent their times together wisely, (and since they are not hitting the nightclub scene, I'd say they may be) they are finding out about each other and their commitment to each other, and the possibility of building a life together.

And BTW--there are cell phones and skype nowadays for the times apart.

 

[AlowVera]

Maybe I'm too conservative, but acting in sex scenes, lingerie is a low-rent actress to me.

Using those standards Hellen Mirren and Judi Dench are low-rent actress.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

No one on this thread has either said (a) the public should decide who Harry should marry or whether (b) publically again decide (en masse??) if the candidate is suitable.
That's not an issue for the public, but an issue for HMQ and Harry.

All that has been said is that whoever he marries will also marry "the job" (and Harry has also said this) and that if it is Meghan, she has more obstacles to overcome than previous brides as she is not British. She has not lived here, doesn't have her own friends here (personal support mechanism) and there are cultural differences. From personal experience there is a huge difference between living in the UK and living in US.

This last comment isn't racist - its about the differences in US/UK culture.

All you Meghan fans - don't get irritated about these type of comments. They are just practical and realistic and therefore positive because those posters saying this do understand the issues and therefore would cut her some slack if it comes to being a new member of the BRF.

BTW - met and married my husband within 10 months. Our 30th anniversary is next week.

Perhaps cepe, it hasn't been said in so many words, but the implication that the public should decide suitability was read by some of us in some posts (not yours.)

I totally agree with you- if Meghan and Harry marry, Meghan of course will have culture shock with both everyday life in Britain as well as life in the royal family both privately and publicly. I think given her background she would have a smidge of a head start on some of the public aspects.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Maybe I'm too conservative, but acting in sex scenes, lingerie is a low-rent actress to me.

Then 95‰ of actresses and actors are 'low rent' actresses and actors.

Looking at the history of royal families, so many of these royals do these things in real life, though, that Imo it's crazy when an actress does them in a few scenes here and there, they get called 'low rent'.

 

[princesslily]

Those GFs/BFs were gently eased and introduced to the the public for a few years before an engagement was announced.

Generally, entertainers and models behave low-rent IMO. Those actresses mentioned built their careers to greater roles. *added* (royal members do these things in real life) ok did they film it and share publicly because I want to watch with popcorn! ?

There are some hypocritical posts replying to my posts claiming how should I know if she would be suitable and fit for the role, then I can ask the same to you so why this push to claim Meghan as suitable and pull down others who don't agree? Unless you know her right? We are all equal here and it's just a discussion.

A lot of these media "facts" are part of her PR to mould us into believing she is suitable when she has A LOT of baggage e.g. ambition to be famous, controversial photos and screen scenes, very politically minded (the royal family must show they are politically neutral), family, and divorce.

This is a very important and rewarding job and I still don't feel she is suitable, but it's not my choice. This is how I feel as a British citizen and if Harry wants to marry her then at least it would be better for him to live with her for one year before an official engagement is announced and during that time gradually introduce her to the British public. All other royal partners were gradually introduced before engagements. This rush is just me thinking the pressure is on to have children by the media. Women in their late 30s can still have children!

There was no pressure when members here got married within a year was there? This marriage will come with a lot of responsibilities through their reputation (past and present), their behaviour, their associations AND a lot of pressure publicly. They would need to make sure they really are compatible to take on this lifestyle together.

All I hear from MM fan members is she will be fine. Seems like you know her ok ?

At the end of the day, no one here knows. I'm just sharing my opinion.

My main concern is Meghan getting fed up of not being able to voice her strong minded opinions and finding it difficult with all the restricting protocol both in public and in private during family gatherings. This isn't just about dealing with the media.

 

[royal rob]

I agree they should take their time and live together. The set up now is nothing like their life will be. Holidays and a couple of days here and there is very romantic but not how it will be Her age shouldn't be reason to rush into a wedding. Before everyone knocks me down this is nothing against Meghan or Harry it's just how I feel. There is a risk she won't be able to have a baby if she waits but that's life there is no guarantee for anyone.

