The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3861  
Old 11-25-2017, 11:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Yeah, that's a good catch that Meghan going to salons and shopping has something to do with preparing for a big event sooner rather than later. The woman who was walking directly beside Meghan in the recent DF photos has been identified as Sarah Chapman, facialist and ower of the salon Meghan visited. Unless perhaps you are referencing a different woman in the background of the photos?

I've read about what you are saying re Diana's ring and the Cartier watch, and the two brothers' agreement that whoever married first would give their fiancee the ring. I recently read another article which mentioned that Harry has given Meghan the Cartier watch that belonged to his mother (and the Cartier brand and model is one of Meghan's favorites).

It's really hard keeping up with the posts in here now. I can only imagine what it will be like when the engagement day arrives. Forget about the wedding. Websites will crash. Hearts will flutter. Eyes will tear up.
I also appreciate the links provided by several UK members to the British tabloids with headlines urging the Prince to 'put the ring on Meghan's finger' or words to that effect...a highly sexist comment, in any case I take this opportunity to wish both the Prince and Ms Markle courage and strength in negotiating a very slippery path through the demanding and dehumanizing gauntlet of what other people want them to do and hope they follow their own hearts in what they both needto do!
__________________

  #3862  
Old 11-25-2017, 11:48 PM
M. Payton's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,850
I also like you wish Harry and Meghan all the best and that they do what they want to do, not that the palace nor the media want them to do, so hoping they follow their hearts to wherever that leads them.
__________________

  #3863  
Old 11-25-2017, 11:59 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silicon Valley, United States
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryshawn View Post
I'm curious about the ring. I think it was very kind of Harry to give Princess Diana's iconic sapphire engagement ring to William for Catherine. Harry had, after all, chosen his mom's ring as his personal memento from her estate while William chose her Cartier tank watch. I think Harry, too, will want to "include Diana" as much as he possibly can just as William did so I believe he'll have a ring made from gemstones from one of his mum's favorite pieces of jewelry. Diana had a splendid suite of sapphires but IDK if Harry will want Meghan to have a ring that'll be forever compared to the one Catherine now wears. I think he'll probably go with an emerald from Diana's favorite necklace (the one she wore as a headband in Australia).
The emerald choker that Diana wore (in Wales around her neck right after the wedding, and as a headband in Australia) is a piece of Royal heirloom jewelry given to Diana by The Queen as a wedding present. It originally belonged to Queen Mary and it was made from emeralds from Queen Mary's family. After Diana died, it was reportedly returned to The Queen with all the rest of the royal jewelry. There is absolutely no way they would dismantle that choker to make a ring. None at all. (Emeralds are also not sturdy enough for engagement rings that are worn daily.) Harry will give Meghan something else from his mother - probably the Cartier watch. I predict an all-diamond engagement ring as are most common in the US as a nod to Meghan's American heritage.
  #3864  
Old 11-26-2017, 12:08 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,869
Talking

IMO Harry and Meghan have opted to take a few days to quietly celebrate Thanksgiving Day, the end of what must have been a stress-filled and painful end to seven years of hard work with people Meghan has grown to like. And then shifting from her home of seven years and moving to another planet across the Atlantic. Yes folks, if the media is anything to go by this last week, it really is another planet.

I would imagine Meghan's needs would have been peace, love and understanding. For he to mourn the passing of the life she worked so hard to create and to contemplate the very difficult months that lay ahead. I can only hope they didn't bother with the news . . . but then Wills probably texted Harry to ask if the "Elvis Impersonator" was any good!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #3865  
Old 11-26-2017, 12:37 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by hel View Post
Sorry, I think there's a bit of a misapprehension about the timing of Suits relative to her marriage in the bolded parts above.
  • The Suits pilot was ordered on May 17, 2010 and shot (as far as I can tell) in the fall of 2010, in NYC.
  • The series got picked up by the network for its first season on January 19, 2011.
  • The pilot had an advance screening on June 2, 2011, and aired on June 23, 2011.
  • Season two was ordered on August 11, 2011
  • The first season finale was September 8, 2011.
  • Meghan's Jamaican wedding was September 10, 2011.
Thus, the entire first season aired and the second season was ordered before she got married.

