Harry and Meghan: Wedding Suggestions and Musings

[Madame Verseau]

The bride giving a speech at the reception is a more recent American wedding custom. I figured some elements of an American wedding would be incorporated. I wouldn't be surprised Meghan wears a garter but it won't get tossed.

 

[Skippyboo]

An invitation may be based solely on personal friendship but the political implications will always be there. As it seems that there has never been a US president (past or current) that has attended a British royal wedding, that leads me to believe that political inferences are being avoided and to me, that seems wise.



Harry and Meghan may choose to skirt around this issue by having just Michelle Obama attend the wedding. It seems like this was the route taken previously even for a full blown, all out state wedding.

The only state wedding for the last 50 years was the wedding of Charles and Diana. It was a state occasion because Charles was heir apparent. The US President at the time was Ronald Reagan who got shot in the months prior to the wedding. So Mrs Reagan just went. We don’t know if the President would have went if he wasn’t recovering from the shooting.

 

[M. Payton]

You think Harry and Meghan are telling the Sunday Times reporters their wedding details?


LaRae

Now that got a chuckle out of me.....maybe the Sunday Times Reporter could plan the entire wedding and then give the details to Harry and Meghan so all they have to do is show up........?? anybody that believes the media in anything, I have the crown jewels sitting on my dresser here to wear for the day...........

 

[AlowVera]

You think Harry and Meghan are telling the Sunday Times reporters their wedding details?


LaRae

No, but Roya Nikkah and the Sunday Times are a good royal source. They broke the story about BP preparing for the royal engagement. Believe what you will. Stories from the Sunday Times have more weight because they are not a gossip tabloid. As always take everything with a grain of salt. But some sources have a better track record and Sunday Times is a more trust worthy periodical than most.

 

[Pranter]

A broken clock is right twice a day.




LaRae

 

[Abbigail]

An invitation may be based solely on personal friendship but the political implications will always be there. As it seems that there has never been a US president (past or current) that has attended a British royal wedding, that leads me to believe that political inferences are being avoided and to me, that seems wise.

Harry and Meghan may choose to skirt around this issue by having just Michelle Obama attend the wedding. It seems like this was the route taken previously even for a full blown, all out state wedding.

And there are no political implications of a continued working relationship between a royal and former president? Sorry but I'm still confused why there is more concern over a wedding invite than Harry making a deliberate effort to maintain a connection (working or otherwise) with a former politician. The latter absolutely has more political implications than a wedding invite. Said invite seems to only have political implications because a current president may be offended and I can't say enough how ridiculous that is to me.

 

[Countessmeout]

Yes, Obama and Trump are both political figures, no one is debating that. But there is a difference that is being pointed out. And its not the obvious one, that one is president and one is former.

Obama and Harry have worked together. With the IG. And now with Obama's new projects. They actually have a relationship even if a working one.

vs

Trump is simply president. Harry met Melania once but not Trump. They have no actual connection. If Trump was invited, it would be simply as president.

If you are going to invite Trump, simply as president of the US, then other heads of state of trading partners should be invited. Obama on the other hand is not being invited (if he is) because he is the former president. He is being/maybe invited because of a working relationship with Harry. This is the obvious differentiation.

Its like inviting the Trudeaus or not. They would be invited not because Justin is PM, they would be invited inspite of that. They would be invited due to the relationship between Sophie and Meghan.


Besides working with a former president does not have the same implications as a sitting president. There is no concern of undue influence put by the president 'due to friendship' on a member of the royal family.

Co-workers are just that, co-workers and they are the people who work on the job with the friend whom ever that is, they to me are not personal friends that come to say my home for dinner or to play cards or Monopoly or shot the breeze over wine or beer.......Harry has the type of personality I think where he enjoys the events and loves getting out there meeting people and helping, yet after the event it is home to peace and quiet and calm and a loved one, cooking dinner, or take out whatever the case may be..........seriously doubt if he brings co-workers home with him to have dinner or play video games. I would like to think that would be his *private time for family and very close personal friends only*, not co-workers, business people or even staff that works on all the back up work for the charities. Even royals need *private time alone* to gather their strength to take on the next event and read all the info before hand.

