Harry and Meghan: Relationship Musings

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Abbigail

Well to be clear, I wasn't saying there was anything particularly unique about being American. But it's been 80 years since a senior member of the BRF married an American and this time, such a union wouldn't require abdication so I'd say this is pretty unique, especially with Meghan being mixed race.

Well, I guess the only other countries that have had more than one of their nationals being married to a senior BRF member in the last 100 years would be Denmark (queen Alexandra and the duchess of Gloucester) and Greece (princess Marina and the duke of Edinburgh); all other countries had none or only one (depending on how you define senior BRF member). So, it is indeed quite unique in that it will be the third country providing a second BRF member within the last century...

And as others stated; abdication had little too do with her being American. Furthermore, you keep bringing up her being mixed-race, but that is probably more of an American issue than a British (or European) one.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I get that it is special from an American point of view (although I don't see a lot of fiplomatic consequences; if anything it might slightly strengthen the bonds); just as it is special for the Australians that 'one of their own' married the future king of Denmark and for the Argentinians that the Netherlands has an 'Argentinian' queen. I do not see why it would be that special from a British point of view.

And yes, the British royal family is very well known all over the world, so that makes it a little different, but I don't see the Greeks (or the rest of the world) fuzzing over the queen's husband being a former Greek prince... (although I am sure there was some fuzz at that time; his sisters being married to Germans was probably more of a concern).

The Greeks that ousted him and his family when he was a baby? Yes, I could see how they didn't care much for it. And America is very different than Argentina since the public opinion here counts in government. In fact, that was actually a thorny issue when Maxima got married. Her own father wasn't invited to the wedding because his ties to the government. And I wouldn't compare ties with US to ties with Australian in the same way that BRF is different than continental royals. In terms of a world super power, US still dominates. And I agree that issues shouldn't be relied singularly on this, but there is a reason why soft diplomacy matters. It can make things easier.

Additionally, Australia is still a commonwealth, so royalty isn't as intriguing from them as it is for the Americans. So no, Mary marrying into the Denmark royal family wasn't as big of a deal, although I'm sure it was still a happy occasion for the Australians. Though, Mary marrying the Crown Prince did mean she got the best and grandest of everything (except for her wedding tiara being smaller, but she was given us of the Ruby parure), so that wasn't an issue. Of course, Denmark also didn't have a Brexit situation where soft diplomacy is being emphasized.

ETA, I have a feeling if this veers off Meghan and Harry anymore, the mods will close the thread and start deleting again. So let's go back to Meghan and Harry.

[Abbigail]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Yes. The media will report on the wedding. Additionally, the reporting will include how times have changed since the last American married a member of the BRF. How the royals have modernized and so on. It'll be made into a great romance story in the media.

And I love a great romance story, as do any others. It's partly the reason many Americans were interested in Will and Kate's wedding. I imagine the interest in Harry and Meghan will be even greater.

Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY

So being Diana's son doesn't give him a bigger wedding. Nor does his popularity or a marriage to an American. And William's (78%) positive ratings is still higher than Harry's (77%).

Well first of all, I wasn't suggesting that any of these things will give him a bigger wedding. I'm saying that, together, they present a unique situation that will likely factor into where he marries. Secondly, those percentages just prove my point. Harry is as popular as William (sorry but a one percent difference isn't much of a difference at all and globally, I'd say Harry is probably the more popular royal). I'm not getting into Diana's popularity while she was alive. Point is, she is a beloved figure now, with many wanting to see a happy ending for her sons and that's what matters.

Originally Posted by Somebody

And as others stated; abdication had little too do with her being American. Furtermore, you keep bringing up her being mixed-race, but that is probably more of an American issue than a British (or European) one.

That wasn't really my point. I was merely highlighting why Harry/Meghan would be unique, even more so than the previous American/British union involving a member of the BRF.

And Meghan being mixed-race is hardly an American issue. The British tabloids found it so noteworthy that they created a number of stories based solely on her "interesting" ancestry, most of which were offensive.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Abbigail

And Meghan being mixed-race is hardly an American issue. The British tabloids found it so noteworthy that they created a number of stories based solely on her "interesting" ancestry, most of which were offensive.

Yes, in fact it was so offensive that Harry specifically mentioned the racial undertones of comment pieces in his November statement.

[Abbigail]

^^Yes. I meant to point that out. Thank you.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Well, I guess the only other countries that have had more than one of their nationals being married to a senior BRF member in the last 100 years would be Denmark (queen Alexandra and the duchess of Gloucester) and Greece (princess Marina and the duke of Edinburgh); all other countries had none or only one (depending on how you define senior BRF member). So, it is indeed quite unique in that it will be the third country providing a second BRF member within the last century...

And as others stated; abdication had little too do with her being American. Furthermore, you keep bringing up her being mixed-race, but that is probably more of an American issue than a British (or European) one.

It's not an American issue anymore than it's a African issue or an English issue or an South American issue. A very small segment of the people in the world care about race. It's unfortunate but prejudices in many forms exists and always will.



