The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #481  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:23 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
But the wedding blessing service is different to the service that Harry and Meghan had -which was basically the current standard CofE wedding from Common Worship.

We saw Harry and Meghan go off to sign the registrar with witnesses among other things. It's possible that the AofC gave them a blessing before hand "in case anything goes wrong, you've already made your vows" but he couldn't preside over a legally binding service "just the three of us" in a garden three days before the big event and then preside over a full on wedding later. Neither could Michael Curry who's a Bishop not an Archbishop anyway so they were talking about Justin Welby.
yes this is nonsense. I can't imagine the A of Canterbury going through such a silly thing. it would not be legally binding without a licence and witnesses...
__________________

  #482  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:24 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
in short this interview is mostly fiction....

I would really like the press to ask Dr. Justin Welby about the double wedding story, one of which would necessarily have to be illegal (either way).


Either it is fiction, or Meghan and Harry had a "pretend wedding", or a blessing , or a rehearsal before their actual legal wedding and Meghan mistook it for a true wedding ceremony, which would be weird anyway. In any case, I can't imagine that the Archbishop of Canterbury would go along with that kind of crazy idea, especially considering his position as primate of the CoE and the Queen's position as supreme governor of the church.
__________________

  #483  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:28 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
Two things we know are a lie:
1. The "wedding before the wedding", for two reasons:
a/ they would not be allowed to marry twice, and the wedding in St George's Chapel was the traditional wedding ceremony (imagine if not? the press would have a field day)
b/ they need AT LEAST 5 people there, one to perform the ceremony, the marrying couple, two witnesses.
And Royal Family or not, the rules of the Church of England are the same for everyone.
Another thing I just thought of about the wedding(s): They said the "secret" one was three days before the public one, right? I'd have to double-check the timing of the whole saga involving Meghan's father, but IIRC, there was no expectation of him being in the UK at that point. At that moment, he was in the hospital recovering from a heart attack, with everyone (supposedly) hoping he'd be able to make it to the UK for the public wedding. But if that wasn't the "real" wedding, then Meghan never had any intention for her father to be present for her "real" wedding. I doubt he knew the secret wedding was even happening, or it would have come out before now. This belies a lot of the crocodile tears Meghan has very publicly shed on the subject of her father missing her wedding.
  #484  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:29 AM
Hairball's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Hendersonville, United States
Posts: 10
Hmm.

First of all, I didn't see the interview, so I wish to thank all of you for your comments and informative thoughts which helped me get the general idea of the interview.

I am left with one question: If they wanted privacy, why didn't they move to a farm in Idaho and raise chickens instead of going on Oprah?

This privacy thing makes no sense to me.
__________________
To err is human; to purr is feline.
  #485  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:33 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I would really like the press to ask Dr. Justin Welby about the double wedding story, one of which would necessarily have to be illegal (either way).


Either it is fiction, or Meghan and Harry had a "pretend wedding", or a blessing , or a rehearsal before their actual legal wedding and Meghan mistook it for a true wedding ceremony, which would be weird anyway. In any case, I can't imagine that the Archbishop of Canterbury would go along with that kind of crazy idea, especially considering his position as primate of the CoE and the Queen's position as supreme governor of the church.
if there was a rehearsal it would involve the bridesmaids, staff, etc etc. Even Meg could hardly mistake a ceremony in the back garden, for a royal wedding rehearsal...
  #486  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:36 AM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
yes this is nonsense. I can't imagine the A of Canterbury going through such a silly thing. it would not be legally binding without a licence and witnesses...
But it would be verifiable. Imagine if he came out and said none of this BS happened. It would throw their entire interview out of the window. I don't think she would do something like that given how calculative she is.
Perhaps what happened that day was the legal wedding, and the one we saw was a farce. They went inside to sign a register, who knows whether they did or not.
  #487  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:39 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I would really like the press to ask Dr. Justin Welby about the double wedding story, one of which would necessarily have to be illegal (either way).


