A Potential Wife for Prince Harry - Page 88

Mirabel · #**1741** 02-22-2013, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spheno

What do you think about Lady Viola Georgina Grosvenor (20)? :)

She seems a bit young to get married, but if Harry hasn't wed anyone else in the meantime, she might be a good candidate in five or ten years.

royal-blue · #**1742** 03-25-2013, 06:53 AM

If Prince Harry was to get married to Cressida Bonas, but she was reluctant to enter royal life (just as his last long term girlfriend was), could it ever be possible they could have a morganatic marriage, where he remained royal (Duke of X) whereas she kept her own name and didn't receieve her husband's title?

Iluvbertie · #**1743** 03-25-2013, 06:59 AM

Not in the UK - Edward VIII asked that in 1936 and was told in no uncertain terms that Britain didn't recognise morganatic marriages. If it wasn't acceptable then there is no way it would be acceptable now.

There is no need for his wife to do royal duties as long as her career doesn't appear to be cashing in on her royal connections. Sophie tried reasonably successfully for awhile to continue with her career and then the fake sheikh struck (the same one who got Sarah and Princess Michael) so she and Edward were encouraged to become full-time working royals.

She wouldn't have to use her husband's title but she would still have it - e.g. Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales but she uses the title Charles has had since his mother's accession, Duchess of Cornwall.

royal-blue · #**1744** 03-25-2013, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Not in the UK - Edward VIII asked that in 1936 and was told in no uncertain terms that Britain didn't recognise morganatic marriages. If it wasn't acceptable then there is no way it would be acceptable now.

There is no need for his wife to do royal duties as long as her career doesn't appear to be cashing in on her royal connections. Sophie tried reasonably successfully for awhile to continue with her career and then the fake sheikh struck (the same one who got Sarah and Princess Michael) so she and Edward were encouraged to become full-time working royals.

She wouldn't have to use her husband's title but she would still have it - e.g. Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales but she uses the title Charles has had since his mother's accession, Duchess of Cornwall.

Sophie is a good comparison - if she had said at the time of marriage she wanted to remain Sophie RJ, would this have been refused?

A totally different scenario, after decades of royal life, but the Duchess of Kent eschews her HRH title and prefers to be known as Katherine Kent and live a fairly private life.

royal-blue · #**1745** 03-25-2013, 07:13 AM

The only morganatic marriage in European royalty seems to be Marina, Consort of Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark who is married to Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark. However, because this marriage is considered morganatic, she did not gain the title of 'Princess Michael of Greece and Denmark' and cannot style herself as 'her Royal Highness'. Despite this, she is able to call herself Marina, Consort of Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark.

Iluvbertie · #**1746** 03-25-2013, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal-blue

Sophie is a good comparison - if she had said at the time of marriage she wanted to remain Sophie RJ, would this have been refused?

A totally different scenario, after decades of royal life, but the Duchess of Kent eschews her HRH title and prefers to be known as Katherine Kent and live a fairly private life.

Katherine Windsor (not Kent - Kent is the title while the name is Windsor) may refer to herself by whatever name she wants but her correct title, and the one that is used on official occasions is HRH The Duchess of Kent.

For Sophie - at work she did continue using Sophie RJ but after the fake sheikh affair Charles was at the centre of insisting the both she and Edward stop trying to work for their living and take on royal duties as trying to keep their two lives separate.

If Cressida wishes to continue with a dancing career she could continue to do so as Cressida Bonas - no problems - but when she accompanied Harry anywhere officially she would still be HRH The Duchess of xxxxx.

branchg · #**1747** 03-25-2013, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Not in the UK - Edward VIII asked that in 1936 and was told in no uncertain terms that Britain didn't recognise morganatic marriages. If it wasn't acceptable then there is no way it would be acceptable now.

Well, except that after he abdicated the throne and was created The Duke of Windsor, his wife was denied by Letters Patent the right to share his royal rank by The King, creating a morganatic marriage. She was The Duchess of Windsor upon marriage, but was not royal.

I agree there is no need for another repeat of that.

royal-blue · #**1748** 03-26-2013, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Katherine Windsor (not Kent - Kent is the title while the name is Windsor) may refer to herself by whatever name she wants but her correct title, and the one that is used on official occasions is HRH The Duchess of Kent.

She often refers to herself as Katherine Kent - in the same was as Sophie Wessex or Harry Wales.

Lumutqueen · #**1749** 03-26-2013, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal-blue

She often refers to herself as Katherine Kent - in the same was as Sophie Wessex or Harry Wales.

Harry Wales, yes Sophie Wessex, no. Whether she refers to herself as it or not doesn't matter Wales, Wessex nor Kent are surnames.

royal-blue · #**1750** 03-26-2013, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Harry Wales, yes Sophie Wessex, no. Whether she refers to herself as it or not doesn't matter Wales, Wessex nor Kent are surnames.

Noone said they were surnames.