 

[HRHHermione]

Meh. Meghan seems lovely, I admire her opinions and her acting career and very much hope they marry because that would be a wonderfully fun wedding to watch.

Pearl clutchers have pulled the same "My stars! What a dreadfully unsuitable young woman! She could never be royalty!" nonsense with almost every royal girlfriend, and then they pipe down after the wedding. So much noise was made over Princess Sofia of Sweden and then she turned out to be just fine. So much noise was made over Crown Princess Mette-Marit. Again, she was fine.

All that really matters in the end is if the couple are happy and right for each other. If they are, their marriage will happen and it will weather people who are omg so shocked that in 2017, a romantic relationship was depicted on a television show. (One considered tame enough for 14 year olds by the stodgy and conservative tv ratings system)

 

[W.Y.CII]

Never think she is suitable or not suitable, I would only judge until she really takes up the role of royal. At least I won't question her suitability of being a royal base on her behaviour/performance as a actress. I don't understand why we can say she is suitable or not at this stage. We have already witnessed many royal boy/girlfriends who seem completely unsuitable in some eyes are doing good after the marriage. Agree with xenobia, what is suitable and what is not?

The main question at this stage is not "Is she suitable?" but "Is she the right one?". And only Henry can answer that.

But yes, they need time to prepare, for Meghan to adjust to the royal role.

 

[ladongas]

Well, what if she's "unsuitable" or what if she and Harry are not well- suited? What's the worst that can happen?

They'll get a divorce, just like the Queen's sister and three of her children did, and like about 50% of all couples who get married do. They should get married soon- it's not the end of the world if it doesn't work out.

 

[royal rob]

Well, what if she's "unsuitable" or what if she and Harry are not well- suited? What's the worst that can happen?

They'll get a divorce, just like the Queen's sister and three of her children did, and like about 50% of all couples who get married do. They should get married soon- it's not the end of the world if it doesn't work out.

Really ?? What about the children??

 

[Countessmeout]

Really ?? What about the children??

Children survive divorces. When handled as adults unlike the Wales divorce. The children of both Anne and Andrew are sign of that. The old idea couples have to stay together no matter how miserable they are makes no one happy even kids.

Not saying they should rush into marriage because divorce easy option. But no need to make divorce out to be destructive to children.

 

[princesslily]

A bit different if Meghan decided to go back to America and take the children? They would hardly see one parent and I hope that doesn't ever happen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If she married Harry and they divorced she won't be taking the children anywhere without the consent of both Harry and the monarch of the day. Those children are covered by different laws to everyone else due to their place in the line of succession - like the Danes and Swedes who insist that children in the line of succession must be raised in the country.

Any wedding agreement, would include a clear understanding that on separation or divorce she would either have to remain in the UK or lose equal custody of any children from the marriage.

If she did fight to have sole custody in the US I would expect it would be with the clear understanding that they would lose any rights to the British throne.

 

[Countessmeout]

There is no requirement for children in succession to be raised in the Uk. Can't apply one monarchy to next. Look at the 500+ people in line to succeed the throne. How many have never lived in the UK? Harrys kids are already far enough from the throne before even birth that not much concern.

But if Meghan settles down and makes a home with Harry in the uk, not hard to think she will choose to remain. Not sixty years ago that it was hard to travel back and forth. Her children could easily go visit her family in the USA.

 

[MARG]

I agree they should take their time and live together. The set up now is nothing like their life will be. Holidays and a couple of days here and there is very romantic but not how it will be Her age shouldn't be reason to rush into a wedding. Before everyone knocks me down this is nothing against Meghan or Harry it's just how I feel. There is a risk she won't be able to have a baby if she waits but that's life there is no guarantee for anyone.

You cannot practice being married, living with your lover is one thing, being married is another. Living together there is always a tiny element of not being totally committed and the knowledge that it is easier to end a de facto marriage than it is to obtain a divorce.