That's you and good for you.

Many people think beyond who they would play video games with. As mature adults, many of us see we have different parts of our life. Work, home life, family, friends, and they are all important. It is very common when you have a larger wedding, to invite co-workers and other people like that. No you aren't going to invite your hairdresser, but the person you work with and have raport with. As we saw with Prince William, there were not just the required guests (the royals, the heads of commonwealth and such), family and friends. There were also people William knew through his charity work and his military time. Do you think celebrities like the Beckhams are personal friends? No. I would be shocked to not see some for Harry.

Even with the extended Windsor family and Meghan's family that will be invited, that's maybe 150 people. Plenty of room for friends, co-workers and such. I see no one debating Meghan will invite some of her Suits co-workers. I don't see how that is different.

 

[Abbigail]

Are you disagreeing with me on something because I'm a little confused? I would agree with your assessment and I don't think anything I stated contradicts that.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I hope Harry decides to wear a ring

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, Obama and Trump are both political figures, no one is debating that. But there is a difference that is being pointed out. And its not the obvious one, that one is president and one is former.

Obama and Harry have worked together. With the IG. And now with Obama's new projects. They actually have a relationship even if a working one.

vs

Trump is simply president. Harry met Melania once but not Trump. They have no actual connection. If Trump was invited, it would be simply as president.

If you are going to invite Trump, simply as president of the US, then other heads of state of trading partners should be invited. Obama on the other hand is not being invited (if he is) because he is the former president. He is being/maybe invited because of a working relationship with Harry. This is the obvious differentiation.

I don't disagree with what you said, but we must approach the situation pragmatically. If Obama is invited and Trump is not, it will create a diplomatic embarrassment for the British government, because Trump will take it personally, whether it is justified or not. Justin Trudeau's being invited, either as the Canadian PM or simply as a friend of the bride, doesn't really matter because the US press will ignore it and Trump won't care. I'm sorry to say that, but Americans are self-centered and inward-looking; they don't care about anything that doesn't have a direct connection with the United States or other Americans.

The most pragmatic solution to avoid any embarrassment is not to invite either Trump or Obama. In any case, I don't think that Harry or even Meghan for that matter are that close personally to the Obamas to merit an invitation to their wedding. Having worked with them in certain social projects doesn't mean they are close friends. The Trudeaus are a different situation since they seem to belong to Meghan's social circle.

 

[Abbigail]

And here I thought the actual embarrassment would be the government intervening in a private wedding out of fear of a current president's feelings being hurt.

Also not sure why some want to downplay the relationship between Harry and the Obamas. They may not be the closest of friends but it's pretty clear to me based on their interaction, that Harry as an obvious affinity for the Obamas and vice versa, enough so that they would be invited to the wedding.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Sorry, if this is too OT, but this is a mess, only because trump is a mess, and acts like a toddler when he doesn't get his way. Was there any fuss when the Obamas weren't invited to Will and Kate's wedding? No, because it's not a big deal, and it didn't create any political or diplomatic issues.

I feel bad that this wedding and the wedding list is painted as some sort of diplomatic and political standing point, and it all lies on Harry and Meghan to soothe a toddler so he doesn't have a tantrum, and doesn't risk the relationship between two countries.

 

[Osipi]

To be honest here, is it going to shake the world whether or not the guest list includes anyone we're talking about? Frankly, I could care less who attends or doesn't attend. Its Harry and Meghan's choice. Its their wedding. Its their parties. We're just lucky we're going to be included as much as we are getting to watch it all.

I think we can safely let the Trump/Obama conversation take its last breath.

 

[Leopoldine]

Sorry, if this is too OT, but this is a mess, only because trump is a mess, and acts like a toddler when he doesn't get his way. Was there any fuss when the Obamas weren't invited to Will and Kate's wedding? No, because it's not a big deal, and it didn't create any political or diplomatic issues.

I feel bad that this wedding and the wedding list is painted as some sort of diplomatic and political standing point, and it all lies on Harry and Meghan to soothe a toddler so he doesn't have a tantrum, and doesn't risk the relationship between two countries.