LaRae

[Somebody]

Happy to agree to disagree on how important and unique this potential marriage would be. Every marriage is unique in it's own way and any marriage within the British royal family (of Harry's level as the son and brother of future kings) would attract a lot of attention worldwide independent of whom the bride is. In the case of an American bride, especially the American press will even more involved compared to Harry marrying someone from another country.

Of course, the public opinion also counts in other countries, that is not a unique feature of the States. I don't think anyone would argue that soft diplomacy isn't important, and yes the States is a world power (currently in a lot of turmoil) and the UK is in a rather difficult position with the upcoming Brexit, but that doesn't mean that other international royal marriage have not also had an impact on the relation between the country of origin of the bride and her future country. Hopefully, Harry and Meghan don't feel the weight of the whole USA-UK relation on their shoulders!

And yes, unfortunately, some of the press is making a huge issue of Meghan being mixed-race, but I would hope we wouldn't make that into something special - it should be the norm that someone's racial background is not taken into consideration (although I can see why it could be encouraging to some just as it might also have been encouraging for some of the Maori to see a fellow-Maori marry into the royal family of New Zealand - they also have their own indigenous royal family).

[Pranter]

Why should Harry and Meghan feel the weight of international relations? He's not the King and barring a horrible tragedy never will be. There's no reason to make this into something more than it is.




LaRae

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Pranter

It's not an American issue anymore than it's a African issue or an English issue or an South American issue. A very small segment of the people in the world care about race. It's unfortunate but prejudices in many forms exists and always will.

LaRae

I fully agree that the issue of race is something that unfortunately can be found all over the world. The way it expresses itself, however, differs. I was speaking from my personal experience living in the States for several years compared to living in Europe and noticing a clear difference in 'sensitivity' and 'prominence' of the topic. Unfortunately, each society/country has it's own (combination of) issues to deal with may it be race, gender, class, or religion.

I am happy to see that it so far has shown not to be an issue for the British royal family nor for other royal families, both in the (recent) past and present.

(sorry, will get back on topic, just wanted to clarify that my intention was not to present it as an 'American only issue' as I realized that I might have come across in that way. So, LaRae, thanks for your correction )

[Osipi]

In a world that has issues all over the globe and terrible things popping up where you least expect them and divisiveness rampant in all kinds of areas all over the globe, Harry and Meghan's wedding just may be a day where we all stop, look in on these two people who individually work to make our world a better place join together making a vow to love, honor and cherish each other. If we can do that for a few hours on one day, it gives hope that we can do it for longer periods of time and make changes ourselves.

The British royal family is the symbol of tradition, continuity and the example of people doing their best to serve their people. They preserve the past while giving hope for the future. They leave the politics and the issues to the people in government and represent all their people not just some. With this in mind, it sets an example and sends a message to the world at large that it can be done. Embracing Meghan and welcoming her warmly into their family could send the message also that they represent a nation that embraces *all* people. It really enhances them rather than takes away from them.

In all the books I've been reading lately on the Queen, The Queen Mother and others, one thing is stressed just as much as the importance of duty and that is to do the right thing. This is what I'll see if and when I see Harry and Meghan standing together at the altar exchanging their vows. I hope everyone else does too.

(jumps off her soapbox, trips and lands on a corgi, apologizes profusely to the animal and limps away)

[M. Payton]

Not sure what to make of this thread.....and how does American politics and ceo's have to do with Harry and Meghan being in love or how big another wedding is or who has mixed blood and heck forget it.........going down again ........

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Why should Harry and Meghan feel the weight of international relations? He's not the King and barring a horrible tragedy never will be. There's no reason to make this into something more than it is.

LaRae

Indeed, no need at all for him (or them) to feel that way! I hope they are just enjoying what they share together and if they would marry that they would use their positions for the 'good' of the British people, the people of the Commonwealth nations, and others that they identify that could use their advocacy!

[CrownPrincessJava]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Additionally, Australia is still a commonwealth, so royalty isn't as intriguing from them as it is for the Americans. So no, Mary marrying into the Denmark royal family wasn't as big of a deal, although I'm sure it was still a happy occasion for the Australians. Though, Mary marrying the Crown Prince did mean she got the best and grandest of everything (except for her wedding tiara being smaller, but she was given us of the Ruby parure), so that wasn't an issue. Of course, Denmark also didn't have a Brexit situation where soft diplomacy is being emphasized.

Australia is part of the Commonwealth, meaning we have had the Kings/Queens of England as our head of state since 1788.

Secondly, as an Australian, I vividly remember how much of a big deal that the future Queen Consort of Denmark is an Australian. From the moment of their engagement was announced, to the present day, Crown Princess Mary is very much a big deal in Australia. The wedding of Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark and the former Mary Donaldson was televised live in Australia. We also had their pre-wedding documentaries 24 hours after they were aired in Denmark. Their wedding was featured in the Australian Women's Weekly. A few months after her wedding, CP Mary featured on Vogue Australia and was interviewed by an Australian (a very very respected and well known) journalist for his show. In the years after becoming Crown Princess, Mary has continued being interviewed for many Australian publications, and is an international patron of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation. So just being a "happy" occasion is putting it mildly.

