Engagement of Prince Harry of Wales and Meghan Markle: November 27, 2017

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

LoL that's kind of funny. What were they going to do if someone objected based on non legal and non religious reasons?

The objections to which that question refers are, as far as I understand, of a legal nature. For example, "that man and that woman" cannot be legally wed because one of them is actually still married to someone else. In that case, a member of the congregation who was privy to that information would have a duty to disclose it in public at that particular moment.

Maybe the Anglican members in the forum can confirm if that is correct.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I was thinking more on the lines of "that woman can't marry that man because I'm in love with him" or "we slept together last night.

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

I was thinking more on the lines of "that woman can't marry that man because I'm in love with him" or "we slept together last night."

That's the way I always saw it, too. It's a stated objection that there is either a wife/husband lurking somewhere, or that one of the participants promised someone else, etc.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by Nico

On a side note the Queen used the adjectives "trusty and well-beloved " for Kate back in 2011 ... but nothing for Meghan today.

https://www.royal.uk/her-majesty-que...rine-middleton

A mere oversight i presume, and Kate was already "part of the family" so to speak.
Still in this age where every details counts (and the BRF is well aware of that), i presume it will be picked up by the press ...
Strange to say the least.

A Britisher claimed to me that "trusty and well-beloved" is terminology only intended to be traditionally used for UK or Commonwealth citizens. I would like to find out if that's true. If true, it seems weird.

I thought the Queen was referencing Kate in that way because she and Prince Philip had actually known Kate for many years, as opposed to their shorter time knowing Meghan. And I thought the Queen used "My" instead of "Our," when referencing Harry, because Prince Philip has retired from public life, and this is an official public document.

Can anyone with actual knowledge, please clarify?

[Osipi]

Our own Wbenson pretty much explained it all back in post #1275 in this thread. There was also an link to an article in the Express explaining the wording.

[Princess Larisa]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

Can anyone with actual knowledge, please clarify?

Here you go:

Originally Posted by wbenson

Yes, I'm pretty convinced that it's to do with her citizenship now. So far I've found the text of four warrants conferring honours on foreigners, and several more conferring them on citizens of Commonwealth realms, and all four of the former omit the "trusty and well beloved" while all of the latter include it.

Honorary (Foreigners):
"...to Captain Ernesto Burzagli"
"...to French Kitchener Chang-Him"
"...to..." a name I cannot quite make out, but it goes straight to his name
"...to Yelena Mikhailovna Nemirovskaya"

Substantive (Citizens of Commonwealth realms):
"...to Our trusty and well beloved Richard Holway Esquire"
"...to Our trusty and well beloved Michael Thomas Jackson Esquire"
"...to Our trusty and well beloved Kenneth Lawrence Bandey Esquire"

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Generally speaking, there is a standard wording for each type of document. For example, in Letters Patent creating peerages, they use:

1. "trusty and well-beloved" for a baron.
2. "right trusty and well-beloved" for a viscount.
3. "right trusty and entirely beloved" for an earl or marquess.
4. "right trusty and right entirely beloved" for a duke.

The Queen herself is not involved in drafting the official documents she signs and some documents are not actually signed "by her own hand".

Confirmation from royal reporters:
https://twitter.com/valentinelow/sta...61531148476416

[Madame Verseau]

Daily Mail has a story that Harry and Meghan will not sign a pre-nup:

Prince Harry rejects chance to safeguard £30million fortune | Daily Mail Online

Of course there is the outrage that Harry would put his money on the line. Apparently Diana is being used at the reason to have one in place; she took Charles to the cleaners in divorce court (17 million pounds). Fergie left the BRF with 3 million, after claiming she was left virtually penniless after the divorce. William and Charles were advised to have Kate and Camilla sign prenups and the advice was sent up to Harry. The only difference is Meghan has her own money (estimated 5 million pounds) while Camilla and Kate, while coming from well off families, did not have money in their own rights. Sophie, Fergie and Autumn had careers (made their own money) before marrying into the BRF. (I think Camilla had a clerk job before her first marriage). The prior martial conduct argument is the real insult. Because Meghan's first marriage ended in two years all the more reason to have the prenup drawn up. If that's the case, then the courtiers should have really pushed for Camilla to sign one that included a fling/affair clause - she cheats she gets nothing. I find it demeaning that any woman that marries into the BRF is presumed a gold-digger and a tiara chaser based on the actions that took place in a previous high profile royal divorce. And to make them sign a document that is not enforceable in a British court (but can be used as a guidepost for a divorce settlement) shows no equity in the decision.

