Prince Harry: Relationship Suggestions and Musings 2016-2017

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze

She was in a ten year long relationship, that doesn't suggest she's unable to commit.

I've been reading around a bit on the net, and there are such unrealistic ecpectations for the woman Harry should marry. She should be a woman not over the age of 25, with supermodel looks, have a PhD, but lived her life like a nun, but possess the wisdom and life experience (without actually living that life) of a grandmother. The restrictions and limitations for the women the royals can marry, and the life changes the future spouse has to do, seriously limits options.

IMO Harry is a catch, but with the restrictions and rules and limits his position brings, he's lucky if he finds a woman, whom he adores, who inspires him, who adores and likes him back, and wants to be with him long term, marry him etc, even after all the 'no can't do's put in fromt of her. A woman with Meghan's 'past' is a dream scenario, IMO, her worst past offences being a silly IG post of two bananas, and two past long term relationships.

Agreed. Plus, I think any women that Harry really likes and can get along with over long term seems not to be the type that are just simple minded. I know he's famous for being party prince, but he also seems to really care about the problems in this world and genuinely want to use his influence to help issues he cares about instead of just do charitable work because he's got no other options.

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze

She was in a ten year long relationship, that doesn't suggest she's unable to commit.

I've been reading around a bit on the net, and there are such unrealistic ecpectations for the woman Harry should marry. She should be a woman not over the age of 25, with supermodel looks, have a PhD, but lived her life like a nun, but possess the wisdom and life experience (without actually living that life) of a grandmother. The restrictions and limitations for the women the royals can marry, and the life changes the future spouse has to do, seriously limits options.

IMO Harry is a catch, but with the restrictions and rules and limits his position brings, he's lucky if he finds a woman, whom he adores, who inspires him, who adores and likes him back, and wants to be with him long term, marry him etc, even after all the 'no can't do's put in fromt of her. A woman with Meghan's 'past' is a dream scenario, IMO, her worst past offences being a silly IG post of two bananas, and two past long term relationships.

This is so true! a silly banana post that was posted while both of them where cooped up is not that big of a deal.

I used to be very against Carl Phillip and Sophie but then I saw the way they looked at each other during their wedding and thought all that matters is they are two people who love each other. THAT IS ALL! Im happy for anyone who can find that one person who they love and loves them back.

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

A divorce is a red flag especially when you look a little deeper- she dated the first husband seven years, married in Sept 2011, split May 2013, divorced Aug 2013. They didn't even make to second anniversary.

That would be a PR disaster if a royal couple did that.

A widow can't control what happened to her husband.

I don't think Meghan's previous marriage should be held against her or used as an example that she can't commit. They should have broken up before they got married.

I had front row access to a friend who did almost the exact same thing [except they dated for eight years] and were married for two and a half years. They ended up divorcing because of his infidelity but while they were working on it with a counselor, you know what he admitted...that he proposed because it was the expected next step...they had already been together so long....that's what you do when you date that long. They both remarried with shorter relationships [two years dating their spouses] and both have been married for ten years.

So if after all this time, if that is the reason why you are marrying your long term girlfriend/boyfriend..you shouldn't be doing it.

Harry knows what is expected of him and I would imagine that Meghan is getting a crash course as we speak.

If this gets to the point of marriage...everyone will have an idea on what is expected from the other party.

[sophie25]

No the C of E wouldn't see her as a divorcee. It's correct that although in the past it was exactly the same as the Catholic Church in never, ever marrying divorcees who had been married in church before ( remember Princess Margaret's statement when she decided not to marry the divorced Townsend? She said she was"mindful of the Church's teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble") it will now consider doing so in SOME cases. I presume these may be cases where the person wishing to remarry in Church had no or a much lesser role in the breakdown of their first marriage. It's perhaps not surprising that in the case of Charles and Camilla no offer of full remarriage was forthcoming by the Church, only a blessing. Meghan, as far as I know, didn't have a church wedding first time around so it wouldn't be a problem theologically for her to marry in either an Anglican or Catholic Church. This won't, unfortunatley, stop some people still regarding her as damaged goods, but that is a different matter.

[royal rob]

Someone said she didn't have anyone between her marriage and Harry. I thought there was hockey player, a golfer , and a well known chef who she was with when Harry first started texting her. Also I haven't read where she was married but guess it wasn't a church still not sure that means she wasn't married by the Church of England. This has most likely been asked before but as we don't know what religion she is but guessing not CoE would she have to agree to bring any children up CoE


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[lilacmagnolia]

If what we heard was true and she converted to Judaism before her beach wedding...She definitely will not be considered a divorcee because they would never recognize that marriage...Also,Meghan was always adamant Rory McIlroy was just a friend...Even if he wasn't she is old enough to date around until she finds a courtship she could be serious about that could lead to marriage.That's the way Harry has always done it as well.When Harry dates a woman,he dates to marry and it seems like Meghan is the same way...If he knew he would not be able to marry Meghan he would not be wasting a 35 year old woman's time.He might have been a playboy in the past but he is a respectful man and doesn't lead women on.Although one thing is for sure about Meghan,Harry HAS DEFINITELY had more "partners"...No doubt.

[American Observer7]

Why can't some of you just accept that Prince Harry loves Meghan! Many keep bring up the fact that Meghan is divorced!! SO WHAT? We don't know the reasons behind their divorce, so how can anyone judge that? I mean, REALLY now!!

Charles is heir to the throne and he is divorced and married to a woman who is divorced and he cheated on his first wife! So, how can anyone judge Meghan or complain about her past etc?

And finally, if there were a problem of any kind (including religion) with him dating or marrying Meghan, it would ended by now and not lasted for 8 months.

Harry is going to marry Meghan if that's what he wants and it won't matter to him what anyone thinks. Harry is going to do EXACTLY what he wants regardless of so-called public opinion and the Queen will give her blessing.

Meghan is a self accomplished successful woman and mature! We all should be happy for Harry!

[miss whirley]

I also don't think she had anything going on with Rory McIlroy. There wasn't time. She got with Chef Cory very quickly. She and her husband separated May 2013 and she was already tweeting Chef Cory a couple weeks later in June 2013.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by American Observer7

Why can't some of you just accept that Prince Harry loves Meghan! Many keep bring up the fact that Meghan is divorced!! SO WHAT? We don't know the reasons behind their divorce, so how can anyone judge that? I mean, REALLY now!!

Charles is heir to the throne and he is divorced and married to a woman who is divorced and he cheated on his first wife! So, how can anyone judge Meghan or complain about her past etc?

And finally if there were a problem of any kind (including religion) with him dating or marrying Meghan, it would ended by now and lasted for 8 months.

Harry is going to marry Meghan if that what he wants and it won't matter to him what anyone thinks. Harry is going to exactly what he wants regardless of so-called public opinion and the Queen will give her blessing.

Meghan is a self accomplished successful woman and mature! We all should be happy for Harry!

I couldn't care less if he marries her or not but issues, such as what the state if this marriage will be in the eyes of the Church of England, do matter as the British Monarchy, to which Harry belongs, has a significant link to it. I've got to laugh at the irony of people insisting that monarchies should be all modern in this day and age. The very idea of a family that is taxpayer funded and unelected is technically ridiculous but if we're going to have this old fashioned notion then we can't expect it to go hand in hand with modern ways of thinking. People who want to retain royal families simply don't want to have seen their princesses simulating sex scenes and being divorced etc. I have nothing against Meghan or Sophia of Sweden, as another example, but as I have said before, for those who hate Monarchy they hate it and that is that but people who support it have certain expectations and if they are not met you also lose your supporters and the end won't be far away. I don't say this as a condemnation of individuals but as an acknowledgement of the way things are. Similarly, will Harry be judged for his past relationships and naked behaviour in the same way Meghan is? No way. Is it fair? No. Does that sound old fashioned? Yes. Is it the truth nonetheless? Absolutely.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by sophie25

No the C of E wouldn't see her as a divorcee. It's correct that although in the past it was exactly the same as the Catholic Church in never, ever marrying divorcees who had been married in church before ( remember Princess Margaret's statement when she decided not to marry the divorced Townsend? She said she was"mindful of the Church's teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble") it will now consider doing so in SOME cases. I presume these may be cases where the person wishing to remarry in Church had no or a much lesser role in the breakdown of their first marriage. It's perhaps not surprising that in the case of Charles and Camilla no offer of full remarriage was forthcoming by the Church, only a blessing. Meghan, as far as I know, didn't have a church wedding first time around so it wouldn't be a problem theologically for her to marry in either an Anglican or Catholic Church. This won't, unfortunatley, stop some people still regarding her as damaged goods, but that is a different matter.

Sorry but you are a little off. The Church of England would consider her a divorcee. Unlike the Catholic Church, they recognize civil unions. The difference is they do allow a divorcee to marry in the church with permission. So it's not like the clergy would say that Meghan was never married and therefore free yo marry in the church. They round dimply say you were married, but we recognize your divorced she permit you to marry here. There is a huge difference.

[royal rob]

sophie25 you make some really good points. Interesting post thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[wartenberg7]

I dont find her suitable at all. Not because she is a commoner or something, not at all! But I just cannot think of a soap star in a tacky series as a british royal duchess! Reminds me much too much of a certain Sophia Hellqvist....

