Harry and Meghan: Relationship Musings

[Nico]

Reminds me of the outcry from some American posters when Kate was "just" titled Duchess of Cambridge instead of "Princess of Something". They just didn't understand ...
Again , there's a world between some wishful thinkings (and let's say some rose tinted dreams) and the actual facts of how the Monarchy really works.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Nico

Remind me of the outcry from some American posters when Kate was "just" titled Duchess of Cambridge instead of "Princess of Something". They just didn't understand ...
Again , there's a world between some wishful thinkings (and let's say rose tinted dreams) and the actual facts of how the Monarchy really works.

I think it's better to leave Kate out of this....

[Abbigail]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Anne was married in the Abbey 44 years ago and Andrew 31 years ago. Not a viable comparison to today's times. IMO.

I'm aware of when they were married. Point is, Harry is one of only two children, Edward is the last of four. The latter shouldn't be referenced every time we discuss what Harry should or shouldn't have.

[wyevale]

why should Harry even be allowed to marry at St George's? I mean, he is not the Queen's son

Peter Phillips [also the Grandson of the Monarch] married at St George's. The Wessex's were married under unusual circumstances [following the War of the Waleses]. Had times been 'normal' it is entirely possible that Westminster would have been the venue...

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

She might wear an American designer for pre wedding stuff, but her wedding dress will be a British designer. That's pretty much a guarantee for any bride of Harry's. The most untraditional I can see is Erdem.

I agree. If she wants to start winning the hearts and minds of the British public, choosing a non-Brit to design her all-important bridal gown is not the way to do it. It sends the wrong idea from the jump, and I think Ms Markle is too clever and savvy for that. She knows that the eyes of the world will be on that dress. For the sake of symbolism and to signal her 100% commitment not only to Harry but to her new family and country, she will go British for the wedding dress.

[Abbigail]

Originally Posted by wyevale

Peter Phillips [also the Grandson of the Monarch] married at St George's. The Wessex's were married under unusual circumstances [following the War of the Waleses]. Had times been 'normal' it is entirely possible that Westminster would have been the venue...

Sounds like more convenience to me.

If we shouldn't consider the circumstances in Harry's case, then I'm not sure why they are relevant with Edward.

[wyevale]

Sounds like more convenience to me.

Your response to everything that doesn't chime with your view ?

You still haven't replied to the point that Harry isn't the Son of a reigning Monarch, nor the the eventual heir ?

What Circumstances EXACTLY, raise this wedding above others of identical or superior Rank ???

[scriptgirl]

Jenny Packham's designs are awful. No thank you.
And I have to say I am a proud American as well.
Comparing Edward and Harry is moot. Different circumstances. Harry is the son of Diana and is wildly popular and Meghan being American will add huge international interest. Her being biracial will also do a lot toward minting the BRF as modern and inclusive.
And yes, pomp please, because this will be the last major wedding for a while.

[wyevale]

The reality is that NONE of the considerations you raise Scriptgirl will make one iota of difference to the decisions made on this Wedding...

The BRF is unconcerned with 'international interest', the regularity [or otherwise] of Weddings, the Racial make-up of people 'marrying-in', or 'modernity' [as perceived by outsiders].

[Rudolph]

It appears the issue for some is that a wedding at St George’s Chapel Windsor will be a lesser wedding for Harry. William’s was at the Abbey, Harry’s should be there sort of thing.

Every wedding is special whether it’s at the local parish or Westminster Abbey. So in that sense it’ll be good day.

For a couple for aren’t even publicly engaged, we’re a long way down the path here but I realise it’s fun to speculate.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by wyevale

You still haven't replied to the point that Harry isn't the Son of a reigning Monarch, nor the the eventual heir ?

What Circumstances EXACTLY, raise this wedding above others of identical or superior Rank ???

I think the fact that they are the only two sons of PoW, who is the next Monarch, is important. Especially considering the age of the Queen and it's not expected that Charles would be PoW for many more years. At the point, I think it's simply a technicality that they aren't the children of a monarchy, but simply grandchildren. The fact that both grandsons have started being phased in in state dinners and additional royal duties show that a transition has started.