[Pranter]

There was discussion about this before..I don't believe any of the wives have signed a pre-nup.


LaRae

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

If that's the case, then the courtiers should have really pushed for Camilla to sign one that included a fling/affair clause - she cheats she gets nothing.

Really unnecessary...
You can't stand her, we got it thank you.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Agreed. Assuming those matters are still taken seriously (as they should be), consent is only withheld if something of consequence is found about the bride/groom. Sophie, Camilla, Kate, Meghan and, in other countries, other (controversial ?) brides like Máxima, Sofia, or Mette-Marit all passed the test and, therefore, should be considered suitable royal consorts.

The most important lesson for me is that, although we often hear that royals can now "marry anyone" (in the sense of marrying commoners, or "marrying for love"), that is still techically not 100 % true as long as the legal barrier of the consent still remains.

Máxima herself was not considered controversial; only her father was. The Dutch are probably the most strict as Friso and Mabel did not get approval (as did two of the former queen's sister; the first knew it wouldn't be granted, the second by her own wish; princess Margriet stated in the past that she wouldn't have married Pieter had the State General objected). So, we have quite a history of non-approved marriages, so not all definitions of what is considered of consequence are equal...

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Daily Mail has a story that Harry and Meghan will not sign a pre-nup:

Prince Harry rejects chance to safeguard £30million fortune | Daily Mail Online

Of course there is the outrage that Harry would put his money on the line. Apparently Diana is being used at the reason to have one in place; she took Charles to the cleaners in divorce court (17 million pounds). Fergie left the BRF with 3 million, after claiming she was left virtually penniless after the divorce. William and Charles were advised to have Kate and Camilla sign prenups and the advice was sent up to Harry. The only difference is Meghan has her own money (estimated 5 million pounds) while Camilla and Kate, while coming from well off families, did not have money in their own rights. Sophie, Fergie and Autumn had careers (made their own money) before marrying into the BRF. (I think Camilla had a clerk job before her first marriage). The prior martial conduct argument is the real insult. Because Meghan's first marriage ended in two years all the more reason to have the prenup drawn up. If that's the case, then the courtiers should have really pushed for Camilla to sign one that included a fling/affair clause - she cheats she gets nothing. I find it demeaning that any woman that marries into the BRF is presumed a gold-digger and a tiara chaser based on the actions that took place in a previous high profile royal divorce. And to make them sign a document that is not enforceable in a British court (but can be used as a guidepost for a divorce settlement) shows no equity in the decision.

There’s no pre-nup between the Cambridge’s. I didn’t expect one between Harry and Meghan either. Don’t think the royals do pre-nups.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Máxima herself was not considered controversial; only her father was. The Dutch are probably the most strict as Friso and Mabel did not get approval (as did two of the former queen's sister; the first knew it wouldn't be granted, the second by her own wish; princess Margriet stated in the past that she wouldn't have married Pieter had the State General objected). So, we have quite a history of non-approved marriages, so not all definitions of what is considered of consequence are equal...

Precisely because her father was controversial, there was a real possibility that W-A's marriage to Máxima would not be approved. That is what I meant when I included her in my list of examples.

I think that, in the case of Princess Irene, there were reasonable motives to oppose her marriage. Mabel, on the other hand, is a nice person, but she withheld important information from the government during the vetting process, which helps to explain why she got into trouble.

I am glad the Dutch government actually takes those matters seriously. I have a suspicion that, nowadays, the marriage consent is becoming increasingly pro forma in many countries to the point that most people take it for granted, when it should not be the case.

BTW, I also think it is a mistake that Harry has rejected the idea of a
prenup.

Originally Posted by Dman

There’s no pre-nup between the Cambridge’s. I didn’t expect one between Harry and Meghan either. Don’t think the royals do pre-nups.

Maybe the British royals don't, but other royals in other countries are known to have done it in the past. Can anyone confirm that ?

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Maybe the British royals don't, but other royals in other countries are known to have done it in the past. Can anyone confirm that ?

