Prince Harry: Future Wedding

[Lady Nimue]

Okay, the bookies should be taking bets I suppose as to where the venue for H&M's wedding will be: St. George's Chapel, or Westminster Abbey with BP appearance after. I'm betting WA & a BP appearance.

Nope. I think they are going to do something totally unexpected. Meghan will have to be comfortable with whatever takes place. Harry is going to be devoted to her comfort level in that way, I do believe. Whatever chosen will be reflective of how they will be conducting their royal lives. If not Los Angeles I'm hoping for an Edward and Sophie type wedding.

 

[scriptgirl]

Not sure why such an emphasis on Meghan's religious beliefs. She will never be queen, so I am not sure it matters.

What is difference between a civil and religious wedding?

 

[jacqui24]

Nope. I think they are going to do something totally unexpected. Meghan will have to be comfortable with whatever takes place. Harry is going to be devoted to her comfort level in that way, I do believe. Whatever chosen will be reflective of how they will be conducting their royal lives. If not Los Angeles I'm hoping for an Edward and Sophie type wedding.

Can I just ask if your posts are based on what you want to happen or what you think is likely? The reason I ask is because of course everything is possible, but the likelihood? That's a different story.

 

[Pranter]

A civil wedding is generally done by a judge or official/officiant. A religious wedding is conducted by a member of the clergy and depending on the denomination often in a Church itself. At least some Churches consider marriage to be a Sacrament.

If we are placing bets...I'm putting money on Westminster Abbey!

LaRae

 

[scriptgirl]

Thank you for explaining the difference! I don't want a wedding like Edward and Sophie had. I feel that was a one off.

 

[hel]

It's important to note that in the UK, Canada, US, etc (i.e., the countries that don't follow the European two wedding model), a religious marriage is *also* in effect a civil marriage, in that the religious official is licensed by the state to perform legal marriages and is acting as both an agent of the church and an agent of the state.

Ultimately, marriage is regulated by the state; who is/isn't married and what benefits accrue to those who are married vs those who aren't are all determined by statute. A marriage in a church by someone who wasn't actually licensed would result in not being legally married. In contrast, a non-traditional/non-religious backyard wedding by someone who happens to be both clergy and licensed to perform marriages is a legal marriage.

Within the context of the modern legal system, the religious status of the officiant has no bearing on the legality of a marriage. This is the main reason that the question of Meghan's first marriage taking place on a beach is irrelevant. The CoE recognizes non-religious marriages because they get their ability to marry people from the state, and the state recognizes both religious and civil marriages. Since the state forbids bigamy, it's not legal for a minister to marry a previously civilly married person who hasn't gotten a divorce.

 

[Somebody]

A civil wedding is generally done by a judge or official/officiant. A religious wedding is conducted by a member of the clergy and depending on the denomination often in a Church itself. At least some Churches consider marriage to be a Sacrament.

If we are placing bets...I'm putting money on Westminster Abbey!

LaRae

The Anglican Church is not one of them.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Nope. I think they are going to do something totally unexpected. Meghan will have to be comfortable with whatever takes place. Harry is going to be devoted to her comfort level in that way, I do believe. Whatever chosen will be reflective of how they will be conducting their royal lives. If not Los Angeles I'm hoping for an Edward and Sophie type wedding.

They could definitely surprise us, as that's what they've been doing all along. However, whatever they do is going to follow royal protocol mostly.

Anyway, why do you think Meghan would not be 'comfortable' with Westminster Abbey? You think it's too grand and OTT formal? I believe Meghan will be comfortable in any situation with Harry, and I think they've already proven that. However, I can see them being different or unexpected, but still following royal protocol.

In any case, they will NOT be conducting their royal lives in L.A.

 

[Pranter]

Yes I'm aware of that Somebody.


LaRae

 

[MaiaMia_53]

What exactly did Edward & Sophie have for their wedding that is thought apropos to Harry & Meghan? Edward is the third and youngest son of a reigning monarch. Also, he did not serve in the military.

Harry is the second son of a soon-to-be reigning monarch and he served in the military. He also has a significant high profile and greater public popularity and ease with people than Edward.

 

[FashionMaven]

What are the churches available for a royal wedding in London?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Edward is the son of the reigning monarch.

Harry is the grandson of the reigning monarch.

What position he may hold in the future isn't the point.

It is what the position is at the time of his wedding that matters.

What serving in the military has to do with things is irrelevant.

The BRF have changed over time and they will take account of public opinion at the time of the marriage. If it is riding high then he may get a wedding in London but if in the doldrums then it will be a smaller affair at say Windsor.

I suspect Windsor is being set up as the place of marriage for the younger siblings and other minor royals rather than the big affairs in London simply to reduce costs, especially security costs.

 

[scriptgirl]

For reasons that I won't get into, I think if Harry and Meghan have a smaller wedding, some unfortunate conclusions may be drawn and some of the public may also draw those conclusions and feel validated.

 

[FashionMaven]

Would there be any consideration given to people who might descend on London (near Windsor) to catch a glimpse?