I don't think that the Royal Family is worrying about Trump, and he's not worried about them. His wife met Harry briefly in Canada, I didn't see any fistfights, so let's move on.

Both the Trumps and the BRF know that a sitting US President's presence would be a big problem at a BRF Windsor Castle wedding. There was never a question of The Donald going to the wedding. He knows why, he's not stupid.

Obama can go, he just can't land a helicopter in Windsor Great Park now. He's going to have to Uber from the airport.


Nancy Reagan came to Prince Charles's wedding, and Prince Andrew's and both times it involved hundreds of support personnel and security/policing staff. And, it was just her and not The President.

 

[Leopoldine]

And here I thought the actual embarrassment would be the government intervening in a private wedding out of fear of a current president's feelings being hurt.

Also not sure why some want to downplay the relationship between Harry and the Obamas. They may not be the closest of friends but it's pretty clear to me based on their interaction, that Harry as an obvious affinity for the Obamas and vice versa, enough so that they would be invited to the wedding.

The Obamas should be invited. Trump won't care. He knows of the bond Harry has with the Obamas. Trump isn't really a social guy either. he hates to get stuck hob-nobbing.

 

[Countessmeout]

To get back on a different track and away from Obama/Trump, going back to the last non-political conversation.

The bride giving a speech at the reception is a more recent American wedding custom. I figured some elements of an American wedding would be incorporated. I wouldn't be surprised Meghan wears a garter but it won't get tossed.

Yes, traditionally speeches are male dominated. Father of the bride, groom and best man would give speeches. It is becoming more common now for a bride to also give a speech. But the suggestion here was that the first speech be given by Meghan instead of the father of the bride. Traditionally the father of the bride would kick off speeches as it customarily was the bride's family hosting the wedding. So he would be welcoming everyone. If Tom is not comfortable, they may simply skip over it, or perhaps both Tom and Doria (real break with tradition) may.

Another safe story for tabloids. As we wont have any videos of the reception, not much way to contest.

Though I would laugh to see it happen at a royal wedding, the garter is not 'an American' custom. The whole 'garter toss' spectacle is mainly though.

Wedding Garter Traditions

 

[MARG]

There are so many false expectations of Harry and Meghan's wedding. In the British Royal Family, there are three types of wedding, State, Semi-State and Private.

Prince Charles, as the heir, had a State wedding and foreign Heads of Heads of State were invited.

Prince William, as the heir's heir, had a semi-State wedding and Heads of Commonwealth Countries were invited.

Prince Harry, as fifth in line to the throne, is having a Private wedding and the government and foreign office is not involved.

So, who will we see? Family, royal and non-royal, perhaps extended royal family. Friends from school, Sandhurst, the Blues and Royals, Army Air Corp, Invictus games, The Foundation, and many others we don't know.

Celebrities because they know so many and have worked with so many. William and Harry met many celebrities growing up due to their Father's creation and work with The Princes Trust and now, as adults, their own Foundation Charities as well.

Then there are Meghan family and friends, the details of which we do not know.

So, no snubs to all the politicians and Heads of State or Heads of Commonwealth Countries who attended Charles and/or William's wedding and if there are any guests with the faintest whiff of politics about them, it will not be the reason they are invited.

 

[Jacknch]

Indeed Marg, I see no point in discussing something that isn't going to happen.

On a more interesting and royal-related theme, how about overseas royals who might attend in their capacity of being close to the BRF? I'm thinking maybe King Constantine and Queen Anne-Marie to start with?

 

[Mbruno]

There are so many false expectations of Harry and Meghan's wedding. In the British Royal Family, there are three types of wedding, State, Semi-State and Private.

Prince Charles, as the heir, had a State wedding and foreign Heads of Heads of State were invited.

Prince William, as the heir's heir, had a semi-State wedding and Heads of Commonwealth Countries were invited.

Prince Harry, as fifth in line to the throne, is having a Private wedding and the government and foreign office is not involved.

