Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, General News 1: November 2017 - May 2018

[Osipi]

From the article Rudolph posted. the author states "His view, one that I heartily subscribe to, is that in happier days, the royals would find their marriage partners from a pool of about 150 people, most of them relations of Queen Victoria. Chosen by their parents."

Perhaps that would be ideal if that practice was solely confined to enhancing a monarchy. A couple for ceremonial purposes, a couple that came together only to work for the monarchy and a couple that understood that it was a marriage of convenience only. It would then be acceptable that said royals in these kind of marriages would also have the freedom to pursue their private lives however they chose to.

Then again, with that, it wouldn't be an actual marriage. It would be a legal marriage for a specific external purpose. Kind of like a business partnership and have nothing whatsoever to do with a royal's emotional or physical wants and needs. Perhaps an option would even be going back to the days of yore when a reigning king or sultan or emir or pharaoh had multiple wives for multiple purposes. A queen, in this modern 21st century would also be free to have multiple husbands. (Polyandry does still exist but is not well known.)

Harry and Meghan are marrying for the sole reason that they love each other, want to travel life together in work and in play and not for any other reason. Its preposterous to think of anyone marrying for any other reasons and expect that marriage to be one of commitment, fidelity and a true partnership. Marriage just doesn't work that way and endure. We've seen enough examples of that.

As far as curtsying, no one is going to be obligated to bow or curtsy to Meghan after the marriage. Its not required. Its not an obligation. Even with the Queen. Its a choice. Just like its a choice Harry made in asking Meghan to be his bride and life partner.

So all in all, I think this article is not very well thought out. But that's just me.

 

[jacqui24]

A different view from the very respected Spectator Magazine

“Is Princess Meghan really such good news?

Prince Harry is doing the monarchy no favours by choosing a glossy actress as his bride”



Read more: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/12/is-a-princess-meghan-really-such-good-news/

It’s views like this that would cause another Charles/Diana redux. And we know how that worked out. The days of royals marrying for country or monarchy are over. They are marrying for love and all the better for it. Being a working royal is a life long commitment and public opinions are fickle and tricky to navigate. Every one of them will make mistakes at some point and get backlash for it. But it’s the long term commitment that will earn respect if the people. And the comfort of love and support from a truly loving relationship will be vital to long term strength. And they will all need a lot of strength in the years to come to deal with all the ups and downs.

 

[Zaira]

A different view from the very respected Spectator Magazine

“Is Princess Meghan really such good news?

Prince Harry is doing the monarchy no favours by choosing a glossy actress as his bride”



Read more: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/12/is-a-princess-meghan-really-such-good-news/

This article isn't even being subtle with its undertones.

Says a lot that folks buy into this kind of drudge, none of it good.

 

[Gaudete]

The Spectator always likes to offer a controversial view that goes against the grain. It’s actually a very pro monarchy publication but it tends to praise someone one day and then decry them the next. So I wouldn’t read too much into that piece, though it is of course very well written and interesting regardless.

 

[duchessrachel]

So all in all, I think this article is not very well thought out. But that's just me.

I totally agree with you that it is not well-thought out, particularly this statement in the article: "Ever since Princess Diana, royalty has elided with celebrity"
Hmmmmm... At the time Charles and Diana married, Diana was considered a "suitable" choice, which is what the writer is saying Meghan is not. As a matter of fact, she was just the type of person the writer is suggesting Harry should marry. She was not a celebrity and came from an aristocratic background. But, boy oh boy, did that marriage work out well

 

[wyevale]

This article isn't even being subtle with its undertones.

Says a lot that folks buy into this kind of drudge, none of it good.

'The Spectator' is an eminent and respected Magazine. ie NOT the 'Daily Fail'.
You clearly disagree with its conclusions, but [even so] it pays to 'know your enemy'...

I loved it for the Cartoon with it ALONE !

 

[ACO]

I totally agree with you that it is not well-thought out, particularly this statement in the article: "Ever since Princess Diana, royalty has elided with celebrity"
Hmmmmm... At the time Charles and Diana married, Diana was considered a "suitable" choice, which is what the writer is saying Meghan is not. As a matter of fact, she was just the type of person the writer is suggesting Harry should marry. She was not a celebrity and came from an aristocratic background. But, boy oh boy, did that marriage work out well

No kidding. Marrying for love is the better option than being forced into a relationship you hate of duty. Diana was everything they desired... until she wasnt.

