Prince Harry and Meghan Markle: Church Service, Carriage Procession - May 19, 2018


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Well Of course I mean who didn’t watch it that’s a member on this forum what I’m saying is your other wedding threads have pictures of the bride arriving and the church service. we only have pictures of the bride and groom and the carriage in this thread
 
Is it possible that you have not checked out the links that have been posted? Due to copyright laws, its actually against forum rules to post photos directly into the posts in this thread. That's why for pictures of events (and yes, I'll add that usually the Daily Mail has the best photographs), you'll only see links in here.
 
There is still debate going on about who those people are. I've seen some suggest they are members of the Suits crew.

If they truly wanted to highlight the other members of Meghan's families who attended the wedding, the information would have been distributed to the media directly or through sources. Those members would also have been given very camera friendly or prominent seating.

I think there were enough rumors and reports just enough grumbling from people on social media at the time to suggest some members of Meghan's family might have attended the wedding but if it was done is in such a way that we are still debating if they did even months after the wedding it is best to assume they (the family members or the couple) did not want it to be public knowledge and see it as a private matter. We should just leave it at that.
 
Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen comments about the fact that Tatler named the Sussex wedding as the Wedding of the Year.

The Brooksbank wedding was tipped for having the best wedding guest 'goodie' bag of the year.

I cannot help but agree with Tatler about the first award.
 
sshepard7 said:
Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen comments about the fact that Tatler named the Sussex wedding as the Wedding of the Year.

The Brooksbank wedding was tipped for having the best wedding guest 'goodie' bag of the year.

I cannot help but agree with Tatler about the first award.
Click to expand...

:previous: Each lovely bride's wedding is special, and the best day of the year for them personally. I especially appreciate the brevity of the wedding homily for Eugenie & Jack, and that the black minister who apparently knew Eugenie at least, prior to the wedding, beautifully recited meaningful prayers for the couple interspersed with singing.

Harry & Meghan's wedding of course had larger impact worldwide because of who his parents are, and because of his royal status, which will remain fairly prominent throughout his lifetime. Also, Prince Charles is so knowledgeable about music, he did a great job with the music selection for Harry & Meghan, except for Stand by Me, which the couple famously and poignantly selected. But it was Prince Charles who suggested the Kingdom Choir. I want to get a copy of the CD of the music for M&H's royal wedding.

Unfortunately to mixed reviews, it was the well-intentioned Archbishop of Canterbury who selected Bishop Curry to give M&H's wedding address. Having seen the recorded version of the event, I found it interesting but not surprising that the reactions by the royal family to Bishop Curry's startling performance have been edited out of the BBC's official DVD edition of M&H's wedding.
 
Eugenie's wedding was certainly lovely, if a bit out of proportion.
 
:previous:

I took my additional comments re what I enjoyed about Eugenie's wedding to her wedding thread. Nothing was out-of-proportion IMHO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the guest list did any relatives who are descendants of Prince Philip's sisters, Margarita, Theodora, and Sophie, attend Harry and Meghan's wedding?
 
This likely came up already...new here...but I find it odd that Harry and Meghan got married on the same date, May19, of the execution of Anne Boleyn...but am sure it was never considered, just a coincidence.
 
Lucy63 said:
This likely came up already...new here...but I find it odd that Harry and Meghan got married on the same date, May19, of the execution of Anne Boleyn...but am sure it was never considered, just a coincidence.
Click to expand...

I doubt that was a consideration at all-if the BRF had to vet every date because of some unfortunate history, there would be very few available dates to choose.
 
Seriously, if we are going to rule out every date that has had something bad happening or have something else going on, nobody will be getting married in the BRF. :lol:
 
Lucy63 said:
This likely came up already...new here...but I find it odd that Harry and Meghan got married on the same date, May19, of the execution of Anne Boleyn...but am sure it was never considered, just a coincidence.
Click to expand...

IMO, you are underestimating the fact that the British royals are a very historic family who can trace their genealogy far back to ancient times. This would make them much more cognzant than we are of family historical dates and the significance and ties to modern day royal occasions and rituals. And btw, let's not forget that the charity started by W, K, and H is called 'Heads Together', not 'Heads Asunder'. :lol:

This is a family who plan their schedules a year to two years in advance. I feel certain that the Queen was fully aware of the significance of the May 19 date in history. Having that date in history now marked by a happier occasion is likely not a coincidence. The marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle may eventually be looked upon as a landmark event in the sense of how in many ways there are underlying themes that can be seen to redeem the family's more recent and ancient marriage catastrophes, as well as the British monarchy's colonial past.

Certainly, Meghan joining the British royal family has made the royals seem much more relevant, up-to-date and accessible, even if the latter is a bit of an illusion. ;) I'm quite sure that genealogical research which revealed Meghan has ancestors related to and socially connected to the British monarchy in centuries past, was a boon to her being fully accepted. Of course, Prince Harry was determined to marry Meghan regardless of any ancient family connection.

Another interesting detail I discovered in an article about the significance of the 'Moretto Veneziano' brooch worn by Princess Michael last December, possibly provides a clue as to one reason why Prince Charles suggested the inclusion of a Coptic minister at H&M's wedding:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...orld-got-racist-royal-jewelry-wrong-1.5630137

According to jewelry historian Anastazja Buttitta:
"In southern Germany, the cult of St. Maurice was widespread. He was a black Roman commander who originally came from Egypt and became a martyr. He was depicted in art as a very distinguished black man, and the Venetians were also influenced by this.”