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by royal rob

Someone said she didn't have anyone between her marriage and Harry. I thought there was hockey player, a golfer , and a well known chef who she was with when Harry first started texting her. Also I haven't read where she was married but guess it wasn't a church still not sure that means she wasn't married by the Church of England. This has most likely been asked before but as we don't know what religion she is but guessing not CoE would she have to agree to bring any children up CoE


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

People do go on dates, it's what young people do. And just like with Harry taking your picture with a member of the opposite sex does not mean you are in a relationship. Nor does celebrity gossip equal the truth.

[American Observer7]

Charles is heir to the throne. He is a divorcee and he is married to one and he was a cheat!

Now, what makes him acceptable and his divorce and that of his current wife a non issue?

It's non issue for them but it's an issue for Harry and Meghan if they want to marry? Oh! That makes a lot of sense!! It's hogwash is what it it is!!

It's an issue to some simply because it's Meghan.

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by wartenberg7

I dont find her suitable at all. Not because she is a commoner or something, not at all! But I just cannot think of a soap star in a tacky series as a british royal duchess! Reminds me much too much of a certain Sophia Hellqvist....

Suits is not a soap, it is a legal drama so there is one thing to cross off your list.

[Curryong]

True, it's a drama about a legal firm and the people who work in it. Meghan has been in two raunchy scenes in it in six seasons. Suits isn't a tacky series at all, just a cable show about lawyers.

Princess Sofia of Sweden was a reality TV star in a truly tacky series and was crowned Miss Slitz by a man's magazine of the same name. She's never been an actress. If you are contracted to do a sex scene in a film or series then that's what you do as an actor or actress.

If Grace Kelly had been born fifty years later she would probably have appeared in the same sort of scenes in films. Over the past several decades bedroom scenes have become so commonplace people don't even raise an eyebrow any more.

I can remember in my youth seeing 'Women in Love' with Alan Bates and Glenda Jackson. That film contained scenes of simulated sex that were considered truly shocking at the time, yet Ms Jackson later became quite a prominent Labour MP and a CBE. People didn't associate those scenes she did with the person she became later in any way.

[Angel.10]

^ ^

Suits, soap? I didn't understand.. Meghan is an independent woman who has always earned her own money, is a social cause activist, represents women at the ONU, works in philanthropy in Africa, is intelligent, balanced, articulate. In the interview with Larry King she did very well, I don't understand so much prejudice of some people…It's ridiculous and absurd.

[wartenberg7]

Shes not an "actress". Maggie Smith or Judi Dench are actresses. Grace Kelly was an actress and Meryl Streep or ladies standing on stages in Londons west end theatres are real actresses and artists. But this girl? Come on!

Of course there are some slight differences between Hellqvist and Markle. But in essence they´re from the same block. They even look like sisters. If this wouldn´t be so sad and dramatic for the institution of monarchy it would be simply ridiculous.

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by wartenberg7

Shes not an "actress". Maggie Smith or Judi Dench are actresses. Grace Kelly was an actress and Meryl Streep or ladies standing on stages in Londons west end theatres are real actresses and artists. But this girl? Come on!

Of course there are some slight differences between Hellqvist and Markle. But in essence they´re from the same block. They even look like sisters. If this wouldn´t be so sad and dramatic for the institution of monarchy it would be simply ridiculous.

Okay, I will bite...if she isn't an actress than what is she

I bet the Screen's Actors Guild would dispute your assessment. She might not be in the same league as Maggie Smith or Judi Dench [we are gonna have to spilt hairs about Grace Kelly] but she is most certainly an actress. A working one at that.

[Osipi]

I think its very easy for people to read the words "actress" and "cable show" and put the connotations of a airhead woman using her body in scintillating scenes to make a mark for herself. Although this has proven to be true on many occasions as we all know that sex sells, being an avid watcher of the USA channel which Suits plays on, I can attest that the quality of the programming this channel airs are some of the best in my book.

Meghan is an actress by profession and being cast in a role for Suits is an accomplishment that a multitude of young, aspiring women are aspiring for. What we need to do though is look beyond what she does to support herself and her lifestyle. A profession does not define the person. From all that I've read about Meghan since she came to the forefront by dating Harry, this is a person that wants to make a difference in the world. A woman that is a far cry from being the proverbial "airhead" and has found outlets in which she has thrown her efforts into to make this world a better place and she does it from the heart because she wants to and not for publicity or to stroke her own ego.

I think Harry just may have stumbled upon a woman that is very much like he is. They're both down to earth and unassuming and feel that the positions that they have found themselves in has opened doors for them where they find themselves being able to make a difference in someone else's lives. Its my opinion that from what I know now of the couple, they will make a formidable team for the good if they, sometime in the future, decide that is what they want to do. We know Harry does things from the heart. We know Meghan does things from the heart. Can it really get any better than that?

All careers start somewhere. Oprah Winfrey started as a talk show host in Chicago and is known today for her humanitarian work. Time honored actors and actresses that have made their mark on the entertainment world all started with auditions and working meager jobs to make ends meet.