If you go into a marriage with love and a desire to work to make it succeed and have realistic expectations of your partner, you have as good a chance as any of making it work. The problem with "Fairytales" is they end at the marriage altar right when marriage begins which probably explains the high divorce rates. Even the very best of marriages require hard work, compromise and sometimes sacrifice.

Love is an action verb. It requires sweat equity. There is no such thing a passive love.

 

[M. Payton]

Did I miss an engagement, a wedding and babies and now a divorce all in the space of a few minutes? Darn they are fast workers now aren't they....

 

[Dman]

It will be so good to get some actual appearances from this couple. At least the topic on here will change.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There is no requirement for children in succession to be raised in the Uk. Can't apply one monarchy to next. Look at the 500+ people in line to succeed the throne. How many have never lived in the UK? Harrys kids are already far enough from the throne before even birth that not much concern.

But if Meghan settles down and makes a home with Harry in the uk, not hard to think she will choose to remain. Not sixty years ago that it was hard to travel back and forth. Her children could easily go visit her family in the USA.

I didn't re-read that properly and incorrectly implied that to be in the line of succession a person has to be raised in the UK. That isn't the case but ... there is no way that Harry's children will be allowed to be raised outside the UK and then be expected to be treated the same way as say Beatrice and Eugenie - no balcony appearances, no front and centre at national events (personal events maybe but not national ones).

I am sure there will be a very solid pre-nup, to cover that possibility in any event.

We are jumping the gun here of course in assuming a marriage will even take place.

They have been dating for just over a year and have hardly been in the same country for most of that time.

As HM insists on lengthy courtships since the disasters of her children's marriages after short courtships I am not expecting an engagement much before 2020 if HM has her way. Of course another two children to the Cambridge's and HM won't have to give consent anyway - so Kate, Harry needs you to have twins asap ??

 

[Cocoasneeze]

It seems to me, that many of the 'suitable' partners were proven to be anything but suitable. And the most unsuitable people on paper have shown to be the perfect fits for the role. The fact is, Harry will be the one making his choice, along with his partner, and she has to be suitable for him, not for the general public. She has to have amazing qualities, to be able to take on the role, and many times the 'suitable on paper' kind of people just simply don't fit with Harry, or have these qualities the role requires. So, the general public just need to put their judgments away, and be happy if Harry has found a person who loves and likes him, vice versa, and is able to take on the role. Then the distant family members or actions (not criminal, immoral, or even scandalous actions) before the woman even met Harry just need to be ignored.

And Harry has been actually filmed in public doing VERY questionable things, so I highly doubt he's clutching pearls or shocked at a few racy scenes Meghan has filmed, acting, before she even met him.

How do people know, that HM insists on long courtships?

 

[Osipi]

With Harry and Meghan's relationship, we haven't really been given a lot to go by as far as their private relationship. We know of her professional roles, we know of her education and we know of her humanitarian work. One thing that stands out for me is that if you put a picture of Meghan with children in Rwanda side by side with one of Harry in Lesotho with his kids, its not hard to picture the two of them together with these children surrounding them. Too many times I hear of Instagram or Twitter, or TMZ or gods know what other gossip enterprises have said and of course, the ever present Daily Fail. All filled with innuendo, reasons why this relationship is so very wrong and clamors from the public for them to be "seen and heard" so we satisfy our curiosity about this couple.

From the very beginning, Harry and Meghan have kept their private lives as private as they possibly can which, in my eyes, is no small feat. From the very beginning, they've taken steps to ensure that their relationship doesn't become an overblown soap opera for the entertainment of the masses. From the very beginning, Harry has protected his Meghan from the vultures that would turn his love's life into something resembling the harassment he most certainly witnessed growing up with his mother. From the very beginning, this couple has set the guidelines of how their marriage will be should they decide to take that step. William has done the same with his family. Charles and Camilla keep their private life private. No one dare infringe on the private life of HM and her Philip. In this respect, they're stuffing everything back into the box that was opened wide during the 80s and the 90s. Its a tough job but they're doing it and doing it nicely.