 

[Osipi]

We're wandering off the beaten path here and to return it to Harry and Meghan, I'm just simply going to state that both Will and Harry, knowing all too well what happened with their parent's first marriage, probably swore up and down and sideways and backwards that if they ever married, the prime requisite would be that they loved each other. Love was their prime directive is choosing a spouse and they both most definitely didn't have a piece of paper with little boxes to be checked off to see if they were suitable.

Its called learning from past mistakes.

 

[Ish]

'The Spectator' is an eminent and respected Magazine. ie NOT the 'Daily Fail'.
You clearly disagree with its conclusions, but [even so] it pays to 'know your enemy'...

I loved it for the Cartoon with it ALONE !

It's an interesting article, but I can't help but feel it's jumping to some of its conclusions.

It seems to praise Meghan for being a feminist, while at the same time dismissing her (and Mary) as not being fully informed - which, sure, others may know more about the subjects that they've spoken and campaigned about, but the point of speaking and campaigning about such issues isn't that someone is the most informed on the subject, but rather to raise the awareness of those who know less than you do on the subject, to encourage a discussion of it, and in doing so to facilitate change. William, Kate, and Harry certainly aren't the most educated individuals on mental health, yet they've managed to raise awareness relating to it with the Heads Together Campaign, and have been rightly praised for it. What Meghan's spoken about previously might be a different subject, but it's still no less deserving of praise.

I'm not going to get into how the article did a basic research fail and seemed to think that Suits is a Netflix production (it's not). Or how somehow according to the article Prince Andrew is the model of royalty that Harry should be aspiring to.

I will address the bit where it says Anglican canon law does not support the remarriage of divorcees. It allows for it, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken in support of this marriage. If the marriage has the ABC's support, I really don't see how it can be seen as the church not supporting it.

And for its final statement, that this marriage is bad news for the institution of matrimony... how is two people in love getting married bad for the institution of matrimony?

 

[jacqui24]

'The Spectator' is an eminent and respected Magazine. ie NOT the 'Daily Fail'.
You clearly disagree with its conclusions, but [even so] it pays to 'know your enemy'...

I loved it for the Cartoon with it ALONE !

Then they need to start doing their homework. There are so many inaccuracies of facts in that piece that it’s making DF look like a reliable source.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Then they need to start doing their homework. There are so many inaccuracies of facts in that piece that it’s making DF look like a reliable source.

I haven't read the article but gosh, that must be bad then!

 

[Curbside]

Wow, what a mean article.

I'm not sure how this works in the Anglican church, but Meghan's first marriage would not be considered a Christian marriage in the Catholic church, since by all indications, Meghan and her ex husband had no intention to have a Christian, sacramental marriage.

The article was very coy in the bigoted objections to the marriage. Were they as mean about Will and Kate's marriage? After all, she didn't come from the 150 people suitable to marry a royal.

 

[ladongas]

A.N. Wilson married a suitable woman of his own ‘class’. They are divorced.

 

[Gaudete]

The article was very coy in the bigoted objections to the marriage. Were they as mean about Will and Kate's marriage? After all, she didn't come from the 150 people suitable to marry a royal.

Yes. The Spectator ran a series of articles at the time which said it was the thin end of the wedge and gave her the nickname “Kate Middleclass”. Since the marriage, they’ve since published glowing reviews about how wonderful she is. The Spectator always likes to be a little contrary. Give it six months and they’ll be falling at Meghan’s feet. They always do.

 

[Curbside]

Huh. Weird.

 

[Abbigail]

A different view from the very respected Spectator Magazine

“Is Princess Meghan really such good news?

Prince Harry is doing the monarchy no favours by choosing a glossy actress as his bride”



Read more: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/12/is-a-princess-meghan-really-such-good-news/

From the same magazine who offered this gem??

https://twitter.com/x/status/935098939522633729

I'm sorry but what a joke!

 

[ACO]

From the same magazine who offered this gem??

https://twitter.com/x/status/935098939522633729

I'm sorry but what a joke!

Well then. Explains a lot.

 

[jacqui24]

From the same magazine who offered this gem??

https://twitter.com/x/status/935098939522633729

I'm sorry but what a joke!

Yes, the Spectator does seem to be stuck in the 1950s with this relationship.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I would just like to say that love matches don't always last either. People love to bring up Charles and Diana to support royals only marrying for love but there is still Andrew and Anne who both married for love and it ended bad as well. There are also arguably some marriages of convenience that ended up pretty satisfactory; I'm not saying anything against Meghan or Harry, just pointing out that love marches aren't guaranteed to last.
IMO William and Harry and their cousins marrying people based on personal reasons rather than class is good for the country and family; means there is less chance of a divorce.

