Prince Harry: Relationship Suggestions and Musings 2016-2017

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Dman

I try not to get involved with the marriage discussion, because I think it's way too early to get into that.

What is the ideal royal bride?

From what I've seen, European royals are over trying to find the ideal royal bride. They're looking for love and following their hearts. Their families are fully supportive of them in their marriages.

I'm pretty glad Harry is thinking outside the box. It's something I wished he started doing. I think he was stuck in this stale box and it wasn't working for him.

While I'm all for love and following one's heart, I'm afraid it is not that simple. The wife of a senior royal, chiefly the king and the heir to the Crown, but also the next most senior adult princes, is not a private person. In other words, she is expected to perform certain public duties, and the way she does it can potentially affect the image of the monarchy as an institution. That is why royal marriages normally require prior approval by the government in most countries. Basically, a royal marriage is as much a state affair as it is a personal, private matter.

Keep in mind though that being of noble or even royal birth is by no means a guarantee of suitability for the job. For example, Marie Antoinette in France, Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse) in Russia, and Frederica of Hanover in Greece were all royals by birth who, nonetheless, as royal consorts, did not cause, but contributed somewhat to the downfall of the royal families into which they married.

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

While I'm all for love and following one's heart, I'm afraid it is not that simple. The wife of a senior royal, chiefly the king and the heir to the Crown, but also the next most senior adult princes, is not a private person. In other words, she is expected to perform certain public duties, and the way she does it can potentially affect the image of the monarchy as an institution. That is why royal marriages normally require prior approval by the government in most countries. Basically, a royal marriage is as much a state affair as it is a personal, private matter.

Keep in mind though that being of noble or even royal birth is by no means a guarantee of suitability for the job. For example, Marie Antoinette in France, Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse) in Russia, and Frederica of Hanover in Greece were all royals by birth who, nonetheless, as royal consorts, did not cause, but contributed somewhat to the downfall of the royal families into which they married.

You already mentioned it, but I'm just going to say, that IMHO, ones bloodline doesn't guarantee, that they'd be able to perform the royal duties and conform to the role being married to a royal requires. IMO it's all upto the personality traits, life experience and the relationship between the royal and the spouse. Eg Meghan, maybe she has the personality needed for the role, but she wouldn't have been able to handle it 10 years ago, or even 5. Perhaps someone 'born' into the role simply couldn't handle the publicity and public scrutiny. And Harry would have to be extremely supportive of the person he marries, too.
IMO looking down at Meghan's past is short-sighted, as maybe her life experience would be the reason she'd be perfect for the required role.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

While I'm all for love and following one's heart, I'm afraid it is not that simple. The wife of a senior royal, chiefly the king and the heir to the Crown, but also the next most senior adult princes, is not a private person. In other words, she is expected to perform certain public duties, and the way she does it can potentially affect the image of the monarchy as an institution. That is why royal marriages normally require prior approval by the government in most countries. Basically, a royal marriage is as much a state affair as it is a personal, private matter.

Keep in mind though that being of noble or even royal birth is by no means a guarantee of suitability for the job. For example, Marie Antoinette in France, Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse) in Russia, and Frederica of Hanover in Greece were all royals by birth who, nonetheless, as royal consorts, did not cause, but contributed somewhat to the downfall of the royal families into which they married.

From what I have seen of this young lady, Meghan is a pretty amazing person. I wish I could meet a woman like her. She supports children in need, stands up for women's rights, and she have a host of very fine qualities. Let's not leave out that she can cook too.

Whatever the future holds, I'm sure she will be able to handle the transition. She's got Harry for crying out loud.

[Scarebaby]

I like her. My only reservation is that she is 36 and Harry seems to me like the kind of fellow who would love a huge family. Maybe they could have a couple of kids and then adopt a few (VERY lucky) more.

[lcamp184]

She's 35. Plenty of women in their mid to late 40's have healthy pregnancies. But most importantly, their reproductive plans are really not our business.

[Angel.10]

Meghan is 35, not 36 and I don't know what the problem is?

[loonytick]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I agree that Meghan is not exactly an ideal bride, but, again, there have been plenty of non-ideal royal brides/ grooms lately (Letizia, Camilla, Mette-Marit, Daniel, Sofia, even Maxima) and, eventually they all got married.

Be sure to add CP Mary, Queen Sonja, the Countess of Wessex as "non-ideal" by the old standards. But also note that everyone in that list has turned out to do a pretty darn good job of adjusting to royal life and taking on the role.

In contrast, you have Diana (who everyone assumed understood the game but seemed to be surprised by how the royal family operated), the Duchess of York (grew up without a title, but close enough to that circle that she knew the rules of behavior, yet broke them repeatedly), Prince Henrik (a count by birth, continually threw fits over being a prince instead of a king, although that's how it's worked for the last couple of centuries when a woman inherits the throne)...