Either it is fiction, or Meghan and Harry had a "pretend wedding", or a blessing , or a rehearsal before their actual legal wedding and Meghan mistook it for a true wedding ceremony, which would be weird anyway. In any case, I can't imagine that the Archbishop of Canterbury would go along with that kind of crazy idea, especially considering his position as primate of the CoE and the Queen's position as supreme governor of the church.
Justin Welby can't legally or religiously marry anyone in a garden. He can't marry anyone without witnesses. He can't marry anyone twice.

The marriage ceremony they had was the current standard one that well all saw. The "blessing after civil marriage" is different (scroll down).

https://www.churchofengland.org/pray...rship/marriage

All they've done is muddy the waters on this and caused people to question the legality of their actual marriage which wasn't in question before.

It is possible he offered them a private and informal blessing on their life together and advised them to consider this their personal vows to each other before God in order to calm them down about the big day and the craziness. But that's not a marriage.

But it doesn't make sense that he conducted an actual ceremony and then conducted another full ceremony in St. Georges. It just brings up way too many questions.
  #488  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:41 AM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
But it would be verifiable. Imagine if he came out and said none of this BS happened. It would throw their entire interview out of the window. I don't think she would do something like that given how calculative she is.
Perhaps what happened that day was the legal wedding, and the one we saw was a farce. They went inside to sign a register, who knows whether they did or not.
No, it's not possible

Church of England does not allow it. You can get married only once. If legal wedding already took place, there would be a blessing ceremony in St. George's Chapel, but that was pretty standard, traditional wedding ceremony. It would not be allowed to have two of them.
Besides, for any wedding to be legal, there have to be 2 witnesses present. So no "there were only 3 of us in our garden" bs.
  #489  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:42 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
But it would be verifiable. Imagine if he came out and said none of this BS happened. It would throw their entire interview out of the window. I don't think she would do something like that given how calculative she is.
Perhaps what happened that day was the legal wedding, and the one we saw was a farce. They went inside to sign a register, who knows whether they did or not.



The secret wedding, as she described it, in the bacjkgarden and with no witnesses, could not be legal, But, if the second one, which cost mllions, had the Queen and the RF in attendance and was televised all over the world, was actually a farce, then it would be even worse, actually a scandal.
  #490  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:43 AM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Justin Welby can't legally or religiously marry anyone in a garden. He can't marry anyone without witnesses. He can't marry anyone twice.
Technically, he can marry anyone in a garden, as long as the garden is on Kensington Palace grounds, since it's public wedding venue. My friends had their wedding in orangery there. So while technically the venue would make sense, the second and third arguments are throwing that idea out of the window.
  #491  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:45 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
But it would be verifiable. Imagine if he came out and said none of this BS happened. It would throw their entire interview out of the window. I don't think she would do something like that given how calculative she is.
Perhaps what happened that day was the legal wedding, and the one we saw was a farce. They went inside to sign a register, who knows whether they did or not.
No, they could not have a legal wedding with just 3 of them. There would have ot be a licensed place, a license, a celebrant and 2 witnesses. She is talking nonsense...
  #492  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:46 AM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
No, it's not possible

Church of England does not allow it. You can get married only once. If legal wedding already took place, there would be a blessing ceremony in St. George's Chapel, but that was pretty standard, traditional wedding ceremony. It would not be allowed to have two of them.
Besides, for any wedding to be legal, there have to be 2 witnesses present. So no "there were only 3 of us in our garden" bs.
Then the wedding in the backyard was some pretend kind of thing where they recited their vows. Either way, I hope the press follows this up with the A of C.
  #493  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:48 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
Then the wedding in the backyard was some pretend kind of thing where they recited their vows. Either way, I hope the press follows this up with the A of C.
Im sure he's very embarrassed..
  #494  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:52 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
Technically, he can marry anyone in a garden, as long as the garden is on Kensington Palace grounds, since it's public wedding venue. My friends had their wedding in orangery there. So while technically the venue would make sense, the second and third arguments are throwing that idea out of the window.
I suppose they could also have found a "standing structure" somewhere as well, possibly the same Orangery.