It wasn't a matter of "get married, move to Toronto, sudden distance caused problems". If the distance was causing problems from the time she moved to Toronto, then they got married in spite of that.
Thanks for this chronological detail surrounding the evolution of Suits. The essence of what I said earlier still applies. I never said it was that cut-and-dried in the first place. Complexities and unknown factors are involved in a relationship that doesn't last between two people. In fact, there have been reports from Meghan sources that the reason for the marriage breakup had to do with trouble salvaging a long distance relationship. The exact date of their marriage relative to the dates surrounding the initial production of Suits do not make or break the fact that they were already in a relationship for 7 years, and that their decision to marry coincided around the time Meghan landed the role, or near the time that the pilot was picked up and filming of the first season began. We do know that Meghan had to audition first in order to land the role of Rachel Zane. We don't know exactly when Engelson popped the question or how long they were planning their wedding after the marriage proposal. We do know that they were married on September 10, 2011 in Jamaica. Keep in mind that the relationship lasted longer than the marriage.

Maybe Engelson did not propose until after the pilot was picked up and Meghan learned that she'd be relocating to Toronto. She would likely have signed a contract after the pilot had been picked up. Whether the marriage proposal came in 2010 when she was auditioning or in 2011 after the pilot was picked up, makes little difference. Their marriage happened after they'd been together about 7 years. The point I was making is that their relationship could have actually run it's course by then. But that it's hard to break up suddenly when you've been together that long. Both parties could have been trying to hold onto something that was not going to last whether or not Meghan had moved to Toronto.

It could also be that it was Engelson who was concerned about losing Meghan once he learned she'd be relocating. It's difficult to know what their thoughts were, but obviously even after she landed the role and filmed the pilot, there was no guarantee the pilot would be picked up, as I mentioned. Meghan might have filmed other pilots in L.A. that never got picked up. So a lot of things were up in the air. Also, she'd been with Engelson at a young age and for a long time, so it couldn't have been easy for her to see into a crystal ball or to have enough experience to realize that her life was changing and that it would be difficult to maintain a long distance relationship.

Since I only had general information, I wasn't trying to tie down the exact chronology. Even with specific dates, the scenario is still the same:

Meghan begins filming the first season in Toronto in early 2011 (at which time Engelson had likely already asked her to marry him; even if he hadn't, they must have had some kind of understanding, especially by the beginning of summer 2011). We don't have any specific details about exactly what Meghan's living arrangements were when she began filming, or exactly when she relocated to Toronto and found her apartment. She may have flown back and forth to L.A. in between breaks in filming the first and second seasons. Meanwhile, I think we can be assured that the Jamaican wedding in September 2011 required advance planning. It must have been a hectic and glorious time for Meghan. Again, there was no guarantee how long the show would last. Fortunately, for Meghan and the cast of Suits, the show became increasingly popular over the first two years of filming from 2011 to 2013, which coincides with the length of Meghan's marriage.

Since Meghan and Engelson did get married and they stayed married for two years, I would assume they were trying to hold things together against some long distance odds. Your adding the chronology surrounding the filming of Suits, frankly doesn't detract from what I was surmising about Meghan's growth evolution in Toronto, and the breakdown of her relationship with Engelson. Once again, the seeds of the breakdown could have already existed before they married since their relationship could have run its course after being together for 7 years. But it was difficult for them to fully recognize or admit. Let's face it that the distance between them which started prior to their marriage*, likely became worse as Suits became increasingly successful.

*which we know based on the date timeline of Suits and the date of their marriage, that you have provided
  #3866  
Old 11-26-2017, 12:48 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
We also don't know if Meghan and Trevor mutually ended their marriage or one of them chose to file for divorce. The dynamics of their relationship might have changed as Meghan got more recognition from being part of a successful TV series. This is all speculation.
  #3867  
Old 11-26-2017, 01:31 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Eh, there's lots of information out there, much of it unsubstantiated gossip. Again, Meghan sources (IOW, her pr people) claimed at the time and later, that the marriage broke down due to the problems of maintaining a long distance relationship. Sources seem to indicate that the break-up was mutual if not completely amicable. Court documents were uncovered by some online celebrity gossip sites, proving that Meghan initiated the divorce action, citing 'irreconciliable differences.' Unsubstantiated rumors have floated around that Meghan was seeing someone else in Toronto as the reason for the divorce, but where this claim originated is unclear. Documents show that Meghan and Engelson were separated on July 5, 2013, and she later filed for divorce on August 7, 2013. The divorce action was uncontested, and Meghan waived her right to receive spousal support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
...
Likely because Sophia Charlotte's possible heritage is questionable at best. If the rumors are true, her black ancestor was 24 generations before her. But the ancestress in question, some say was Moorish but many others say was a Moazab, meaning a Christian living in Moore controlled area.

Having a member of the BRF who is visibly and undeniably mixed, is vastly different. Certainly why it causes more of a stir among some.
Hopefully you read the links I provided which includes a genealogical chart, and information from PBS Frontline (known for their exhaustive research). Sophia Charlotte's African heritage is based on sound factual evidence, not mere rumors. In fact, back in those distant early centuries, royal bloodlines were rather concentrated, because of royals marrying royals. Note that Sophia Charlotte was not the only member of her family who exhibited African physical features, which was also not exactly such a stigma back then as it later became as a result of the spread of economic-based slavery in the New World. Please read the links, particularly the Frontline link, and the one that includes a genealogical chart.

Please understand that parsing labels and terminology today does not have the same meaning held in ancient times. Terms used during distant historical periods may have meant any number of things beyond our current cultural understanding. A lot of new historical research has been done in recent years uncovering a number of mind-blowing things regarding the names of different groups of people in ancient times vs what they actually looked like and where they originated. If we want to get very technical, quite clearly all of humanity originated out of Africa, except for the Neanderthals who intermixed with Europeans before eventually dying out. DNA technology has also proven that different races is a manmade construct in the first place. There's only the human race, but we can't seem to fully grasp what that means.

Start with this scientific finding:
How Europeans evolved white skin | Science | AAAS
  #3868  
Old 11-26-2017, 01:56 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by hel View Post
It wasn't a matter of "get married, move to Toronto, sudden distance caused problems". If the distance was causing problems from the time she moved to Toronto, then they got married in spite of that.
Given the timeline you present maybe the marriage was an attempt to stake a commitment to the relationship on both their parts. But it didn't work. Maybe had Trevor moved to Toronto the marriage would have endured. Anyway, it didn't and here she is, on the brink of becoming a British princess/duchess.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
  #3869  
Old 11-26-2017, 01:59 AM
hel hel is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Kitchener, Canada
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Thanks for this chronological detail surrounding the evolution of Suits. The essence of what I said earlier still applies. I never said it was that cut-and-dried in the first place. Complexities and unknown factors are involved in a relationship that doesn't last between two people. In fact, there have been reports from Meghan sources that the reason for the marriage breakup had to do with trouble salvaging a long distance relationship. The exact date of their marriage relative to the dates surrounding the initial production of Suits do not make or break the fact that they were already in a relationship for 7 years, and that their decision to marry coincided around the time Meghan landed the role, or near the time that the pilot was picked up and filming of the first season began. We do know that Meghan had to audition first in order to land the role of Rachel Zane. We don't know exactly when Engelson popped the question or how long they were planning their wedding after the marriage proposal. We do know that they were married on September 10, 2011 in Jamaica. Keep in mind that the relationship lasted longer than the marriage.

Maybe Engelson did not propose until after the pilot was picked up and Meghan learned that she'd be relocating to Toronto. She would likely have signed a contract after the pilot had been picked up. Whether the marriage proposal came in 2010 when she was auditioning or in 2011 after the pilot was picked up, makes little difference. Their marriage happened after they'd been together about 7 years. The point I was making is that their relationship could have actually run it's course by then. But that it's hard to break up suddenly when you've been together that long. Both parties could have been trying to hold onto something that was not going to last whether or not Meghan had moved to Toronto.

It could also be that it was Engelson who was concerned about losing Meghan once he learned she'd be relocating. It's difficult to know what their thoughts were, but obviously even after she landed the role and filmed the pilot, there was no guarantee the pilot would be picked up, as I mentioned. Meghan might have filmed other pilots in L.A. that never got picked up. So a lot of things were up in the air. Also, she'd been with Engelson at a young age and for a long time, so it couldn't have been easy for her to see into a crystal ball or to have enough experience to realize that her life was changing and that it would be difficult to maintain a long distance relationship.

Since I only had general information, I wasn't trying to tie down the exact chronology. Even with specific dates, the scenario is still the same:

Meghan begins filming the first season in Toronto in early 2011 (at which time Engelson had likely already asked her to marry him; even if he hadn't, they must have had some kind of understanding, especially by the beginning of summer 2011). We don't have any specific details about exactly what Meghan's living arrangements were when she began filming, or exactly when she relocated to Toronto and found her apartment. She may have flown back and forth to L.A. in between breaks in filming the first and second seasons. Meanwhile, I think we can be assured that the Jamaican wedding in September 2011 required advance planning. It must have been a hectic and glorious time for Meghan. Again, there was no guarantee how long the show would last. Fortunately, for Meghan and the cast of Suits, the show became increasingly popular over the first two years of filming from 2011 to 2013, which coincides with the length of Meghan's marriage.

Since Meghan and Engelson did get married and they stayed married for two years, I would assume they were trying to hold things together against some long distance odds. Your adding the chronology surrounding the filming of Suits, frankly doesn't detract from what I was surmising about Meghan's growth evolution in Toronto, and the breakdown of her relationship with Engelson. Once again, the seeds of the breakdown could have already existed before they married since their relationship could have run its course after being together for 7 years. But it was difficult for them to fully recognize or admit. Let's face it that the distance between them which started prior to their marriage*, likely became worse as Suits became increasingly successful.

*which we know based on the date timeline of Suits and the date of their marriage, that you have provided
FWIW, I didn't have any issue with your analysis, which is why I bolded what I was replying to, which was just the timeline. I agree that the chronology doesn't detract from what you surmised. I just think it's important to make sure that the timelines are correct, because I think we've all seen "everyone knows" facts creep into the stories of these people that aren't actually completely right.
  #3870  
Old 11-26-2017, 02:06 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Hopefully you read the links I provided which includes a genealogical chart, and information from PBS Frontline (known for their exhaustive research). Sophia Charlotte's African heritage is based on sound factual evidence, not mere rumors. In fact, back in those distant early centuries, royal bloodlines were rather concentrated, because of royals marrying royals. Note that Sophia Charlotte was not the only member of her family who exhibited African physical features, which was also not exactly such a stigma back then as it later became as a result of the spread of economic-based slavery in the New World. Please read the links, particularly the Frontline link, and the link with the genealogical chart.

Please understand that parsing labels and terminology today does not have the same meaning held in ancient times. Terms used during distant historical periods may have meant any number of things beyond our current cultural understanding. A lot of new historical research has been done in recent years uncovering a number of mind-blowing things regarding the names of different groups of people in ancient times vs what they actually looked like and where they originated. If we want to get very technical, quite clearly all of humanity originated out of Africa, except for the Neanderthals who intermixed with Europeans before eventually dying out. DNA technology has also proven that different races is a manmade construct in the first place. There's only the human race, but we can't seem to fully grasp what that means.

Start with this scientific finding:
How Europeans evolved white skin | Science | AAAS
You have posted no links

The reality is such assumptions have been made upon portraits whose artists have questioned motives in how she was portrayed. And there are several historians who dispute the ethnicity of her 'Moorish ancestress'. Frontline had several mistakes, including the name of her doctor, and her having Frankish roots. As well as making assumptions based on One historian who called Madragana as a Moore. As there is no DNA evidence, there is certainly no way of proving either way.

The point I made, even if Sophia Charlotte had black ancesters, it was 24 generations in the background. To compare her to someone like Meghan who is half black, would be a stretch. Certainly is more of a cultural impact for a prince to marry someone who is quite visibly, and undeniably, mixed.
  #3871  
Old 11-26-2017, 03:15 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
The point I made, even if Sophia Charlotte had black ancesters, it was 24 generations in the background. To compare her to someone like Meghan who is half black, would be a stretch. Certainly is more of a cultural impact for a prince to marry someone who is quite visibly, and undeniably, mixed.
This is a dicey area/topic to venture (and on such a fluffy board, but maybe this is exactly the 'gift' that Meghan brings). I'm not sure you 'got' what MaiaMia was saying, given your response here. It's late at night which may be why I am foolhardy enough to venture into these deep waters.

The overarching point is that 'race' as we are using the term in our current times, dates back to the 1500's/1600's (and not before). 'Race' as in denoting skin color at that time (1600's/1700's) became a convenient 'marker' to identify a (purposely designated) subordinate class of human beings separated out for economic reasons (slaves). Slavery prior to the 1600's was not based on skin color, but on warfare. The condition of slavery was a mutable condition not based on color but based on the economics of power.

Prior to the 1600's everyone was 'mixed', using your phrase. It was more issues of tribal identities/religious beliefs/cultural allegiances, not skin color. Every advanced ancient culture was swarthy, in fact. The pale tribes in the north were pretty wild, and when they finally started descending into the narrow belt of what we would term advanced peoples, all those advanced peoples were 'of color'. Everybody was 'mixing', it would not have been an issue as to skin color (what we are calling 'race') but of culture/tribe and then later religion.

Meghan is actually not "someone who is quite visibly, and undeniably, mixed". I would suggest that you only identify her as such based on current biases and your knowledge of her parentage. Meghan is actually the norm. She is what we all are. There is nothing such as 'pure white'. Doesn't exist. Never has, unless one wants to claim a pure line of descent from the wild tribes of the north 2 thousand years ago, but even they came out of the 'swarthy' south (India). Skin color has to do with melanin, geographic location, nothing else.

Our current world's focus on 'race' is distinctly a recent (modern) focus (developed over the last 400 years) emerging out of the 1500/1600 transition into our 'modern' age and economic shift from feudalism to a 'free' economy (that needed a new way of controlling cheap labor).

Just some thoughts, because this 'race thing' is going to keep popping up, and likely needs to be faced. JMO.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
  #3872  
Old 11-26-2017, 04:23 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post

IMO Harry and Meghan have opted to take a few days to quietly celebrate Thanksgiving Day, the end of what must have been a stress-filled and painful end to seven years of hard work with people Meghan has grown to like. And then shifting from her home of seven years and moving to another planet across the Atlantic. Yes folks, if the media is anything to go by this last week, it really is another planet.

I would imagine Meghan's needs would have been peace, love and understanding. For he to mourn the passing of the life she worked so hard to create and to contemplate the very difficult months that lay ahead. I can only hope they didn't bother with the news . . . but then Wills probably texted Harry to ask if the "Elvis Impersonator" was any good!
As I've been saying all along Meghan who is American would not announce an engagement on a major national US holiday. Also after just wrapping up on Suits & packing up her things she is probably in need of a break. H&M have not been seen since last Tuesday & my guess is that they're having a mini vacation together.

All this crap about Downing Street clearing their schedule & staff meetings being called at BP to discuss an impending engagement of the 5th in line to the throne is pure fiction & so far fetched. The media are in pure fantasy land!
  #3873  
Old 11-26-2017, 04:49 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
This is a dicey area/topic to venture (and on such a fluffy board, but maybe this is exactly the 'gift' that Meghan brings). I'm not sure you 'got' what MaiaMia was saying, given your response here. It's late at night which may be why I am foolhardy enough to venture into these deep waters.

The overarching point is that 'race' as we are using the term in our current times, dates back to the 1500's/1600's (and not before). 'Race' as in denoting skin color at that time (1600's/1700's) became a convenient 'marker' to identify a (purposely designated) subordinate class of human beings separated out for economic reasons (slaves). Slavery prior to the 1600's was not based on skin color, but on warfare. The condition of slavery was a mutable condition not based on color but based on the economics of power.

Prior to the 1600's everyone was 'mixed', using your phrase. It was more issues of tribal identities/religious beliefs/cultural allegiances, not skin color. Every advanced ancient culture was swarthy, in fact. The pale tribes in the north were pretty wild, and when they finally started descending into the narrow belt of what we would term advanced peoples, all those advanced peoples were 'of color'. Everybody was 'mixing', it would not have been an issue as to skin color (what we are calling 'race') but of culture/tribe and then later religion.