I was thinking about that as I read the posts. Didn't the Danish Royals have prenups? The King & Queen of Sweden has a prenup as does Crown Princess Victoria and Daniel. The deal between the King and Queen have, according to the media been altered a few times and gives the Queen a right to money, stocks, bonds and half the King's life insurance but none of the royal properties.
Worth noting is that a lot of the contents of the palaces - art, jewelry etc aren't personal property but belongs to the massive Bernadotte foundations and
would never be subject to being divided up during an eventual divorce.

[WillVictoria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Maybe the British royals don't, but other royals in other countries are known to have done it in the past. Can anyone confirm that ?

Crown Princess Mary signed one and then had it amended. https://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty...nmark-pre-nup/

For foreign born brides I assume one of the main reasons for a prenup is to ensure the kids stay local in case of a divorce. For example, I guarantee Mary's prenup insists the kids must remain in Denmark in order to prevent a worst case scenario where Fred and Mary divorced, Mary moved back to Australia, and it begins an international custody battle with hurt feelings on all sides

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by WillVictoria

Crown Princess Mary signed one and then had it amended. https://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty...nmark-pre-nup/

For foreign born brides I assume one of the main reasons for a prenup is to ensure the kids stay local in case of a divorce. For example, I guarantee Mary's prenup insists the kids must remain in Denmark in order to prevent a worst case scenario where Fred and Mary divorced, Mary moved back to Australia, and it begins an international custody battle with hurt feelings on all sides

Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to Meghan then ?

I remember someone saying here that the British Royal Family is covered by other legal provisions when it comes to custody of the children, but I don't know exactly what those provisions are.

I couldn't imagine Mary taking any of her children out of Denmark either, especially Christian as a prospective future king. I am pretty sure that would not be possible, even without a prenup, but I don't know much about the Danish monarchy. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can clarify.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by WillVictoria

Crown Princess Mary signed one and then had it amended. https://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty...nmark-pre-nup/

For foreign born brides I assume one of the main reasons for a prenup is to ensure the kids stay local in case of a divorce. For example, I guarantee Mary's prenup insists the kids must remain in Denmark in order to prevent a worst case scenario where Fred and Mary divorced, Mary moved back to Australia, and it begins an international custody battle with hurt feelings on all sides

As far as I can remember it wouldn't be an issue even if there was a divorce without a prenup because by law the Queen has a final say in the matter regarding the children.

[ACO]

I don't think there is a prenup but no doubt there is arrangements in place regarding the children which I think it the main issue. In the case of a divorce the women can't take the kids outside of the UK. No doubt Kate signed something to that effect and Meghan will too. As for funds? They will likely get a settlement but I am sure the RF's assets are very well protected. Diana's case was a special circumstance as shown by Sarah getting very little.

[Lady Nimue]

Interesting how Meghan's net worth fluctuates. I've seen $7 million stated in the early days, and as time has worn on the amount has gone down until in the last article it has her worth at $4 million. Curious. Wonder why the disparity. I have a hunch, of course.

Early in the game I saw the couple as bringing nearly the same amount to the pot: Harry $10 million, Meghan $7 million. But with this last article it has Harry worth a towering $30 million to Meghan's 'paltry' $4 million. Who to believe, not so?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

Interesting how Meghan's net worth fluctuates. I've seen $7 million stated in the early days, and as time has worn on the amount has gone down until in the last article it has her worth at $4 million. Curious. Wonder why the disparity. I have a hunch, of course.

Early in the game I saw the couple as bringing nearly the same amount to the pot: Harry $10 million, Meghan $7 million. But with this last article it has Harry worth a towering $30 million to Meghan's 'paltry' $4 million. Who to believe, not so?

Harry's personal net worth is not so relevant IMHO because, regardless of how much he is worth, he has access to extra perks and money from his family, especially considering that his father will be king. So, he can have a more lavish standard of living than he could otherwise afford by himself alone.

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Harry's personal net worth is not so relevant IMHO because, regardless of how much he is worth, he has access to extra perks and money from his family, especially considering that his father will be king. So, he can have a more lavish standard of living than he could otherwise afford by himself alone.

Perhaps so for you but the spin of the article is intriguing since it makes Meghan out to be someone of lesser monetary status (and so for many people by inference 'dangerous', a gold digger, etc). Fact is, Meghan's income potential is far greater than Harry's. JMO.