Prince Harry: Relationship Suggestions and Musings 2016-2017

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Ish

TLLK - every time I write Townsend's name I have a moment of "did I spell that right or am I now talking about the Who guy?" Every single time.

It is easy to see how the names could be confused. I now have this mental image of Pete Townshend standing outside the BP gates with his guitar asking to be let in because he has a date with Princess Anne circa 1968.

Originally Posted by HistoryGirl

That is actually becoming more and more dubious to me as well. Especially according to this:

Princess Margaret: recently unearthed letter sheds new light on decision not to marry - Telegraph

I just don't believe the Queen would bar Harry from marrying who he wished, unless she was some sort of an outlaw lol

Thank you for finding this HistoryGirl.

[Osipi]

The fact does remain that due to the revision of the Royal Marriage Act of 1772, being 5th in line to the throne, Harry does need to seek the Queen's permission to marry. Should she refuse permission (which I seriously doubt she ever would), Harry then could wait a year and then inform the Privy Council of his intent to marry and go ahead with it. It would really take some very dire and drastic for the marriage request to be denied.

At least that's how I understand it.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by HistoryGirl

That is actually becoming more and more dubious to me as well. Especially according to this:

Princess Margaret: recently unearthed letter sheds new light on decision not to marry - Telegraph

I just don't believe the Queen would bar Harry from marrying who he wished, unless she was some sort of an outlaw lol

That's an interesting article, thank you for it. I'm not entirely convinced that the letter means all that the article implies it does, but it certainly puts the whole affair in a different light.

[hel]

Originally Posted by Osipi

The fact does remain that due to the revision of the Royal Marriage Act of 1772, being 5th in line to the throne, Harry does need to seek the Queen's permission to marry. Should she refuse permission (which I seriously doubt she ever would), Harry then could wait a year and then inform the Privy Council of his intent to marry and go ahead with it. It would really take some very dire and drastic for the marriage request to be denied.

At least that's how I understand it.

I suspect that the "wait a year then go to parliament" is no longer an option, actually.

The text of the chapter 3 of the bill says:

3Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

(1)A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

(2)Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a)signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,

(b)declared in Council, and

(c)recorded in the books of the Privy Council.

(3)The effect of a person’s failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the person’s descendants from the marriage are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown.

(4)The Royal Marriages Act 1772 (which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a descendant of King George II may marry only with the consent of the Sovereign) is repealed.

(5)A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a)neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,

(b)no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,

(c)in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and

(d)no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the basis that the marriage was void.

(6)Subsection (5) applies for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown.

I understand Subsection 4 to mean that nothing in the 1772 act is still in force, and there is nothing in Section 3 to indicate that an unsuccessful supplicant can wait a year and go to Parliament.

Strictly on the face of it, and I'm willing to be corrected, there are only 3 options:
1) marry with the monarch's permission
2) marry without the monarch's permission and leave the order of succession
3) not get married

The text is here: Succession to the Crown Act 2013

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Osipi

The fact does remain that due to the revision of the Royal Marriage Act of 1772, being 5th in line to the throne, Harry does need to seek the Queen's permission to marry. Should she refuse permission (which I seriously doubt she ever would), Harry then could wait a year and then inform the Privy Council of his intent to marry and go ahead with it. It would really take some very dire and drastic for the marriage request to be denied.



At least that's how I understand it.

I believe technically the 1772 Act has been repealed by the new changes.

The old Act said that the monarch's permission was required, but if refused a person over the age of 25 could wait a year then announce their intent to marry and could proceed unless both Houses of Parliament expressly disapproved of it. Any marriage that took place without this approval was null and void under the law.

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 repeals this, but the rules it establishes are fairly similar. The Sovereign's consent is required for the marriages of the first 6 in line to the throne (which includes Harry), and if it is not granted then the marriage is valid, but the person and their descendants are disqualified from the succession. I'm not sure if the "wait a year and tell the Privy Council" loophole is still in place.

[Osipi]

Thanks so much for finding and providing that information, hel. Although there is quite a bit of precedence that has to be followed for one of the six in line to the throne to follow, I think though that there would really have to be some dire reasons to refuse permission.

I could see these steps being followed to the max if perhaps Meghan was descended from the royal family of the Seventh House of Nine in the Galactic Federation which has known ties to conspiracy groups that plot to conquering Earth and all its inhabitants.

[royal rob]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...iday-tips.html

I won't comment


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[AlowVera]

It seems newspapers like The Daily Fail are just posting or reposting click bait articles. I wonder if we should repost them if they are not proving any new information that is relevant to Harry and his relationships.

[Countessmeout]

Of course they once do again draw a comparison to pippa

Difference. Meghan wasn't being paid hundreds of thousands to publish a book, where she told people to fill ice cube trays. Meghan is simply writing a blog, on her own time, which is free to access. It seems every second person and their dog has a blog today. And some of her tips are not as simple minded as they portray them. The food scraps included a suggestion about using cauliflower stems in a recipe, something many people may not know of. Or making turkey stock for soup not simply just sandwiches.