Princess Michael has described the figure on the brooch as a saint, so she may have been referencing St. Maurice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maurice
"St. Maurice is a highly revered saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and other churches of Oriental Orthodoxy... Born in Egypt, he became the leader of the legendary Roman Theban Legion in the 3rd century..."

Once again, as an ancient family and an ancient royal institution, I think Prince Charles and other members of the British royal family, know a lot about the significance of ancient history, particularly as it relates to religion, war, art, and the inter-relationship between cultures and peoples in the ancient world.

Therefore Prince Charles may have desired to include a Coptic minister as part of the royal wedding service between Meghan & Harry due to that religion's ancient connection to Christianity in Egypt (which in ancient times was significantly an African culture/ civilization).

Prince Charles was also responsible for recommending the gospel Kingdom Choir to Meghan and Harry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jacqui24 said:
Seriously, if we are going to rule out every date that has had something bad happening or have something else going on, nobody will be getting married in the BRF. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah. I think it was most likely the first date available when all the senior members could attend that didn't conflict with anything else, wasn't in Lent and gave them time to plan it.


Most members of the current royal family have never struck me as particularly knowledgeable or interested in history, Prince Charles being an exception so whilst I'm sure any significant happenings came up e.g. Anne Boleyn I can't see it either being a positive or negative for them, YMMV.
 
:previous: The royals for sure understand the logistics of not trying to explain everything to the general public who are persnickety and difficult to please. One can never please or reason with all of the people all of the time. The Queen is a very smart woman. If the media and general public noticed the other significance of the May 19 date, you don't think anyone in the royal family did? There were surely a few select dates available to choose between. This was surely not the only date available. I doubt it was a coincidence. But no one in the family will ever confirm one way or the other.

Yep, there's a lot we don't know, and never will. And yet, there are clues available for those with an interest in history, religion, culture, wars, monarchy, and the inherent complicated interconnections between all of these subjects. To each their own understanding. :xmasbell:
 
Last edited:
I see that Misha Nonoo was at the wedding and sat in the nave with her friend, oil heir, Michael Hess. (Hess has previously been pictured with Princess Beatrice -- see in the slideshow linked below).

https://guestofaguest.com/new-york/nyc-society/who-is-mike-hess-meet-the-hottest-oil-heir

The clip of Hess' 30th b'day party is fun. The last pic is of Hess with Misha Nonoo heading to St. George's Chapel in May. It looks like Nonoo was wearing a very light gray or silver coat dress that almost appears white.
 
MaiaMia_53 said:
:previous: :lol:
_________________________________


Here are pictures taken on the wedding day that I didn't see at the time, provided by Priyanka Chopra, showing her with a group of bride 'squad' friends:

https://www.hellomagazine.com/celeb...a-chopra-shares-bride-squad-pictures-wedding/

I wonder if Genevieve Hillis is in one of the pictures?
Click to expand...

Genevieve is not in any of these pictures. She was sitting in the chapel behind Doria. If I remember correctly, she was in a navy blue dress.
 
Thanks. I was only wondering because I don't know what Hillis looks like exactly. I don't recall clear views of her at the wedding, mostly because at the time I didn't know who some of Meghan's guests were.
 
At the time of the wedding I was sad to see that Doria had no 'group', apart from Meghan, with whom to share the occasion and reminisce after the event. I was surprised that she didn't have the company of her brother or a close friend or someone - just for her.
 
Last edited:
Would Westminster Abbey have been able to used for the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan?
 
CyrilVladisla said:
Would Westminster Abbey have been able to used for the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan?
Click to expand...

In theory, yes. It's not reserved for the direct heirs, as both Prince Andrew and Princess Anne married at the Abbey.

But it would probably have been far more expensive than a wedding at Windsor. And would certainly have caused far more hassle, given a chunk of central London would have to be closed down. I suspect the BRF feels that's not justifiable now for a non-heir wedding.
 
Sionevar said:
In theory, yes. It's not reserved for the direct heirs, as both Prince Andrew and Princess Anne married at the Abbey.

But it would probably have been far more expensive than a wedding at Windsor. And would certainly have caused far more hassle, given a chunk of central London would have to be closed down. I suspect the BRF feels that's not justifiable now for a non-heir wedding.
Click to expand...




I agree Sionevar and that the British Government would have more say in the matter than the engaged couple. As you pointed out, it would be far more expensive and would impact too many residents/workers to have the wedding of a non direct heir at Westminster Abbey.



That's why St. George's Chapel Windsor was likely selected as the site for the ceremony.
 
In theory, any member of the Royal Family, anyone who lives within the Abbey's precincts or any member of the Order of the Bath can get married there. Princess Alexandra got married there, and she's not a particularly senior Royal. But times change, and eyebrows would have been raised over the cost if Harry and Meghan had wanted to get married there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
King Henry VI (1421-1471) and Queen Margaret of Anjou
Replies
7
Views
998
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Sun Lion
  • Locked
Royals At War, The Untold Story of Harry and Meghan's Split with the House of Windsor
3 4 5
Replies
128
Views
14K
Marengo
Marengo
JessRulz
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle: Evening Reception - May 19, 2018
2 3 4
Replies
117
Views
19K
ghost_night554
ghost_night554
S
Lady Gabriella Windsor and Thomas Kingston: May 18, 2019
5 6 7
Replies
193
Views
35K
Somebody
Somebody
JessRulz
  • Poll
Wedding of Harry and Meghan: Guest Arrivals & Fashions
18 19 20
Replies
596
Views
67K
O-H Anglophile
O-H Anglophile

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom