Harry and Meghan: Relationship Musings

[O-H Anglophile]

Now we have to give them some credit--she did graduate from a Catholic high school.

[Osipi]

Yeps.. and often enough went from a Catholic school to sit in on the set of Married with Children which was a pretty controversial show when she was growing up. Her dad worked on the lighting crew for that show.

But.... this thread ain't about Meghan and we're getting off track here.

[Curryong]

What I had a good laugh about in this article, apart from it all being speculation, is the Fail saying that the couple won't be allowed to marry in Westminster Abbey because of Meghan being 'a divorcee and a Catholic'. Only a few weeks ago an Abbey spokesman said the exact opposite!

[Osipi]

I'm still waiting for the "scoop" that they'll be married in Vegas by an Elvis impersonator.

We need the Harry and Meghan thread opened again.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Now we have to give them some credit--she did graduate from a Catholic high school.

No credit for such shoddy work!


LaRae

[Elektra]

Niraj Tanna‏ @IkonPictures

Most articles on Harry and Meghan suggest engagement is soon. I think they should reword to engagement announcement…

https://twitter.com/IkonPictures/sta...77927014125569

[Zonk]

A brief clean up and we are back up and running.

Here's the deal folks...this is a discussion board regarding royalty and as such we expect a wide array of opinions...both positive and negative.

But guess what...the negatives should be YOUR own opinion, there is no need to bring the negatives opinion from anyplace else [other royalty forums, your sister's best friend cousin or a newspaper comments]. We got enough right here at TRF to go around.

So let's stay focused.

Please?

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by Elektra

https://twitter.com/IkonPictures/sta...77927014125569

Yes, this seems accurate to me.

[angieuk]

How Meghan will appear with Harry 'ahead of engagement' | Daily Mail Online

If true about Westminster Abbey; St George's Chapel will likely be the only option.

Which is rather a shame, as there will be no balcony appearance or carriage drive through the London streets. And of course Windsor will only hold limited number of people, so no thrill of the large London crowds. The bride leaving Clarence House in the Glass Coach, I expect for St George's it will be a Car.

I always felt let down when Sophie and Edward made their short carriage drive around Windsor; it just felt so grey and dismal.

I thought the best bit of Sophia and Carl Philip's wedding, was their long drive around Stockholm, and the cheering crowds.

I still can't see why it can't be Westminster Abbey?

Maybe Harry has no problem with St George's, but I'm sure he would also have loved the Abbey.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Osipi

It would be an issue to schedule the wedding before Kate gives birth if this was Victorian times and "Ladies of Quality" went into confinement because of their "delicate condition". But, seeing as its the 21st century and being pregnant in public is a beautiful thing disregarding some cases where ghastly, tacky displays of baby bumps happen to flash across my screen.


With Kate's announcement of her pregnancy, its quite easy to not schedule a wedding during the "ground zero dates". That is pretty much a given.

I'm sure that given Kate's having problems wit her pregnancies they will schedule the wedding either well before or well after her due date. I doubt if she would want to be there if she is 8 1/2 months gone...

[Curryong]

The 'No Westminster Abbey option' is some assumption of the Daily Fail's. In fact it directly contradicts what an Abbey spokesman said only weeks ago, ie that there is no bar to divorcees and Roman Catholics marrying there.

[Cocoasneeze]

^That makes perfect sense. There was previously a post saying, that they won't announce their engagement until after the Cambridge baby is born, and to me, I don't get why, THAT didn't make any sense.

Didn't Westminster Abbey give out a statement, that they could marry there? A quick Google search brings up a Daily Fail article from 17 May, 2017 stating this. Hilarious, how DF can't keep up and manage get anything right.

[Yashal]

St George's Chapel is a really beautiful place and it's full of history. Many royals got married there, inlcuding most of Queen Victoria's children and the future Gustav VI Adolf of Sweden! I really wouldn't mind it being the set of yet another royal wedding.

[wyevale]

Does it not occur to people that the Prince may prefer to marry in a place not associated with the Funeral of his Mother ?

[Curryong]

I suppose one could say the same about William, yet he did so. Both sons have attended ceremonies at the Abbey countless times since their mother's death.

[MaiaMia_53]

Well, quite a lot is going on in the media and in this thread after the Meghan VF cover story hit. I'm still trying to catch up with as much that's worth catching up with.

Here are some very interesting recent takes, especially from Camilla Tominey:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...-interview/amp

The Tominey article is obviously well-sourced from Palace insiders in order to set the record straight about the VF interview: Meghan did not say much about the relationship despite the fact that VF highlighted her comments regarding Harry who she never mentioned by name. Apparently, the actual content of the interview was 80% about her career, including her acting work on Suits, as well as her humanitarian work with the U.N., which VF fairly glossed over in order to obsess over M&H's relationship. I would have thought that Meghan would have had pre-publication approval, but most magazines do not tend to offer that to people they profile. Tominey says that it's believed Meghan did not see the text prior to the article's publication and she had nothing to do with the cliche headline either (which is not a surprise).

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry: How times have changed for forbidden royal loves | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

The above is nothing new, just another take on pearl-clutching about the 'divorce' issue when what they are really hinting at is something else when they say "times have changed for forbidden royal loves." IMO, it certainly is a good thing that times have changed so that people's lives don't have to be ruined by being forced not to marry someone they are deeply in love with.

Meghan's minimal make-up for the VF shoot was done by Diana's former make-up artist, Mary Greenwell. Here's an old article on the work Greenwell did for the Princess of Wales:
https://www.bustle.com/articles/3546...beauty-secrets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiXFy27hAd4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--LIX174it4

[Curryong]

Ah, the old blue eyeliner, I remember it so well. Not that I've ever worn much makeup. And I think Meghan's natural look, freckles and all, looked fabulous.

[wyevale]

Yes, but they are individuals, who may differ in this respect. William was older at the time of the funeral, and his life will necessarily be more bound up with the Abbey.. not least his own Coronation !

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by xenobia

I simply assume that H&M would want Kate to be there on their wedding day. If it's to close to the due date, she might not be able to attend. If they were really unlucky, William wouldn't be there either (if the child is born the same day).

Wasn't Prince Nicolas of Sweden born only a few days after CP's and Sofia's wedding ? Princess Madeleine attended the wedding ceremony though.

[MaiaMia_53]

Here's an interesting upbeat take by Angela Mollard of the Daily Telegraph.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ren...b5a8b2b1d90070

However, I wonder whether Mollard's comment that Harry "fell for Meghan last June as she told him about her trip to Rwanda campaigning for clean water" is an insider-sourced revelation, or just a fanciful speculation. I'm also confused by the quote in VF attributed to Meghan that indicates she and Harry 'met in July and dated quietly for about six months.' If it was six months that they dated quietly, they would have met in May, based on the math.

Mollard's 'fairytale destroyer' characterization is interesting, especially contrasted with an earlier post here observing that the VF styling and photographs suggest a new age 'Cinderella' with a twist (though I think 'destroyer' is a bit excessive choice of words). Whichever way those of goodwill look at the relationship, it's definitely a fresh and exciting romance that diverges from ho-hum run-of-the-mill. Like Meghan, I think everyone enjoys a delightful and engaging love story, especially between two attractive, grounded, charming and caring young people.

Mollard:
"The modern monarchy has to stand for something other than castles and crowns — something Markle appears to appreciate more than most. As she has said: 'Who you are as a person will only be amplified once you are ‘famous’ so if you had a good heart, then I would imagine you’ll have the same good heart but the means to do even more with it.'"