Harry and Meghan: Wedding Suggestions and Musings

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by wyevale

Quite, but [i've noticed] Ms being used increasingly for young unmarried Women, whilst 'Miss' is now usually employed in relation to pre-teenage girls.

Yes changing customs right before our eyes.



LaRae

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by ladongas

Here’s something new:

“Ms Meghan Markle” instead of “Miss”....Is Ms in wide use in the UK?

As she was married before she is no longer considered a 'miss' (I assume Camilla wasn't addressed as miss on their wedding invite either). The palace has been very consistent in using 'ms' instead of 'miss' for Meghan while Catherine was 'miss Catherine Middleton'.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by PetticoatLane

I had never heard of a 'groom's cake' until this very evening reading this thread. Surely both bride and groom pick the cake? Having multiple layers of different cakes is entirely the norm in the UK nowadays.

The problem with just saying carte blanche "it's their wedding let them do what they like" or "Meghan's American so she doesn't have to follow age-old British traditions" is that the Great British taxpayer is subsiding this wedding to the tune of millions of £ and will likely continue to subsidise their lifestyles, directly or indirectly, for decades to come.

Please God at the very least may they not write their own wedding vows as seems to happen in almost every wedding in American TV shows and films. It is excruciatingly awkward and tacky. I always die a little bit inside from second hand embarrassment.

AFAIK British taxpayers' money helps supplement only security costs for the wedding. The Queen and Prince Charles are paying for the wedding. Meghan is paying for the honeymoon and probably footing some of the costs of her gown, unless Harry is using his money to pay for the gown (more than likely). It's rather laughable the way some seem to feel they should have a say and the last word in the choices Harry and Meghan are making for their wedding.

[evolvingdoors]

Ms has in fact become very popular to use by anyone under 40 (I even know some older women who use it).
I am in my early 30’s, never been married, and I use Ms. because I view the use of miss and mrs. as a way to differentiate between married and unmarried woman idiotic and anti women freedom. Socially it was a way of chaining women to a specific social construct based solely on whether she is married or not.
I mean, men don’t change their title once they get married, they remain Mr.
Hence “Ms.” being used more and more by (mostly younger generations - i’d say x gen and above) married and unmarried women.

I always correct anyone who calls me miss, depending on my mood I may add a bit of a lesson about the wrongness or using miss or mrs when addressing women in today modern society.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

Ms has in fact become very popular to use by anyone under 40 (I even know some older women who use it).
I am in my early 30’s, never been married, and I use Ms. because I view the use of miss and mrs. as a way to differentiate between married and unmarried woman idiotic and anti women freedom. Socially it was a way of chaining women to a specific social construct based solely on whether she is married or not.
I mean, men don’t change their title once they get married, they remain Mr.
Hence “Ms.” being used more and more by (mostly younger generations - i’d say x gen and above) married and unmarried women.

I always correct anyone who calls me miss, depending on my mood I may add a bit of a lesson about the wrongness or using miss or mrs when addressing women in today modern society.

I am sure there are many who think like you. However, a royal wedding invite is quite traditional... So, for a not previously married woman it would have been 'miss'.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I am sure there are many who think like you. However, a royal wedding invite is quite traditional... So, for a not previously married woman it would have been 'miss'.

So because Meghan was previously married, the preferred form is 'Ms' because she's not a spinster?

ETA:
We can now go to the web page on the official royal family website for royal wedding news:

https://www.royal.uk/royalwedding

It includes all the details, plus at the bottom, a look back on the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.

[Jacknch]

A large number of posts have been deleted or edited as they were off-topic or added nothing to the conversation.

Please be reminded that in order to avoid exacerbating the issue of a thread going off-topic, members should report any problem to the Moderating team either by PM or using the report button rather than requesting assistance in the thread.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Oh duh..wasn't even thinking about the evening...I love it that the evening event will be at Frogmore.

Ok so the layout at Frogmore seemed rather tight to me when I saw pics...are there big rooms for a party?