Meghan is actually not "someone who is quite visibly, and undeniably, mixed". I would suggest that you only identify her as such based on current biases and your knowledge of her parentage. Meghan is actually the norm. She is what we all are. There is nothing such as 'pure white'. Doesn't exist. Never has, unless one wants to claim a pure line of descent from the wild tribes of the north 2 thousand years ago, but even they came out of the 'swarthy' south (India). Skin color has to do with melanin, geographic location, nothing else.

Our current world's focus on 'race' is distinctly a recent (modern) focus (developed over the last 400 years) emerging out of the 1500/1600 transition into our 'modern' age and economic shift from feudalism to a 'free' economy (that needed a new way of controlling cheap labor).

Just some thoughts, because this 'race thing' is going to keep popping up, and likely needs to be faced. JMO.
No I am not actually missing her point or yours

I am not having a discussion about the 'construct of race'. Or how pure anyone's origins are. Or the histographical charts of where we all came from. I could, but I wont. Because we are not in a classroom. We are not in a lecture or debate on anthropology and its role.


We are talking about current events. We are talking about a royal couple and the perception of society. And the perception of society is based on what they can see, what is tangible. If your parents were German, your grandparents were German, your tree as far back as you knew was German. If you found out that 40 generations ago, one ancestor was Greek, would you consider yourself 1/2 greek??? Would you even consider yourself Greek? You may mention you have a remote Greek connection, but majority of people would consider themselves German.

The perception of royalty in Europe is they are white. That they are cut from the same cloth. That Kate being a commoner was a shocking choice to some. For Harry to choose someone who is visibly black, by that I mean there is clear proof in that her mother is black, is a big change. She isn't the cookie cutter royal bride that many have come to expect. That some historian believes some queen hundreds of years ago had a very distant black ancestor, is not remotely the same impact as a current now a day possible future bride with a mixed race.

I am talking Social Perception, how the media and public view it. And yes, when you have a black mother and a white father, for the public, you are obviously mixed.
  #3874  
Old 11-26-2017, 05:27 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliec76 View Post
I'm at the point where I believe anything could happen. And honestly I'm cool with Meghan and Harry doing whatever works for them and their families. However, the bolded is something I really hope doesn't happen. I think it sends a bad message. It would look like and be spun like their relationship and marriage was something to hide or keep under the radar. I don't think it would help Meghan get off on the right foot with the British public. There are already those dead set against her no matter what. She won't win those over. But there are those willing to give her a chance I believe (naively?) and a secret wedding won't help that.

If they want to have a small, family wedding, maybe even not televised (though I really want to see it), and just release official photos, if that is truly their hearts desire and everyone signs off on it, then they should do that. But at the very least it needs to be announced in advance, so it is seen as a happy, joyful occasion that the family accepts. Anyway, that's just my take on on it.
A small, private wedding would only happen IMHO if it were an unconsented marriage, which is a very unlikely scenario (either there will be a consented marriage or no marriage at all).

Furthermore, when Meghan becomes an HRH, she will have to give up her former life and be a full-time working royal. The only way she and Harry can set a different path for their lives, which is sometimes rumored to be what she wants to do, is if Harry gives up his place in the line of succession and withdraws from the "Firm".
  #3875  
Old 11-26-2017, 05:50 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
This is true, but my understanding is that a divorced person whose ex-spouse is dead can marry in the church by right, unlike a divorced person whose ex-spouse is still alive.



I think the church allowed remarriage after divorce in 2005 as well, but the circumstances of the relationship were problematic under the guidelines they use. (Whereas Harry and Meghan didn't even know each other at the time of her divorce.)
That is obviously what I meant. Even the Catholic Church has no objection to remarrying a divorced man if his first wife is no longer alive. From the church's point of view, he is a widower.
  #3876  
Old 11-26-2017, 09:48 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Absolutely agree

I don't see any reason to believe Meghan would only have one row of people and feel uncomfortable as she has no support there. Of course as a royal, with many expected guests, Harry may have a fuller side. But that would happen with any person who married a royal.

True.
Let's face it, as long as Harry is a working member of the RF, he can't really have a private wedding. Not without a huge outcry!
There will be Government officials, entertainers, representatives of charities, etc. All people who expect acknowledgment for their efforts.


They really won't have any trouble filling the Abbey! (Or any other venue).
  #3877  
Old 11-26-2017, 10:09 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,835
No, Harry will have no trouble filling chapels and abbey’s for his wedding. Although Windsor or Westminster would likely be the place.

Harry and future wife will play a major part in helping shape the future of the monarchy. Which is why the ideas of his future wife continuing to work an outside job while married in a senior position is beyond ridiculous.

Just as the Earl and Countess of Wessex how all that worked out.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #3878  
Old 11-26-2017, 10:38 AM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Good. I don't really want unconventional and hidden away. I want all the bells-and-whistles of a pageant. The fun of it! And with a bride well suited to be fully capable of handling the 'big part'.
I want all the bells and whistles too. It may not be on as large a scale as W & K, but I hope it will be at least on the scale of Edward's and Sophie's. I tend to think it is going to be larger than E & S partly due to the huge public interest. I am not saying that the Royal Family makes their decisions based on the public, but I do think they consider it a little more than they used to. I think the media are just grasping at straws at this point. i could be too One report says they are getting married at St. Paul's and another says the wedding will be unconventional. The media are clueless.
  #3879  
Old 11-26-2017, 10:43 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
According to The Times, royal sources say an engagement isn’t coming ‘anytime soon’.

The Times is a serious newspaper which leads me to believe an announcement isn’t coming until the New Year.
  #3880  
Old 11-26-2017, 12:02 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
This is a dicey area/topic to venture (and on such a fluffy board, but maybe this is exactly the 'gift' that Meghan brings). I'm not sure you 'got' what MaiaMia was saying, given your response here. It's late at night which may be why I am foolhardy enough to venture into these deep waters.

The overarching point is that 'race' as we are using the term in our current times, dates back to the 1500's/1600's (and not before). 'Race' as in denoting skin color at that time (1600's/1700's) became a convenient 'marker' to identify a (purposely designated) subordinate class of human beings separated out for economic reasons (slaves). Slavery prior to the 1600's was not based on skin color, but on warfare. The condition of slavery was a mutable condition not based on color but based on the economics of power.

Prior to the 1600's everyone was 'mixed', using your phrase. It was more issues of tribal identities/religious beliefs/cultural allegiances, not skin color. Every advanced ancient culture was swarthy, in fact. The pale tribes in the north were pretty wild, and when they finally started descending into the narrow belt of what we would term advanced peoples, all those advanced peoples were 'of color'. Everybody was 'mixing', it would not have been an issue as to skin color (what we are calling 'race') but of culture/tribe and then later religion.

Meghan is actually not "someone who is quite visibly, and undeniably, mixed". I would suggest that you only identify her as such based on current biases and your knowledge of her parentage. Meghan is actually the norm. She is what we all are. There is nothing such as 'pure white'. Doesn't exist. Never has, unless one wants to claim a pure line of descent from the wild tribes of the north 2 thousand years ago, but even they came out of the 'swarthy' south (India). Skin color has to do with melanin, geographic location, nothing else.

Our current world's focus on 'race' is distinctly a recent (modern) focus (developed over the last 400 years) emerging out of the 1500/1600 transition into our 'modern' age and economic shift from feudalism to a 'free' economy (that needed a new way of controlling cheap labor).

Just some thoughts, because this 'race thing' is going to keep popping up, and likely needs to be faced. JMO.
Exactly! Well said, and absolutely true! The scientific and biological evidence has always existed, but the myths prevail. Now, in this age of irrefutable advances in DNA technology and increasing uncoveries made via exhaustive historical and anthropological research, many pieces to the puzzle of our planet, of our existence, and of who we are have been coming to light. Unfortunately, many people will obviously continue to keep their heads buried in the sand.
__________________

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
Books on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex eya Royal Library 104 07-19-2021 06:08 PM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree genetics gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:42 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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