 

[ACO]

Well marriage is no guarantee period but I would rather at least going in with a chance. Forcing people to marry for whatever reason in this day and age is never going to work. My great grandparents probably should have divorced but that just wasn't what you did back then so my great granny spent most her life miserable. Married but miserable. She made it a point in not letting that happen to her own children and them theirs. So give me a failed love over a forced one any day of the week.

 

[jacqui24]

I just want to point out that one thing that Spectator article didn’t mention was that those old royal marriages were held together, but few were truly happy. Prince Albert and Queen Victoria were the exception, not the rule. In reality, many royal and aristocrat who married appropriate partners often had extramarital affairs while remaining in their marriages. Rememeber Charles’ comment to Diana about not wanting to be the first PoW without a mistress? While that was likely an excuse for not breaking things off with Camilla, that’s probably a true statement about his predecessors too. That’s just not going to fly this day and age.

 

[Dman]

I just want to point out that one thing that Spectator article didn’t mention was that those old royal marriages were held together, but few were truly happy. Prince Albert and Queen Victoria were the exception, not the rule. In reality, many royal and aristocrat who married appropriate partners often had extramarital affairs while remaining in their marriages. Rememeber Charles’ comment to Diana about not wanting to be the first PoW without a mistress? While that was likely an excuse for not breaking things off with Camilla, that’s probably a true statement about his predecessors too. That’s just not going to fly this day and age.

The realities of those old school royal marriages are pretty much ignored. Folks were too stuck on the titles, blood and alliances to even care about real love and happiness. Some people in 2017 want that old world back for some odd reason. A life that not even they would be able to cope with.

 

[Dman]

 

[Beryl]

I find it astounding that they would expect royal families to keep marrying their relatives, ��. I can only hope they are joking. That would certainly doom the monarchy. Thankfully those days are long past.

 

[evolvingdoors]

I would just like to say that love matches don't always last either. People love to bring up Charles and Diana to support royals only marrying for love but there is still Andrew and Anne who both married for love and it ended bad as well. There are also arguably some marriages of convenience that ended up pretty satisfactory; I'm not saying anything against Meghan or Harry, just pointing out that love marches aren't guaranteed to last.
IMO William and Harry and their cousins marrying people based on personal reasons rather than class is good for the country and family; means there is less chance of a divorce.

I side eye the “Andrew marriage ended badly” notion.
Because are they really over?

I think, from the little I know of the their relationship and my little google search now) there are clues that point to the conclusion that Sarah and Andrew relationship never really ended. I’d be highly amazed if, once Philip’s dies - since I heard he hates Sarah, they won’t remarry or announce that they are back together. Since baby c#3 will be born by then (any made harry’s First child) they won’t need the queen approval to remarry.
That being said, if they are back together they may chose to not remarry since what they have now seems to work for them.

 

[Denville]

They are together as friend and help each other out. he has problaby helped her financially and taken care of her. She has defended him when he's been attacked by the Press. They are not a couple and IMO its extremely unlikely that they would ever remarry. Andrew has had a long bachelor lifestyle, with women and He's not likely to give that up. Sarah probably has her own boyfriends, discreetly. She would not be welcomed back into The RF...
and Xenia is right, in that A and Sarah and ANne and Mark married for love and it didn't work out

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Of course all marriages based on love won't always last either, but I'm betting, that a marriage based on actual personalities matching, liking each other and loving each other have much better chance, than the ones based on class system, bloodlines and parents deciding who's in the right social position for their son/daughter.

 

[Denville]

Well marriage is no guarantee period but I would rather at least going in with a chance. Forcing people to marry for whatever reason in this day and age is never going to work. My great grandparents probably should have divorced but that just wasn't what you did back then so my great granny spent most her life miserable. Married but miserable. She made it a point in not letting that happen to her own children and them theirs. So give me a failed love over a forced one any day of the week.

Nobody is forcing anyone in the RF to marry... even fi there is pressure, they are not forced...

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Nobody is forcing anyone in the RF to marry... even fi there is pressure, they are not forced...

But I do think Charles was pressured to get married and made a rushed choice based on that pressure. And realistically, he was beginning to realize his choices were narrowing...
Thank goodness his sons had more freedom when finding a life partner.
And this is all off topic for this thread.

 

[Denville]

Yes but because of that fear that there had been pressure for Charles to get married, I think the RF have avoided imposing any pressure on the 2 boys. So boht have had a pretty free choice.