Harry and Meghan: Relationship Musings

[sndral]

Regardless of Royal status, The Hague convention would prevent her taking any children back to the US.

I've actually handled Hague Treaty cases in court several times, and the Treaty doesn't 'prevent' a change of domicile. The Treaty simply provides that British law would govern custody/domicile of any children of the couple, assuming they were living in Britain at the time of separation.
The treaty usually comes into play when one parent has taken the children to a different Country without the left behind parent's permission. In those cases the Court of the taking parent's country orders that the children be returned to their original country of habitual residence so that courts in that country can decide with whom and where the child/children will live going forward. This applies in straightforward cases where both countries are signatories to the treaty and the left behind parent's Hague petition makes it to court within 1 year of the taking.
Sorry for the thread drift, but wanted to clarify what the Hague treaty on International Child Abduction actually can/cannot do.
I do not think Harry and Meghan, should they marry, will ever need the lawyers digging into an international treaty regarding children they haven't yet had ?

 

[Countessmeout]

Albert II of Belgium was a spare and both he and his eldest son ended up being kings because King Baudouin didn't have children of his own. That might happen also in Luxembourg if Guillaume and Stéphanie don't have children and the succession ends up passing to Felix and his children. So, although it is highly unlikely that a spare would become monarch nowadays, it is not completely unheard of, even in recent times.

Note I said uncommon. Minimal. Not never or zero. Even before the birth of new baby Cambridge, Harrys necessity in line was vastly minimal at best. The chance for Charlotte is slim but possibly there. But beyond that no.

Last time the heir to the throne didn't succeed the throne was in the case of George V following the death of his older brother in 1892. Though there was doubt Edward viii could have kids, so even if he didn't abdicate, his niece may have followed.

 

[Tianna]

Just my opinion...

I think Harry and Meghan are engaged. I think an announcement will be made by Harry’s birthday in September. I think they will wed somewhere between November and February.

Again, just my opinion.

ITA. I think Harry proposed to Meghan she was in London with her mother.

 

[Pranter]

Note I said uncommon. Minimal. Not never or zero. Even before the birth of new baby Cambridge, Harrys necessity in line was vastly minimal at best. The chance for Charlotte is slim but possibly there. But beyond that no.

Last time the heir to the throne didn't succeed the throne was in the case of George V following the death of his older brother in 1892. Though there was doubt Edward viii could have kids, so even if he didn't abdicate, his niece may have followed.

I think there were rumors he had at least 1 illegitimate child.


LaRae

 

[duchessrachel]

How were BF/GF gradually introduced to the public before getting engaged? Gradually because they mostly dated for many years?

Living together before marriage is not a necessity--commitment to your spouse and life together is the necessity.

If Harry and Meghan have spent their times together wisely, (and since they are not hitting the nightclub scene, I'd say they may be) they are finding out about each other and their commitment to each other, and the possibility of building a life together.

And BTW--there are cell phones and skype nowadays for the times apart.

I agree. I think the fact that the times they are together seem to be actually time spent together instead of out in public, they are probably getting to know each other better than people who have dated for years but have spent a lot of their time together on the nightclub circuit and out in public. Amen, about the not living together

My main concern is Meghan getting fed up of not being able to voice her strong minded opinions and finding it difficult with all the restricting protocol both in public and in private during family gatherings. This isn't just about dealing with the media.

I do agree that not being able to express her opinions publicly are something she has to consider. Hopefully, by spending time together she will learn if she loves him enough to make those sacrifices, because it will be her making more sacrifices than him. I also agree that there is really no huge rush on the children issue either. My husband has a cousin who did not get married until she was 40 and had a child at 42 and then one at 44. I don't agree, however, that she is not "suitable" for the Royal Family given the baggage the BRF have accumulated, and not just since the 80's. But I do respect your right to your opinion and your freedom to express it. All of our different opinions is what makes for good discussion.

Of course another two children to the Cambridge's and HM won't have to give consent anyway - so Kate, Harry needs you to have twins asap ??

I had that same thought about the consent issue but, somehow,I think he would still seek the Queen's approval out of love and respect for her, and I believe that she would give it.

 

[Pranter]

It's not like she's (previously) been out every day off with a bullhorn spouting her viewpoints. Everyone self censors due to jobs, family etc.


LaRae

 

[Mirabel]

I hope that, if they do get married, it's a royal wedding at the Abbey or St. Paul's, and not something low-key at Windsor.

I want the works! (Not that the RF cares what I want).

 

[Cocoasneeze]

It's not like she's (previously) been out every day off with a bullhorn spouting her viewpoints. Everyone self censors due to jobs, family etc.


LaRae

Didn't she tweet one tweet about the last US election, but other than that, she hasn't been loud about politics.
It seemed to be no issue for her to shut down The Tig, walk away from her Reitmans deal. I don't really think not voicing her opinion about politics in public is a big issue for her.

 

[Mbruno]

The "first six in line" cutoff is a rule that was put forward by the politicians when the Succession to the Crown Act was passed. Whether consent is legally required or not, I can't imagine Harry getting married without the Queen's and , incidentally, the PoW's consent, so IMHO it doesn't really matter in practice if Harry is 6th or 7th in line.

Having said that, I still think it is unlikely the Cambridges will have more than 3 children and Harry will move up again in the order of succession when Charles is king, so he is probably going to stay within the first six in line anyway.

I hope that, if they do get married, it's a royal wedding at the Abbey or St. Paul's, and not something low-key at Windsor.

I want the works! (Not that the RF cares what I want.

As I said before, I'm pretty sure the wedding will be televised, but it will be more like Edward's wedding than William's , which is OK and makes more sense.