LaRae

Peter and Autumn had their reception at Frogmore house. They had 300 guests at their wedding. As they only had the one reception, I assume all the guests were there. . If their evening party is like William/Kate there will be a cocktail hour and dinner, followed by a big night party. It seems Peter and Philip had the sit down dinner in a tent, and used the indoors for the cocktail hour and dancing.

https://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l...eino4_1280.jpg
https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/220817187956521117/
https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/535717318147678607/


600 guests, so they didn't go full capacity. Definitely best they didn't use WA or it would be more then half empty. I like the invitations were sent out by his father not by the queen, seems more personal, and used Meghan not Rachel.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

600 guests, so they didn't go full capacity. Definitely best they didn't use WA or it would be more then half empty. I like the invitations were sent out by his father not by the queen, seems more personal, and used Meghan not Rachel. I do find it odd that only his parents were included in the invitation, even if her family isn't helping pay for it. Traditionally it always seems both couples would be mentioned.

I think they didn't use her full name because they didn't use Harry's full name, only his title and first name. Same as William & Kate's.

Kate's parents were not mentioned on that invitation, so I'm not surprised Meghan's parents are not mentioned.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Seems odd for the invitations to go out in The Queen’s names for William only to send the invitations out in The Queen’s name for Harry.

Hmm let's think a little bit, what is the difference between William and Harry, and how can that difference affect this situation?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

I think they didn't use her full name because they didn't use Harry's full name, only his title and first name. Same as William & Kate's.

.

.

But her first name iIs Rachel, not Meghan. By your logic, she should have been named Rachel Markle on the invitation.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I am sure there are many who think like you. However, a royal wedding invite is quite traditional... So, for a not previously married woman it would have been 'miss'.

Frankly, I always find it a bit weird to use Miss for adult women. It just seems quite childish. And if everything has to be so traditional, their full names would’ve been used instead they used what they are known by.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Frankly, I always find it a bit weird to use Miss for adult women. It just seems quite childish. And if everything has to be so traditional, their full names would’ve been used instead they used what they are known by.

I agree. I am a 36 year old single woman, it feels bizarre to be called Miss still. Traditionally Ms was a divorced woman (Meghan) or a woman who didn't take her husband's title. Now a days many women, adults with careers and lives of their own, feel Ms as the more appropriate term for a grown woman. Though I am happy for anything but when I get called 'Mam'. Nothing makes me feel older then when I get that.

I think they didn't use her full name because they didn't use Harry's full name, only his title and first name. Same as William & Kate's.

Yes, and Meghan's first name is Rachel. If they were going to go full formal, it would have been Prince Henry and Ms Rachel Markle. Kate has never been known by her middle name. It seems having the invitation sent by Charles and not the queen, and simple touches like the names used, little less formal.

[Rudolph]

600 quests nice capacity. The Cambridges had over 3 times as many

[Curryong]

Yes, at least half of whom they didn't know.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Yes, at least half of whom they didn't know.

Definite upside to a non-semi state wedding, you don't have to invite hundreds of politicians, religious figures and even foreign royals you don't know to your wedding. Sure there are some 'dad invites', as with many weddings, sure Charles had some names to put in. But most will be their family, friends and some people they have worked with (charity work, military, acting).

[Molly2101]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Yes that's what I think the difference is. William's wedding was a semi-state event from what I understand because he is a future heir so the Queen was very involved ..remember too William talking about how he went to the Queen when he was given a list of people he had to invite and she said no tear it up invite who you want etc.

I wonder...when Edward and Andrew got married how were their invitations worded?


LaRae

Edward’s read something like “the Lord Chamberlain is commanded by the Queen” etc but his simply said “Edward to Sophie”. His actual title wasn’t even used out of his own preference I believe. They wanted things to be extra casual.

[Curryong]

My eyes are so poor that I can't read it, but at the bottom left of Harry/Meghan's wedding invitation doesn't it say something about please address RSVPs to the Lord Chamberlain's office?

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Curryong

My eyes are so poor that I can't read it, but at the bottom left of Harry/Meghan's wedding invitation doesn't it say something about please address RSVPs to the Lord Chamberlain's office?

Yes it does :)

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

.

But her first name iIs Rachel, not Meghan. By your logic, she should have been named Rachel Markle on the invitation.

No, Meghan is the name she uses-even though Rachel is her given first name, it is comparable to others' middle names that they don't usually use. Sorry I didn't explain it more thoroughly so you could understand, I didn't realize it was an odd idea and hard to understand.