I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating that Meghan shows every sign of an actress who knows a career in that business is fleeting and is prepared to walk away, if need be. She got a decent role on a mid-level show that has a modest audience but little name-recognition beyond its regular audience. That's great! It's a more secure job than a lot of working actresses ever get! But, especially for women, a role like that is often the end of a career in that business, and she has to know that. It's an industry that doesn't want to see women age, that only partially considers talent, that has a lack of imagination when considering the ability of anyone who isn't 100% white to fill a role that wasn't specifically written for a non-white ethnicity, and that is way too quick to say, "oh, well, now we know you as x role, so we can't see you as anything else, sorry."

Thus the website, the move into charity work. She was already laying the groundwork for staying on her feet if the acting thing ends when her current Suits contract is up.

Hollywood can be pretty mean to women who hit 35 without getting better-known roles than hers, so it would be well within the range of normal for someone in her position to walk away from that career soon, anyway. Add in the fact that she has now become known as "Harry's girlfriend..." and her serious acting career is probably over, whether she marries him or the relationship fizzles. She can still get offers on the basis of that fame, sure, but only jokey or cheap ones. Few quality showrunners or directors want their project to be primarily known as "the one that prince's girlfriend is in," so they'd want her, at most, for a walk-on role. If she'd built up a reputation with audiences as a well-known actress with a strong body of work, it would be different.

[QueenPenny]

Hello! My first post...

IMO, Kate Middleton can be added to the list of women not considered ideal to marry into a royal family.

If this relationship results in marriage, I do not think that they will have to worry too much about Meghan's 'advanced maternal age' (that phrase was written on my chart when I became pregnant at 37!), as they will have access to the best fertility treatments & options. Sophie was over 40 when she gave birth to James.

Scarebaby brought up adoption. Does anyone know if that is an acceptable option in the BRF?

[cepe]

Originally Posted by QueenPenny

Hello! My first post...

IMO, Kate Middleton can be added to the list of women not considered ideal to marry into a royal family.

If this relationship results in marriage, I do not think that they will have to worry too much about Meghan's 'advanced maternal age' (that phrase was written on my chart when I became pregnant at 37!), as they will have access to the best fertility treatments & options. Sophie was over 40 when she gave birth to James.

Scarebaby brought up adoption. Does anyone know if that is an acceptable option in the BRF?

Never say never.

If they did formally adopt a child, that child would not be in the line of succession or inherit any title from Harry. In order to do that, they would have to be "heirs of the body". The way round this would be to give the child a title in their own right but still not in the line of succession.

The process of adoption in the UK is so stringent and there is a long waiting list. Any idea of preferential treatment because of Harry's status would cause an outcry.

some contact with the birth family is usually maintained esp if adopting an older child

The media would move heaven and earth to find out who the birth family are (just saying).

Adopting a child from overseas would also be seen as negative by some.

The obstacles are great.

[Rudolph]

Originally Posted by QueenPenny

IMO, Kate Middleton can be added to the list of women not considered ideal to marry into a royal family.

Kate may not have been considered 'ideal' back in the day but she ticks all the boxes now. The last princess to marry into the BRF was Marina of Greece and Denmark, over 80 years ago.

Kate comes from a wealthy Home Counties family. She was educated at the best private schools in Britain and doesn't have any skeletons in her closet.

But this thread is about Harry and Meghan.

[Dman]

You can't go wrong with a nice, smart and intelligent and beautiful young woman.

[QueenPenny]

Originally Posted by cepe

Never say never.

If they did formally adopt a child, that child would not be in the line of succession or inherit any title from Harry. In order to do that, they would have to be "heirs of the body". The way round this would be to give the child a title in their own right but still not in the line of succession.

The process of adoption in the UK is so stringent and there is a long waiting list. Any idea of preferential treatment because of Harry's status would cause an outcry.

some contact with the birth family is usually maintained esp if adopting an older child

The media would move heaven and earth to find out who the birth family are (just saying).

Adopting a child from overseas would also be seen as negative by some.

The obstacles are great.

Thank you for the response, cepe.

I had the same thoughts re: succession. Any adopted child would not be in line, but would most likely be granted some title.

I did not realize that there was a long waiting list for adoption in the UK, and yes, any appearance of preferential treatment would not be met well. I didn't even consider the media factor; you are right, they would not rest until the birth family was found.

A shame that overseas adoptions could be considered less than ideal by some.