Believe me when I say Australians do have a very big interest in royalty.

Back on topic - I read the Vogue interview Meghan featured. She was wonderful. She was poised, mature and was not "scandalous" in her statements regarding her relationship with Prince Harry. She will be a great asset to the BRF.

[MaiaMia_53]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...2017-remoaners

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-family-racism

I hadn't heard about this new Queen Victoria movie, nor anything about her East Indian companion during her later years. Interesting the parallels and connections made by the writer to H&M's relationship. Wow, what poor treatment was done to QV's companion by King Edward VII after QV's death.

I see the article also mentions Queen Charlotte's mother's Moorish background. Even if Charlotte's mother's background was Mozarab/ Iberian Christian, doesn't mean there wasn't any Moorish (African) in her background. All the bending over backward our human culture has done for far too long to neatly define, categorize and separate human beings is hysterical and tragic.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yNcR2MGtln...ecklenburg.jpg

[Denville]

Generally speaking for some time the senrior British RF has not married outside the UK. Philip had been a Greek prince, but he had lived in England for a logn time and was a British citizen. he had served in the RN. And he was royal and a cousin of Eliz's so he knew the score about marrying another royal and about the UK and the BRF.
Some very minor royals have married foreigners but they are not public figures so it does nt matter what they do.
For a senior royal like Harry to marry an American, will be a first and unusaul. I think it may be less popular in the UK as an idea than in the US.

[Queen E]

I think the recent Camilla Tominey article is interesting. According to this Meghan did not have copy approval before the Vanity Fair publication. It also has Meghan's friend expressing disappointment that VF didn't focus enough on her as a person. The friend then goes on to do a better job of explaining who Meghan is & her achievements! I also read another interview where Meghan's good friend Priyanka Chopra also commented on the VF article and this is what she said:

"I don't know if I will get into trouble for this, but I have an opinion. I mean she's on the cover of Vanity Fair. It would have been nice to write about her not just her boyfriend. I'm just saying. I mean, she's an actor, she's an activist, she's a philanthropist. I mean, she does so much more."

If Meghan's friends are now expressing disappointment with the tone of the VF article it makes me wonder if Meghan feels the same way too. I'm also surprised that KP or Meghan's people did not exercise more clout over this. It is not unheard of for celebrities to agree on the content before an article is published & they should have been savvy enough to know how the media operates. Having followed Meghan's career closely I've been saying that I don't think this VF article does a very good job introducing her to the wider public. I have read far better interviews that Meghan has given. I just hope going forward if she does give anymore interviews that they take better ownership over the content.

[Denville]

well she aint very smart by the sound of it. This article is not going to make people in the UK take to her if they haven't already. Perhaps she did it with Palace approval to introduce herself to the Brtisih world but I think it has if not exactly backfired, not done her that much good. The RF would IMO have been better to stick to the old style "wait till they're engaged and then they can speak to the Press."

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Denville

well she aint very smart by the sound of it. This article is not going to make people in the UK take to her if they haven't already. Perhaps she did it with Palace approval to introduce herself to the Brtisih world but I think it has if not exactly backfired, not done her that much good. The RF would IMO have been better to stick to the old style "wait till they're engaged and then they can speak to the Press."

Two things about this.

1. It's becoming increasingly obvious that Meghan will have her own voice regardless. Not just the Palace's voice.
2. She does still have a job. Part of that job does require media promotion. To pretend like she's not dating Harry, or that's not part of people's interest is stupid and unrealistic. That doesn't mean I think she should start talking to anyone who will listen about it. But the harm of saying what she said is minimal. She didn't say anything that wasn't already a given nor did she say anything that the media hasn't already reported on. If the media choose to freak out, that's their choice. Her life goes on as do ours. Besides, this hardly will be the last media onslaught if she marries Harry. There will always be criticism whatever she does or doesn't do, best to do what she feels is right within bounds.

[Osipi]

One thing keeps standing out for me in all of this. The reality of this relationship is that the British are only half of the equation in this case. Not everything is geared to how the BRF does things. Not everything is geared towards the British public. Not everything is dependent on the BRF itself. It is a major part of the equation but not all of it.

I do agree that if and when Meghan does marry Harry, its his lifestyle and his family that she is going to mostly have to adapt to and merge into as she's not only marrying Harry but marrying into his family but for right now, they're two separate individuals with their own personalities and interests and people who follow them.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY

1. I didn't write that Edward or his 1999 wedding was the reason why Harry was going to have a smaller wedding. I wrote: I think we'll see much of the same as we saw for Edward in 1999, A Televised Royal Wedding at St George's Chapel with a carriage procession in Windsor.

Oh, I hope not!
I really think a wedding at St. George's is rather dreary, compared to the Abbey.
Besides, circumstances are different for Edward and Harry!

Edward was more obscure; he has never had Harry's high profile, or his popularity. Plus, Edward and Sophie had been together so long that the actual wedding was a bit of an anti-climax.

I just think there's far more interest in Harry and Meghan.
He doesn't have to have a wedding that is smaller than William's.
But why NOT a similar wedding?