But yes the other points do stand and if the AofC actually performed a full legally binding wedding three days before then having another actual wedding later throws up all sorts of questions, even if there were no witnesses. I actually know someone who works at Church House, I might email them and see if they have any light to shed.

And seriously if they'd have preferred to actually go the Bea and Edo route then they could have. It would have caused a fuss but I'm sure the country would forgive them the £32 million that was spent on it.
  #495  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:55 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
According to the BBC:


A source close to the Sussexes has told the BBC that the wedding that Meghan referred to in the "backyard" three days before the public wedding in May 2018 was a private exchange of vows.


OK, no problem with doing that. It's not legally binding, but I suppose it's quite romantic in a way, and I've seen quite a few things on social media about couples who've done that whilst weddings have been legally banned because of lockdown restrictions.


But what Meghan said was:


"You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. Ah, no one knows that. But we called the Archbishop and we just said look, this thing, the spectacle, is for the world. But we want our union between us.

So the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury."




I'd love to hear Justin Welby's comments on this, but I very much doubt that he wants to get involved in this sorry mess.
  #496  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:58 AM
carlota's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 8,296
Woah. Now that was explosive.

There’s things I don’t think I’ll comment on unless we get more information on (the racism claims) as I think those are really sensitive topics.

I will however say that this is a very one sided interview. I’ll also say that even if they praised the queen all over the interview, by criticising the institution, they are indirectly criticising her, so I don’t buy what they say about having the utmost respect for her. The racism accusations, the lack of support… ultimately she was the head of the institution that allowed this to happen so a low blow for her. If they appreciate her that much, why put a 94 year old through this situation? why does the queen have to wake up to someone telling her all the dirt they aired? I’d hate to do that to my elderly family.

Also, at no point were they asked any questions that would put them in a bad light (M’s relationship with her father/sister in law for example). I also struggle to see how a family who champions mental health wouldn’t ask for help for M. even if the family hadn’t, Harry has plenty of relationships in the mental health arena and could have made the necessary arrangements for her to get treatment – and put his foot down with his family (we know he can do that when he wants, so why not for something as serious as suicidal thoughts?). To sit still and say they weren’t allowed to seek help is most astounding to me – they sound totally helpless and powerless. that is not how adults behave. And why does Meghan go to the HR department to discuss this? surely the queen/Charles would have been the right people to be in touch with on this? They sound very powerless in this interview overall – as if they were some sort of second class employee of the firm with no money. But they weren’t – they were senior royals and definitely not moneyless. Surely they had a lot more power/authority than they make it sound in this interview. M claiming that no one taught her how to sing the anthem – really?! This is a clever woman, does she really need someone to teach her the anthem? Go on youtube!

Another astonishing aspect is how their narrative changed from ‘the media caused us to flee’ to ‘the family / firm caused us to leave our roles’. Almost mention of the media and their damaging role in all this. another narrative that changed is how Charles’ used to be ‘meghan’s second father’ – he is now the dad who doesn’t take the calls of his son wanting to quit royal life.

On Meghan being told to keep a low profile/not being allowed to meet with friends: I don’t believe this. We’ve seen Kate on countless occasions going out for food / walks with friends and family, going out shopping etc.

On their dealings with Netflix/spotify: they said they needed money to pay for security. Harry had an inheritance from diana and they got the 100 million deal with Netflix – if they did it just to pay for security surely this would have covered it? I don’t buy it. they did it because they don’t want to become irrelevant and they need to sustain their brand.
Meghan claims royals changed rules so Archie did not get title: my understanding is that the letters patent makes Archie not a prince and it has been this way since the Wessex’s kids were born, regardless of what they say the palace decided when he was about to be born so don’t get why there’s drama around this?

harry said members of his family suggested Meghan should carry on acting “because there was not enough money to pay for her” --- I don’t believe this for a minute. If anything they’d want her to definitely stop acting: how embarrassing would it have been to see the duchess of Sussex still starring as rachel zane and involved in the scenes she used to shoot for suits? This is the most ridiculous statement.