 

[Pranter]

Didn't she tweet one tweet about the last US election, but other than that, she hasn't been loud about politics.
It seemed to be no issue for her to shut down The Tig, walk away from her Reitmans deal. I don't really think not voicing her opinion about politics in public is a big issue for her.

Yeah...she really hasn't, IMO, been what I consider politically active when you compare her to other known figures.

IIRC she has done interviews in the past about her desire for a family and willingness to give up acting or a realization they might not go together. To me it seems that yes if she's asked about political issues she has been willing to talk about them...but past that she's not the type to push herself forward about it.


LaRae

I hope that, if they do get married, it's a royal wedding at the Abbey or St. Paul's, and not something low-key at Windsor.

I want the works! (Not that the RF cares what I want).

I have said before here it wouldn't surprise me if they keep it lower key due to her past marriage and the fact they want to be more private about their lives...however by the same token, because of who he is I can also see them having a wedding in London but not on the scale of Williams.

Myself I think it would be funny if they decided to do something like Pippa did ...no media allowed in, only pics gotten as they enter/leave the Church etc. Although I don't think this is likely ...the security would be a nightmare for a small Church/rural setting.


LaRae

 

[O-H Anglophile]

The Queen's 70th (I think that's the one) wedding anniversary is in November...I think they are having a big party....so not sure they'd do anything then.


LaRae

I think even for a smallish wedding, for a royal wedding they would need more than 2 months to plan it.

 

[Mirabel]

As I said before, I'm pretty sure the wedding will be televised, but it will be more like Edward's wedding than William's , which is OK and makes more sense.

I hope not!
What's the point of having a royal wedding if you miss out on all the pomp and circumstance?

Besides, tourism will increase.

 

[Pranter]

I think even for a smallish wedding, for a royal wedding they would need more than 2 months to plan it.

If they announce in Dec/Jan they can easily have it in March/May


LaRae

 

[xenobia]

If they announce in Dec/Jan they can easily have it in March/May

LaRae

Yes, but I think that Harry would want both Kate and William to be able to attend his wedding. That rules out anything near the birth date (I guess april) for baby Cambridge. I would say june, at the earliest.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

March 30 and 31 are out--that is Friday/Saturday of Easter weekend in 2018.

 

[soapstar]

The discussion about the engagement ring/jewelry Harry might give to Meghan, has been moved to the 'Tiaras and Jewels for Prince Harry's future wife' thread. Please take any further discussion there.

 

[duchessrachel]

I hope that, if they do get married, it's a royal wedding at the Abbey or St. Paul's, and not something low-key at Windsor.

I want the works! (Not that the RF cares what I want).

Same here.

 

[Pranter]

Yes, but I think that Harry would want both Kate and William to be able to attend his wedding. That rules out anything near the birth date (I guess april) for baby Cambridge. I would say june, at the earliest.

There's not any reason Kate couldn't attend a wedding in March or even May if her due date is April (which is a guess at this point).


LaRae

 

[cepe]

There's not any reason Kate couldn't attend a wedding in March or even May if her due date is April (which is a guess at this point).


LaRae

Wont be March because it is Lent - Easter is 1st April

 

[Pranter]

Wont be March because it is Lent - Easter is 1st April

Are the BRF into observing a Lenten calendar?



LaRae

 

[cepe]

Are the BRF into observing a Lenten calendar?



LaRae

I think the Queen does - and they would marry in one of her churches.

I could see them getting married the following week. Children off school, people on holiday. So Tuesday 3rd onwards.

 

[Dman]

Royal weddings can take place at anytime. The royals are known to move other planned events around ahead of time if they need to.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Royal weddings can take place at anytime. The royals are known to move other planned events around ahead of time if they need to.

Some things can be moved--others like the birth of Baby Cambridge #3 and Easter cannot.

Are the BRF into observing a Lenten calendar?



LaRae

And the churches observe the Lenten calendar and on certain days during Lent weddings are not performed, and on some other days have to be very low key.

 

[Dman]

Some things can be moved--others like the birth of Baby Cambridge #3 and Easter cannot.

No, but it can be done around those times.

Royal weddings are planned very far in advance and so are scheduled engagements. Engagements are moved around to accommodate weddings.

 

[duchessrachel]

The Queen's 70th (I think that's the one) wedding anniversary is in November...I think they are having a big party....so not sure they'd do anything then.


LaRae

It would be nice the Queen's party to be public and to see some tiaras, but I doubt that will happen.

 

[Pranter]

And the churches observe the Lenten calendar and on certain days during Lent weddings are not performed, and on some other days have to be very low key.

Being Catholic I understand about Lent ...I just wasn't aware (hadn't noticed) the BRF really observing Lenten practices although those (in the CoE) may differ from what the Catholic Church has.


LaRae

It would be nice the Queen's party to be public and to see some tiaras, but I doubt that will happen.

I would imagine the most we'll see is guests coming to or leaving the event. If it's very formal..might see tiaras in transit!


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

I suspect all we will see will be a church service at the Abbey as they did for the 40th, 50th and 60th wedding anniversaries and maybe a lunch at the Guildhall.

I very much doubt there would be a tiara event for such an occasion. That isn't the British way anymore.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

When does restoration work begin on Buckingham Palace? Might that affect a wedding or even other events being scheduled in London and make Windsor a more likely location?

 

[Dman]

When does restoration work begin on Buckingham Palace? Might that affect a wedding or even other events being scheduled in London and make Windsor a more likely location?

I've always thought Windsor is the best place for weddings. Especially for Harry's position. We don't see enough of St. George's Chapel too.

Yes, the restorations at Buckingham Palace do make Windsor the best location.

 

[jacqui24]

Honestly, the only thing I'd be bummed about if the wedding is at Windsor is we won't have a balcony kiss.