Harry and Meghan: Wedding Suggestions and Musings

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I have never watched the show just like most people into this relationship. It's not a huge show with 30 million viewers each episode; so when millions of people watch her walk down the aisle I'm sure they will only see Meghan.

[Pranter]

Kensington Palace
‏
Verified account


Prince Harry & Ms. Meghan Markle are incredibly grateful for the goodwill they have received since their engagement, & have asked that anyone who might wish to mark the occasion of their wedding considers giving to charity, instead of sending a gift.




LaRae

[Pranter]

https://www.delish.com/food-news/a19...s-elderflower/

Meghan Markle's Having An Elderflower Wedding Cake, But What Does That Taste Like, Exactly?


Sounds interesting.


LaRae

[Royal Suitor]

Posting the link to the Twitter thread for those who want to see the 7 charities they highlighted. Cool mix of projects that represent the couple. I was surprised there wasn't a more specific project re: youth violence but maybe Street Games is the nod to that.

https://twitter.com/kensingtonroyal/...486837760?s=21

[Rudolph]

Would have liked to see some charities in the Commonwealth realms.

[Royal Suitor]

Wouldn't Myna Mahilia qualify as a Commonwealth charity? It's based in Mumbai.

[Rudolph]

India isn’t a realm where the Queen is head of state.

The Cambridges chose the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Australia for example as part of their wedding fund.

[Cocoasneeze]

I like all of these choices. I'm especially happy about Myla Mahila, and the mention of Meghan's article in Times.

[ACO]

Great charity selections! They also have little twitter hashtag emojis for the wedding.

[jacqui24]

I am really happy to see that not only did they include organizations that Harry has worked with, but also charities that Meghan has done work with. I do feel there is a very noticeable balance in this couple's approach. It's not just that Meghan is marrying a royal, but that it's two people coming together on equal footing.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Would have liked to see some charities in the Commonwealth realms.

I'm glad that they've focused charities that are personal to them rather than just so that the Commonwealth can be represented. It's a personal choice, not some political correctness.

[Rudolph]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I'm glad that they've focused charities that are personal to them rather than just so that the Commonwealth can be represented. It's a personal choice, not some political correctness.

I think you can do both. There’s no limit to the number of charities you can support. The Cambridge wedding fund supported 26 charities.

We’re told how important the realms are so it would have been nice to see Canada, Australia and New Zealand get some love.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

I think you can do both. There’s no limit to the number of charities. The Cambridge wedding fund supported 26 charities.

We’re told how important the realms are so it would have been nice to see Canada, Australia and New Zealand get some love.

But if they don't have charities there that they've either worked with or know a lot about at this moment. Why should they pick it just to be politically correct? This is a private wedding whereas Cambridges had to consider that it was a semi-state affair. If they wanted to concentrate on fewer charities to make greater impact for each, good for them.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

India isn’t a realm where the Queen is head of state.

The Cambridges chose the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Australia for example as part of their wedding fund.

Well that is what the Cambridges did. Harry and Meghan picked charities close to their hearts and are letting the public decide which one they will endorse personally unlike W&K who just split it up via a public fund. Both great. Just different approaches.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Royal Suitor

Posting the link to the Twitter thread for those who want to see the 7 charities they highlighted. Cool mix of projects that represent the couple. I was surprised there wasn't a more specific project re: youth violence but maybe Street Games is the nod to that.

https://twitter.com/kensingtonroyal/...486837760?s=21

And Wilderness UK as well I guess? It supports vulnerable urban youth and introduces them to rural employment.

[Rudolph]

Originally Posted by ACO

Well that is what the Cambridges did. Harry and Meghan picked charities close to their hearts and are letting the public decide which one they will endorse personally unlike W&K who just split it up via a public fund. Both great. Just different approaches.

You’re right different approaches. A wedding fund makes sure all charities get an equal piece of the pie. Smaller charities aren’t left out.

By just naming 7 charities and saying you can make donations if you like in lieu of gifts isn’t nearly as fair.

2 or 3 charities may receive 90 percent of the money and the other 4 or 5 get nothing.

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

You’re right different approaches. A wedding fund makes sure all charities get an equal piece of the pie. Smaller charities aren’t left out.

By just naming 7 charities and saying you can make donations if you like in lieu of gifts isn’t nearly as fair.

2 or 3 charities may receive 90 percent of the money and the other 4 or 5 get nothing.

It's up to the people donating to which charity they want to donate to. All of these charities are getting a lot of attention.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

You’re right different approaches. A wedding fund makes sure all charities get an equal piece of the pie. Smaller charities aren’t left out.

By just naming 7 charities and saying you can make donations if you like in lieu of gifts isn’t nearly as fair.

2 or 3 charities may receive 90 percent of the money and the other 4 or 5 get nothing.

I don't see the problem here. They listed 7 charities covering issues near and dear to them. The public can decide how much or little they give. It is their personal choice.

I preferred doing my own research and deciding on which charity to donate. I am donating to three of them. It is no disrespect to the others but if I am going to give a significant amount of money I want it to go directly to the organization of my choice.

I am sure others likely feel the same. Nothing stopping anyone from giving and I am sure they will all see significant donations. There is really no need to turn something positive into something negative.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

You’re right different approaches. A wedding fund makes sure all charities get an equal piece of the pie. Smaller charities aren’t left out.

By just naming 7 charities and saying you can make donations if you like in lieu of gifts isn’t nearly as fair.

2 or 3 charities may receive 90 percent of the money and the other 4 or 5 get nothing.

How is that not fair? Whoever gives the gift gets a say in how that money is spent. Seems like the more fair approach to me. And I don't think any of the charities they picked are large charities. In fact, they seem to have a focus on the smaller charities that could benefit a lot more from the support and attention. So I'm not sure how the smaller charities aren't left out point works here.

And btw, building a more personal relationship directly between the donor and the charity actually leads to more repeat gifts in the future. If they do one collective fund, how do I know where my money went? This requires me to care a bit about the charities that's receiving the donation because I spend more time looking at their cause rather than just the wedding.

[Pranter]

I read (in the official statement) that they went with small charities for that reason, so they can get some attention (and money). I think it's a great idea and I really love the one that focuses on getting kids involved with farming programs /rural skills.


LaRae