A positive thing that has come out of this is M’s and Kate’s relationship clarification. Apparently Kate did something wrong, apologised in a lady-like manner in line with someone in her position and they moved on – and it seems that M bears no resentment. Again, this is a one sided interview and it is unlikely we will know Kate’s opinion on this.
__________________
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest and most effective animal protection organization.
https://www.humanesociety.org
  #497  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:59 AM
Princess Merena's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 32
I do wonder why Charles stopped taking his son's calls? Might it be because the said son was making such an outrageous demands and ranting at his father about not getting his will through that he eventually had enough and stopped answering?
  #498  
Old 03-08-2021, 08:02 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I may be wrong, but I didn't see many direct personal attacks on the Family. Harry repeated that he and William are "in different places" or something like that, but he didn't badmouth the Duke of Cambridge. Harry made it clear though that he and Charles are estranged, and that he was somehow disappointed because, I think, he thought Charles would have understood better what he was going through. He also mentioned Charles stopped taking his calls at some point, but that he is working to heal the relationship. That surprised me because I assumed he was still closer to Charles than to William. Much to my surprise too, Harry also made a big deal of being cut off financially and losing official security.


The part where the Family came out badly was mainly the race issue, especially them not standing up to the tabloids and the alleged comment on Archie's skin color. Meghan didn't hear the comment herself though; if I understood it correctly, Harry told it to her and, when he was asked about it, he didn't deny it, but said he would not elaborate. The timing of the alleged comment was also different, if I remember it correctly, in Meghan's and Harry's versions.

From what I've read the whole interview was an attack on the royal family. They accused them of being racist - you don't get worse than that.


I still don't get why their complaining about being cut off from royal funding and security - they QUIT! Why would they still get royal perks after that?


If they'd have stayed they would still get funding and security.


Also Anne's children don't have titles.
  #499  
Old 03-08-2021, 08:03 AM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
According to the BBC:


A source close to the Sussexes has told the BBC that the wedding that Meghan referred to in the "backyard" three days before the public wedding in May 2018 was a private exchange of vows.


OK, no problem with doing that. It's not legally binding, but I suppose it's quite romantic in a way, and I've seen quite a few things on social media about couples who've done that whilst weddings have been legally banned because of lockdown restrictions.


But what Meghan said was:


"You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. Ah, no one knows that. But we called the Archbishop and we just said look, this thing, the spectacle, is for the world. But we want our union between us.

So the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury."




I'd love to hear Justin Welby's comments on this, but I very much doubt that he wants to get involved in this sorry mess.
Yeah, totally. Imagine saying that to the A of C. Look, come on out, we want a private union. The perks of being royalty
  #500  
Old 03-08-2021, 08:04 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Justin Welby can't legally or religiously marry anyone in a garden. He can't marry anyone without witnesses. He can't marry anyone twice.

The marriage ceremony they had was the current standard one that well all saw. The "blessing after civil marriage" is different (scroll down).

https://www.churchofengland.org/pray...rship/marriage

All they've done is muddy the waters on this and caused people to question the legality of their actual marriage which wasn't in question before.

It is possible he offered them a private and informal blessing on their life together and advised them to consider this their personal vows to each other before God in order to calm them down about the big day and the craziness. But that's not a marriage.

But it doesn't make sense that he conducted an actual ceremony and then conducted another full ceremony in St. Georges. It just brings up way too many questions.
The "secret wedding" part I have no trouble accepting, but it was clearly not a legal wedding and I didn't think Meghan was saying it was. As you suggest, I think they were offered the opportunity to have a private ceremony to make their personal vows to each other: a private, personal moment to enjoy without the pressures of the circus that would follow a few days later. Maybe that first ceremony was the one they think of as their wedding in their hearts.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex with Oprah III - Post-Interview, March 9th 2021 - Marengo The Electronic Domain 746 03-12-2021 05:30 AM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing colorblindness coronation doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs king juan carlos liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family sussex suthida unfinished portrait united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:19 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×