That may be the case, but Harry is still a senior royal and his wedding will attract a lot of media attention, especially in the US and in the UK. If the guest list has a potential to create a diplomatic rift that is not in the interest of the British government, I am pretty sure the FO will intervene and "advise" the Palace to change it.

Contrary to popular belief, the Royal Family is tightly controlled by the government in anything they do that may have public exposure. The fact that Piers Morgan, a British journalist on a British TV show, asked Trump about a possible invitation indicates that the UK media will make that a public issue, as will the US media also BTW, especially if Obama is invited and Trump is not. Perhaps posters in other countries do not appreciate how that would be big news in America.

 

[MARG]

Oh dear, Piers Morgan, what can I say about him without straining the bounds of decency? Agent provocateur at best, pond scum at worst. He is the living embodiment of the DM et al. A pillock, a pratt, pain in the posterior, but worst of all he knows better but to stir the pot he lies.

Now, to get to Jack's question, I have to admit I wonder. The other day I was looking at one of the royal guest lists and it had the relationship listed beside each royal listed. To say I was astounded by it is an understatement. So, why don't we float a few possibilities. I am picking the Prince of Lesotho (and I think he has a wife) whose name I cannot recall offhand nor spell correctly.

 

[Osipi]

Oh dear, Piers Morgan, what can I say about him without straining the bounds of decency? Agent provocateur at best, pond scum at worst. He is the living embodiment of the DM et al. A pillock, a pratt, pain in the posterior, but worst of all he knows better but to stir the pot he lies.

Now, to get to Jack's question, I have to admit I wonder. The other day I was looking at one of the royal guest lists and it had the relationship listed beside each royal listed. To say I was astounded by it is an understatement. So, why don't we float a few possibilities. I am picking the Prince of Lesotho (and I think he has a wife) whose name I cannot recall offhand nor spell correctly.

I think we can pretty much count on Seeiso and his wife to be at the wedding. That is the prime example of a very close, personal friendship. Harry and Seeiso founded Sentebale (means forget me not) together in 2006 in memory of their mothers.

Seeiso however is not in the position as a head of state. He's basically in the same position that Harry is. Nothing at all that would be interpreted as political.

 

[MARG]

That's okay, we're not Piers so it doesn't matter. However you have shown just how hard it must be for Harry and Meghan to avoid stepping on toes.

 

[Osipi]

The downside of living in a royal fishbowl eh? Everything is open to scrutiny.

 

[angieuk]

Am I wrong to assume all the Foreign Royal Families will be invited to both Royal Weddings?

 

[csw]

I am not so sure Trump would decline an invitation to wedding. On the contrary, I think he would attend if invited.

I agree - I think he would go. In any event, I wouldn't want to risk it!

 

[ACO]

I think we can pretty much count on Seeiso and his wife to be at the wedding. That is the prime example of a very close, personal friendship. Harry and Seeiso founded Sentebale (means forget me not) together in 2006 in memory of their mothers.

Seeiso however is not in the position as a head of state. He's basically in the same position that Harry is. Nothing at all that would be interpreted as political.

He was interviewed recently and basically said he was attending. No official invite but I got the impression was told to save the date. I am sure a few people got that memo.

 

[Somebody]

Am I wrong to assume all the Foreign Royal Families will be invited to both Royal Weddings?

Yes, it is very unlikely that all foreign royal families will be invited. Only royals that have some personal relation to the couple (or parents) will be invited.

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, it is very unlikely that all foreign royal families will be invited. Only royals that have some personal relation to the couple (or parents) will be invited.

Except for the aforementioned prince of Lesotho, I can't think of any other foreign royal with whom Harry has some kind of personal relation. Someone from the Greek RF maybe ?

 

[Pranter]

Maybe Prince Albert? He seems somewhat chummy with the BRF (some members).


LaRae

 

[Somebody]

Except for the aforementioned prince of Lesotho, I can't think of any other foreign royal with whom Harry has some kind of personal relation. Someone from the Greek RF maybe ?

That's why I included the 'or their parents'. Harry doesn't seem to have a personal relationship with many foreign royals (Eugenie might know even more - or at least more European nobles). They don't have foreign royals among their godparents either...