I went to her site. The tips aren't hers but compiled from different magazines. And some of the tips are actually smart. Ideas like printing the menu and using a sprig of fresh herb ontop as table setting. Suggestions on cocktails to serve. She has a recipe section as well. There is a sweet potato soup up first, to go with the suggestion of having a soup as a make ahead item.


For the incompetent reporting skills of the daily fail, they are one to talk about writing skills.

[Cocoasneeze]

Daily fail are still bitter that they among other press got called out for their sexism by Prince Harry. They did this same with George Clooney when he called them out on their lies. It's what they do, tear down everyonr, and their comment section reflects thay.

[Osipi]

The Daily Mail with their oft times off the wall articles and poor journalism are in the business of making money and giving readers an avenue to just vent whatever comes to mind at the moment. This is what they do and its been working for them for a long time.

We, however, have the option to ignore them or join them. I think we're intelligent enough to recognize red herrings when we see one. I do not click on Daily Mail links as a rule but because of someone else reading the link and commenting here about the contents of Meghan's food tips, I learned a bit more about what this woman does just because she can. No looking for profit or fame or renown but just willing to share things in her life with others.

On the positive side, the DM does have the best pictures around.

OH! Countessmeout! When you mentioned everyone and their dog has a blog these days, it made me realize I've not seen a rerun of the TV show "Dog with a Blog" in a while. Going to have to try to hunt some episodes down.

[Rudolph]

Prince Harry to jet off on Boxing Day to see in the New Year with girlfriend Meghan Markle - Mirror Online

[sesa]

Poor Harry. All this hulabaloo over his dating an actress and that they will marry soon, comparison to Pippa, comparison to Katherine, ect.
I'm sure he wants to get married as much as the next person, but the reporters make it nearly impossible for him to have any kind of dating life with all this crap they print about the poor girl.
In any case, I hope they are able to have a good Christmas and start the New Year off on a right note. Good luck to them!

[Osipi]

In my estimation, I would assume that whatever is printed in the tabloids or whatever "breaking news" comes to the attention of those following this "romance" is reserved by Harry and Meghan as something they could eventually line their bird cage with if and when they ever decided to adopt a feathered friend as a couple.

Other than the harassment and racial slurs that did need to be addressed, I don't think it affects their lives or their plans whatsoever.

[HistoryGirl]

To be fair to both Meghan and Pippa, what earth-shattering advice could anyone give on table settings? It is what it is. I never understood mocking Pippa's advice anymore than Meghan's. They sound like every single other lifestyle book or blog that I've seen. It's holiday advice not medical research.

[Countessmeout]

May not be brain surgery but is a major business. Do you realize how many millions are spent on decorating and hosting every year? Some people don't have a creative bone. They buy books, or go on line, for ideas. Neither woman may be Martha Stewart, but there is nothing wrong with giving advice.

The difference pippa is selling her advice. You have to pay money to have her teach you to fill ice cube trays. Meghan does it for free. Unlike pippa who has tried to make it a career, Meghan writes a blog as a hobby, outside her job. Her advice is free and out there for all.

If there is a person out there who hasn't looked at Pinterest at least once for ideas..... Blog is no different.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

If there is a person out there who hasn't looked at Pinterest at least once for ideas..... Blog is no different.

(raises her hand) I have to admit that I am the AntiMartha. I'm not one for creative arts and crafts and homemaking ideas for things. However, my mother was. I was raised in a home where mom would present something for a party with the claim "its been said that the Queen has had this at a luncheon" or "the flaming cabbage for a fondue base was at Elizabeth Taylor's last dinner party". (The cabbage was a reality. Where she got the idea from, I have no clue)

However, its the same with just about anything when we think about it. For me, its going off on tangents regarding books. One author may quote another author which leads me to reading more books and the list keeps growing and growing. Some books I can find for free in .pdf format. Others I need to actually pay green dollars for.

The biggest point you've made that rings true is that some pass on what they know willingly because they do want to share things. Others make the green dollars from what they know. I tend to believe that publishers found a market for Pippa's ideas solely because of her name and who she is. Can't blame Pippa for taking advantage of something that drops into her lap.

Meghan has been doing this long before Harry ever became a twinkle in her eye and has continued doing what she likes to do. Big difference in my book.

[Rudolph]

11-year-old Meghan Markle plays with her nephew - showing what her family says is the motherly side Prince Harry should be proud of

11-year-old Meghan Markle plays with her nephew in throwback video | Daily Mail Online

[Mermaid1962]

Wow! I'm just like Meghan! I also played with my nephew!!!!

Originally Posted by Rudolph

11-year-old Meghan Markle plays with her nephew - showing what her family says is the motherly side Prince Harry should be proud of

11-year-old Meghan Markle plays with her nephew in throwback video | Daily Mail Online

[Osipi]

I distinctly remember as a child stating to my aunt "I don't like Pamela much" (my cousin). My aunt, by the way, did not react favorably to that remark.

Good thing I never gained world wide acclaim for anything as that silly statement as a child would have come back to haunt me.