None of us can say with certainty that these two people do not know each other enough for marriage. Nor can we honestly say whether they're suited for each other or not. We raise a hue and cry that they should be "introduced" to the public. To pass inspection? To spend post after post about Meghan's wardrobe choices? As far as I can see, the choice to marry or not to marry is between Harry and Meghan themselves and the people that need to be introduced to their choice (their families) will not be something for public consumption.

I'm just an interested bystander. From what I see and what I've come to know about the two people in this relationship, I get a sense of happiness and a good sense of compatibility and a willingness to keep the relationship going. That's what matters. Everything else is up to them and like every other couple on the planet, they'll have their challenges, their successes and failures and those ever present "I love you but I don't like you too much right now" days. I wish them the best. That's all I can do.

 

[Queen E]

The British public did not have a say when Elizabeth married gaffe prone Philip. The British public did not have a say when Charles married the young & naïve Diana. The British public did not have a say when Andrew married fiery Fergie. The British public will NOT have a say on who Harry marries.

It seems some people are trying to control Harry’s life by selecting an ‘idyllic’ spouse for him, but it is not their place. Also too many are making a big deal of Harry’s future spouse, however it is worth remembering that Harry is 5th in line to the throne, soon to be 6th when Kate has her third child! The line of succession has been guaranteed through William & his children, so Harry’s future matters little in the larger scheme of things. Aside from royal followers & gossip sites, the British public won’t care as much who he marries because it has little impact in the overall future of the monarchy. The reality is when George, Charlotte & baby no.3 come of age, Harry & his kin will be pushed further back into the fringes.

Those that are signaling the end of the monarchy need to calm down. If Harry does marry Meghan it is not Armageddon!

 

[Helen6010]

If she married Harry and they divorced she won't be taking the children anywhere without the consent of both Harry and the monarch of the day. Those children are covered by different laws to everyone else due to their place in the line of succession - like the Danes and Swedes who insist that children in the line of succession must be raised in the country.

Any wedding agreement, would include a clear understanding that on separation or divorce she would either have to remain in the UK or lose equal custody of any children from the marriage.

If she did fight to have sole custody in the US I would expect it would be with the clear understanding that they would lose any rights to the British throne.

Regardless of Royal status, The Hague convention would prevent her taking any children back to the US.

 

[Queen E]

I think that William & Kate having a 3rd baby has made things a lot easier for Harry & Meghan! Most of the media will now turn their attention to babywatch, thereby leaving H&M to conduct their relationship with hopefully less pressure.

Also from what I understand only the first six in line to the throne need to ask permission from the Queen to marry. Harry will become 6th in line once the Cambridges’ third baby is born. Those that are wishing the Queen & parliament will refuse Harry’s choice of partner are clinging on to a very thin hope! There is very little chance the Queen would refuse the 6th in line. And there is also very little chance the British public would line the streets in protest because of who the 6th in line was marrying!

 

[Mbruno]

Those royals dated their BF/GF for several years and were gradually introduced to the public before getting engaged. That is the difference. AND they lived together before getting engaged.

This quicky one year visiting each other back and forth is madness to propose so soon. Only because of Meghan's age to have children!

You lived together and married 18 months later. That sounds good to me.

That is actually a fair point. Both Victoria and Carl Philip had to wait a long time until their respective marriages became acceptable to their father and to the Swedish public. Harry should drop the secrecy if he wants the Brutish public to warm up to Meghan.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that William & Kate having a 3rd baby has made things a lot easier for Harry & Meghan! Most of the media will now turn their attention to babywatch, thereby leaving H&M to conduct their relationship with hopefully less pressure.

Also from what I understand only the first six in line to the throne need to ask permission from the Queen to marry. Harry will become 6th in line once the Cambridges’ third baby is born. Those that are wishing the Queen & parliament will refuse Harry’s choice of partner are clinging on to a very thin hope! There is very little chance the Queen would refuse the 6th in line. And there is also very little chance the British public would line the streets in protest because of who the 6th in line was marrying!

And if twins Harry won't need permission at all.