This is really a terrible thing to say, and I really didn't want to say it. But if the Queen dies between now and when Harry announces an engagement, I really don't expect his wedding to be much different due to his new position as the son of a monarch. The only difference I would see would be caused by the fact that cost of a state funeral, a coronation soon combined with a wedding would place extra scrutiny on cost that they wouldn't want to deal with. And of course the mourning period.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying he outranks whomever or anything like that. Just pointing out the fact that he's not a son of a monarch is more of a technicality at this point that it really wouldn't prevent a wedding at WA.

[Moonmaiden23]

St. George's Chapel is magnificent and so completely steeped in history. I watched Edward and Sophie's wedding and I was no less impressed by the surroundings than I was when I watched the BRF wedding ceremonies that took place at St Paul's and Westminster Abbey.

Not only is St George's grand and impressive and historically significant, it creates an illusion of intimacy and romance that is missing from the Abbey and from St. Paul's.(JMHO)

I don't see how anyone can believe that if Harry is married there it will be some sort of "downgrade". I mean...seriously? Have you all seen the place and read the history of it??

Henry VIII and one of his queens (Jane Seymour) are buried there!

The whole world will be watching. What's the problem?

[scriptgirl]

Fine it may not make an iota of difference, but I stand by my opinion.

[Abbigail]

Originally Posted by wyevale

Your response to everything that doesn't chime with your view ?

You still haven't replied to the point that Harry isn't the Son of a reigning Monarch, nor the the eventual heir ?

What Circumstances EXACTLY, raise this wedding above others of identical or superior Rank ???

First of all, so what if he isn't the son of a reigning monarch or the heir? I wasn't aware of any rule or even precedent that suggests he couldn't have an Abbey wedding? Secondly, I already pointed out that your logic doesn't hold up.

Harry is the 2nd son of a future king, he's also far more popular and has a bigger/more important role than Edward did at the time he married. Those are the circumstances and there aren't any other weddings that you can compare this to.

[scriptgirl]

Originally Posted by Abbigail

First of all, so what if he isn't the son of a reigning monarch or the heir? I wasn't aware of any rule or even precedent that suggests he couldn't have an Abbey wedding? Secondly, I already pointed out that your logic doesn't hold up.

Harry is the 2nd son of a future king, he's also far more popular and has a bigger/more important role than Edward did at the time he married. Those are the circumstances and there aren't any other weddings that you can compare this to.

Exactly. Abigail. Exactly.

[Abbigail]

Originally Posted by scriptgirl

Fine it may not make an iota of difference, but I stand by my opinion.

No poster's opinion here will make any difference. But it's silly to think that all factors won't be considered, including public interest.

[scriptgirl]

Again, Abigail, I totally agree with you. The BRF is dependent on public goodwill and interest. To not take public interest in consideration on all things royal would not be smart on the part of the BRF.

[wyevale]

St Georges is also the resting place of Harry's Great Grandparents, Great great Grandparents and his Great-Aunt...

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Not only is St George's grand and impressive and historically significant, it creates an illusion of intimacy and romance that is missing from the Abbey and from St. Paul's.(JMHO)

I don't see how anyone can believe that if Harry is married there it will be some sort of "downgrade". I mean...seriously? Have you all seen the place and read the history of it??

I have, and I agree it is a lovely church.

But it isn't where the top-tier royal weddings (and funerals) take place, and everyone is aware of that. The Queen herself, and two of her four children, married in the Abbey.

I believe that no matter how anyone spins it, St. George's will appear to be a down-grade of sorts, despite the beauty and the history of the church.

[Moonmaiden23]

Maybe some are put off by the word "chapel"...assuming it's some modest little place of worship? Because it's not a chapel in the mold of the kind that one finds on the Strip in Vegas It is grand beyond belief. It's as large as a cathedral in fact.

Ultimately it will come down to the type of wedding Harry and his lady want to have. If they want the Abbey and insist on it, they will not be refused.

Ditto St. Geroge's. It makes not one iota of difference to me. I will be watching no matter where it is. I love Royal weddings!