Lumutqueen · #**1751** 03-26-2013, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal-blue

Noone said they were surnames.

Did I say anyone did? Maybe you mis read my post because I actually said they weren't surnames.

julliette · #**1752** 03-26-2013, 02:41 PM

I'm not really aware of the details of the Sheik problem nor what kind of job Sophie had, but if I understood correctly the problem had to do with cashing in with royal connections, right? From that perspective, any woman who marries in the RF and runs her own business will have the same problem.

But what if for example, the woman Harry marries had a totally different job, let's say she was scientist for example. Would she be allowed to continue with her job? like if she did research for a university in uk, for example?

Lumutqueen · #**1753** 03-26-2013, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by julliette

I'm not really aware of the details of the Sheik problem nor what kind of job Sophie had, but if I understood correctly the problem had to do with cashing in with royal connections, right? From that perspective, any woman who marries in the RF and runs her own business will have the same problem.

But what if for example, the woman Harry marries had a totally different job, let's say she was scientist for example. Would she be allowed to continue with her job? like if she did research for a university in uk, for example?

You're right in regards to Sophie and Sarah although, Edward was involved in Sophie's case. If Henry married someone studying say for a PhD, then I can't see why she wouldn't be allowed to continue her studies. If she wished to hold down a job with her PhD, that's where the difficulty lies. If this woman just liked scientific research as a side hobby to role life, then that's fine too. Another example is if Henry marries a member of the military, I imagine a soldier would be less willing to give up their job.

This is one reason why I think Catherine never really worked anywhere, she didn't want to get attached to something she would one day have to leave.

NGalitzine · #**1754** 03-26-2013, 02:51 PM

The concept of morganatic marriages does not exist in the UK.
While I would think that any woman Harry marries will be needed for full time royal duties eventually I suppose it would be possible if not very probable she could have a job outside of the BRF. There would be problems such as claims she profited from royal connections, claims that she received promotions due to royal connections, claims she was absent from her job too often due to royal obligations and her poor downtrodden co-workers were forced to cover for her, stories about her employer or co-workers being bothered by paps looking for stories about the royal wife or being bothered by royal security. No matter what her occupation it would be hard for her to continue to work a so called "normal job" when married to Harry.

Kataryn · #**1755** 03-26-2013, 02:58 PM

Using Christian Name plus Name of Title is the correct way to shorten one's style/Name/title whatever in the British aristocracy.

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge for short is Catherine Cambridge. While William as the current duke would be just "Cambridge" as a peer

Her Grace The Dowager Duchess of Devonshire is Deborah Devonshire to her friends. Her son the duke is just "Cavendish" for his peers and friends., while other people of course call him "Your Grace".

royal-blue · #**1756** 03-26-2013, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

While I would think that any woman Harry marries will be needed for full time royal duties eventually I suppose it would be possible if not very probable she could have a job outside of the BRF. There would be problems such as claims she profited from royal connections, claims that she received promotions due to royal connections, claims she was absent from her job too often due to royal obligations and her poor downtrodden co-workers were forced to cover for her, stories about her employer or co-workers being bothered by paps looking for stories about the royal wife or being bothered by royal security. No matter what her occupation it would be hard for her to continue to work a so called "normal job" when married to Harry.

I agree with this

Alison H · #**1757** 03-26-2013, 03:08 PM

The UK doesn't "do" morganatic marriages. Queen Victoria never really recognised them - she didn't seem to have a problem with the Tecks or the Batternbergs marrying members of her family. I don't think anyone would actually object if Harry married Cressida and she wanted to have an ordinary job rather than carry out royal duties - it might even look good, as she'd be earning a wage rather than claiming from the Civil List - but Sophie did that for a while and it got very awkward because business associates were more interested in her royal connections than her actual work, and then the News of the World set her up with that "fake sheikh" business.

Iluvbertie · #**1758** 03-26-2013, 04:08 PM

Alison H - there is no Civil List any more and since 1992 the only people who were on it were The Queen, Philip and The Queen Mum.

Daria_S · #**1759** 03-30-2013, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littleboo

Wild about Prince Harry: The American fans who track the young royal's every move | Royal | News | Daily Express

Harry' American thread is closed so I'll post this here.

This is a bit creepy and stalker-ish. I hope Henry steers very clear of any of the girls who are only eager to catch his status and privileged lifestyle. I hate to say this, but this really makes me a bit embarrassed to be a citizen of the United States. People like that make it seem as if the rest of the nation had no class to speak of. Disgraceful.

Countessmeout · #**1760** 03-30-2013, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Harry Wales, yes Sophie Wessex, no. Whether she refers to herself as it or not doesn't matter Wales, Wessex nor Kent are surnames.

Harry going by Harry Wales is the exact same as Sophie going by Sophie Wessex, or Katherine going by Katherine Kent. Instead of using the actual surname, Windsor, they use their title in place of a surname.