For reasons that I won't get into, I think if Harry and Meghan have a smaller wedding, some unfortunate conclusions may be drawn and some of the public may also draw those conclusions and feel validated.

Hmmmm.... I still remember the to-do after Diana died and how long it took HMQ to bend to societal pressure and make a few changes.

And that was Diana.

I'm not sure - if royal protocol or sensibility demands a smaller venue - that HMQ would bend to avoid unfortunate conclusions. I agree with you that some people would delight in Meghan appearing to be slighted - but she wouldn't really be in reality.

But often it's the perception that matters.

The determining factor might be whether the perception of a blowout bells and whistles event at the Abbey in London as being too expensive would trump (heh) the perception of Meghan being slighted (due to heritage) by having the wedding in a smaller venue.

 

[scriptgirl]

I think in this case, perception would be everything and I would not risk unfortunate conclusions being born since Meghan would be the "first".

The Daily Fail and it's supporters would have a field day if a smaller wedding and venue were chosen and a less "important" wedding will always be talked about and whispered about. Not a good look or start for Meghan and Harry, who have unique set of circumstances re their wedding.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Edward is the son of the reigning monarch.

Harry is the grandson of the reigning monarch.

What position he may hold in the future isn't the point.

It is what the position is at the time of his wedding that matters.

What serving in the military has to do with things is irrelevant.

The BRF have changed over time and they will take account of public opinion at the time of the marriage. If it is riding high then he may get a wedding in London but if in the doldrums then it will be a smaller affair at say Windsor.

I suspect Windsor is being set up as the place of marriage for the younger siblings and other minor royals rather than the big affairs in London simply to reduce costs, especially security costs.

I was wondering what Edward and Sophie had that people think is apropos to Harry? Is it the fact that Edward and Sophie married at St. George's Chapel, Windsor, and that is thought to be where Harry would automatically get married too?

The reason I brought up Harry's military career is because he will be wearing a military uniform which makes the occasion more formal than just an intimate family wedding.

As far as taking public opinion into account, those planning the details and logistics of a wedding would have to be making such 'public opinion' decisions right about now, since it's obvious Meghan and Harry are getting married and they may already be engaged.

Frankly, I doubt 'public opinion' is going to be the main criteria determining wedding venue. And right now, particularly after the high profile success of the Invictus Games, I would say that Harry's popularity and goodwill toward him and Meghan is extremely high.

 

[jacqui24]

Edward is the son of the reigning monarch.

Harry is the grandson of the reigning monarch.

What position he may hold in the future isn't the point.

It is what the position is at the time of his wedding that matters.

What serving in the military has to do with things is irrelevant.

The BRF have changed over time and they will take account of public opinion at the time of the marriage. If it is riding high then he may get a wedding in London but if in the doldrums then it will be a smaller affair at say Windsor.

I suspect Windsor is being set up as the place of marriage for the younger siblings and other minor royals rather than the big affairs in London simply to reduce costs, especially security costs.

I wouldn't be so sure about the last part, but you nailed it before then about public opinion. Edward and Sophie married in 1999 when the royal family is still recovering from the terrible blow of Diana's death. That's not the case today, especially not for Harry, who is most often likened to his mother with his ability to connect with the people. And that's why I think the Abbey has a good chance. Also, at the time of his wedding, Edward had a much lower royal profile than Harry does now in terms of royal duties. If I remember correctly, they weren't expected to be full time royals then. Harry's future and that of his wife, OTOH, is very clearly spelled out at this point.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What are the churches available for a royal wedding in London?

Those in London used in the past 200 years include:

The Chapel Royal at St James - where Queen Victoria, the Empress Frederick, George V, the late Duke of Gloucester

Westminster Abbey - George VI, Elizabeth II, Princesses Mary, Margaret, Anne, Alexandra, the late Duke of Kent, the Duke of York among others.

St Paul's Cathedral - Charles

Other possibilities:

St Margaret's - next to Westminster Abbey - smaller and more intimate than the great abbey. This is where the late Earl Mountbatten was married in 1922.

There are other smaller churches e.g. St Martin's in the Field - not far from BP and the official parish church taking in BP. Queen Mary used to worship there on occasions.

He could choose a place not chosen before e.g. Southwark Cathedral.

 

[Osipi]

Public perception will be low on the list of where they actually decide to marry (presuming they even get engaged which there is a good indication that they will). The top factors I think will be:

1. What Harry and Meghan actually want.
2. What the powers that be that monitor the security level deem safe.
3. Easy access for Granny and Grandpa and family to attend

No matter what happens, no matter where the wedding is held and no matter who attends or doesn't attend, there will be detractors coming out of the woodwork because detracting is what they do best. To plan a wedding because of what people *might* say is just plain idiotic.

I'm placing my bet on St. Georges Chapel in Windsor and a carriage ride through the streets there. I just have a gut feeling and my gut tells me Windsor and also that I need something to drink here.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When I mentioned security I wasn't talking so much about the detractors but real threats to the safety of the public and the event.