[lilacmagnolia]

Meghan isn't even close to 36 yet...To think they don't have a plan (if they are serious) is ridiculous...So,I am wondering about the Pippa Middleton's May 2017 wedding...If Harry was invited would Meghan be able to go as his +1 if he was able to have one? I know William,Kate,George and Charlotte would be there for sure but I don't ever remember a GF of his going to a family wedding with him before? Am I right about this? Also if Meghan was to show at a family wedding would that be a huge sign Meghan is sticking around?

[Osipi]

One thing I can be very certain of is that should Harry and Meghan marry, as a couple, they would "adopt" in their hearts each and every child they come across especially those at Sentebale.

These two people are, as far as we know, just dating at this point and it really is kind of early to even be talking about a wedding let alone having kids and/or adopting. One thing for sure is though is that they'll have four legged fur babies around like they do now.

[Skippyboo]

Doesn't Meghan share dog custody with the ex chef boyfriend? Could run into trouble with who is the owner of the dogs if she tries to take to them to U.K. to live full time, which is what she will have to do eventually if the relationship with Harry continues.

[lilacmagnolia]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

Doesn't Meghan share dog custody with the ex chef boyfriend? Could run into trouble with who is the owner of the dogs if she tries to take to them to U.K. to live full time, which is what she will have to do eventually if the relationship with Harry continues.

Meghan owned both dogs before her Ex came into the picture...He has no rights to them because when she signed the adoption papers only her name could have been on them since she wasn't even dating the chef yet...

[miss whirley]

Originally Posted by lilacmagnolia

Meghan isn't even close to 36 yet...To think they don't have a plan (if they are serious) is ridiculous...So,I am wondering about the Pippa Middleton's May 2017 wedding...If Harry was invited would Meghan be able to go as his +1 if he was able to have one? I know William,Kate,George and Charlotte would be there for sure but I don't ever remember a GF of his going to a family wedding with him before? Am I right about this? Also if Meghan was to show at a family wedding would that be a huge sign Meghan is sticking around?

Well, there's no proof that Harry is invited to Pippa's wedding. And if he is, I don't see an invite for Meghan. She doesn't know the bride or the groom (probably doesn't know the Cambridges, either) and there is limited seating in their venue. Pippa's wedding isn't a "family wedding" for Harry. William is related by marriage, Harry isn't. The media wouldn't have shipped Harry and Pippa so obsessively if they were related.

There is a much better chance of Meghan going as a +1 to Skippy's wedding -a bff of Harry's - than to Pippa's wedding.

But if you want to know about Harry's past gfs and general family weddings then you could point out Chelsy was at William's wedding. Harry and Chelsy were still somewhat officially together at that point. Also Chelsy was invited as a girlfriend to Peter Phillips wedding, which is where she met the Queen.

[sndral]

Originally Posted by lilacmagnolia

Meghan isn't even close to 36 yet...To think they don't have a plan (if they are serious) is ridiculous...So,I am wondering about the Pippa Middleton's May 2017 wedding...If Harry was invited would Meghan be able to go as his +1 if he was able to have one? I know William,Kate,George and Charlotte would be there for sure but I don't ever remember a GF of his going to a family wedding with him before? Am I right about this? Also if Meghan was to show at a family wedding would that be a huge sign Meghan is sticking around?

Chelsey went as his +1 to William & Catherine's & Peter and Autumn's wedding. Mike Tindal went pre engagement as Zara's + 1 to Peter's & Autumn's. Catherine went pre-engagement to Peter's ( w/out William.) Dave Clark went as Beatrice's +1 to Zara & Mike's wedding (but was not invited to W&C's.)
However, Pippa's wedding is rumored to be a smallish affair & it's doubtful that Harry will be a guest.

[miss whirley]

Originally Posted by sndral

Chelsey went as his +1 to William & Catherine's & Peter and Autumn's wedding. Mike Tindal went pre engagement as Zara's + 1 to Peter's & Autumns. Catherine went pre-engagement to Peter's ( w/out William.) Dave Clark went as Beatrice's +1 to Zara & Mike's wedding (but was not invited to W&C's.)
However, Pippa's wedding is rumored to be a smallish affair & it's doubtful that Harry will be a guest.

1. Catherine was also invited to William's cousin ,Laura Fellowes, wedding in 2009. Catherine was also at William's step-sister, Laura Parker-Bowles, wedding in 2006.

2. You are wrong about Dave Clark. He attended William and Catherine's wedding. He wasn't invited to their more intimate evening reception. Two very different things.

[cepe]

Originally Posted by miss whirley

1. Catherine was also invited to William's cousin ,Laura Fellowes, wedding in 2009. Catherine was also at William's step-sister, Laura Parker-Bowles, wedding in 2006.

2. You are wrong about Dave Clark. He attended William and Catherine's wedding. He wasn't invited to their more intimate evening reception. Two very different things.

I thought it was the other way round - no wedding, yes to party.