Given the terrorist threats in London this year alone it would make sense to not add to those situations if at all possible so Windsor makes more sense as control to the grounds it controlled and that has to be a consideration.

 

[FashionMaven]

I think in this case, perception would be everything and I would not risk unfortunate conclusions being born since Meghan would be the "first".

The Daily Fail and it's supporters would have a field day if a smaller wedding and venue were chosen and a less "important" wedding will always be talked about and whispered about. Not a good look or start for Meghan and Harry, who have unique set of circumstances re their wedding.

I agree - just not sure HMQ would consider that enough to avoid the drama from having the bigger blowout event - the security costs would be difficult. Although I think the crowd turnout would be massive though. Security would be expensive either way.

I'm hoping for the bigger event (not a blowout) but I don't want to see it be "small" in the crowd sense - but tasteful. It can't be bigger than Wil&Kate's - that would bring criticism.

When I mentioned security I wasn't talking so much about the detractors but real threats to the safety of the public and the event.

Given the terrorist threats in London this year alone it would make sense to not add to those situations if at all possible so Windsor makes more sense as control to the grounds it controlled and that has to be a consideration.

I hear you - but the terrorists haven't been attacking major targets - they've been driving cars into people. My guess is that they will need to shut down streets, etc.. to prevent those kinds of attacks because otherwise people would be in danger.

There are going to be massive crowds - they'll need a huge perimeter. One could argue that by NOT planning for a larger event, they put more people in danger because more people would be exposed in areas not covered by security.

 

[scriptgirl]

I think there will be huge interest in this event-the world's most eligible bachelor marries to a biracial American woman. I think there will be massive media interest, although I could be wrong.

I see and hope for a bigger wedding.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

@Osipi, you seem so set on St. George's Chapel, Windsor. I'm really not sure what you see about it besides security that enamors you so much. Apparently, there are other possible choices in London too, aside from WA.

 

[Lady Nimue]

@Osipi, you seem so set on St. George's Chapel, Windsor. I'm really not sure what you see about it besides security that enamors you so much. Apparently, there are other possible choices in London too, aside from WA.

I'm going to settle on waiting for the engagement announcement with bated breath. And in the interim, another sighting of Meghan and Harry together in public.

For myself, I really liked the intimacy and calmness of Edward's and Sophie's wedding. Plus they were so obviously in love. I liked everything about it. Something like that (doesn't have to be that exactly) seems appealing to me. Winter wedding, too. But that's just me. [Wouldn't a winter wedding at Balmoral be amazing!]

 

[scriptgirl]

I would like Westminster Abbey for the wedding.

 

[FashionMaven]

Those in London used in the past 200 years include:

The Chapel Royal at St James - where Queen Victoria, the Empress Frederick, George V, the late Duke of Gloucester

Westminster Abbey - George VI, Elizabeth II, Princesses Mary, Margaret, Anne, Alexandra, the late Duke of Kent, the Duke of York among others.

St Paul's Cathedral - Charles

Other possibilities:

St Margaret's - next to Westminster Abbey - smaller and more intimate than the great abbey. This is where the late Earl Mountbatten was married in 1922.

There are other smaller churches e.g. St Martin's in the Field - not far from BP and the official parish church taking in BP. Queen Mary used to worship there on occasions.

He could choose a place not chosen before e.g. Southwark Cathedral.

St. George's Chapel is tiny - I think it's too small. Much much too small. Yikes it's tiny.

St. Margarets is nice - but if it's right next to the Abbey, it makes no sense not to use the Abbey.

I would love an Abbey wedding or St. Paul's Cathedral - wow what a venue. I think St. Paul's is my favorite. Wow.

That way, each son gets a piece of their mother: Wil gives Kate the ring, Harry marries where his mother did.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

I don't think 'public opinion' will have much impact on the size of the wedding. How do you measure 'public opinion'? It won't be bigger than Kate and William's, but that was so huge, that to downsize from that doesn't mean small by any means. Security will be enormous regardless, there's no way out of that. At this point imho, a deranged 'fan' might be a bigger threat than a terrorist attack for this wedding.

 

[FashionMaven]

So - what dictates what Harry wears when he marries? He has a military uniform, right? Or garment?

William had a red uniform when he married - it wasn't the blue of his RAF uniform, right?

What might Harry choose? What choices does he have - and do people think he'd wear the black one he wore at William's wedding or something else?

 

[scriptgirl]

Re what Harry will wear, good question!

 

[Iluvbertie]

William was a serving officer in the RAF at the time of his wedding and the Honorary Colonel of the Irish Guards and thus was married in the latter's uniform.

Harry, although he has quit the army, like the rest of the BRF will continue to receive unearned promotions as if he was still in the army. He will probably wear the uniform of a Captain or Major - whatever rank he holds at the time of his marriage, whenever that may be, in the Blues and Royals uniform as that is the regiment he belongs to - Anne is the Colonel of that regiment.

HM may given him some other honorary colonel's position - if one becomes vacant - before his wedding, just as she may choose to give him a substantive title.