Prince Harry: Relationship Suggestions and Musings 2016-2017 - Page 200

miche · #**3981** 02-13-2017, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno

As I noted in my comment, at least nine Heads of State were present at William's wedding (five kings, one reigning queen, a sovereign prince, a sovereign grand duke, and a sultan). Again, as I also said, it was not a state occasion because William is not the heir (yet) as his father was when he married, but it was as close to a state occasion as it could get.

The key word there was Elected head of State. Having foreign Royals, whether its Kings or Queen doesn't make it a State wedding. Andrew's had royals (reigning monarchs) at his wedding, that didn't make it a state occasion.

Anyway we are talking too much about a hypothetical wedding that might not even happen

jacqui24 · #**3982** 02-13-2017, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

It's not like Zara had a registry office wedding and a backyard reception. She still had a church wedding and a reception at a Royal Palace.

Zara's wedding was appropriate for a grandchild of the Queen's who is not a working royal. Harry isn't just a grandchild of the Queen. He's the one of only two children of the next king. And he's also one of the most popular members of the BRF and a senior royal.

Rudolph · #**3983** 02-13-2017, 04:14 PM

A lot of people seem to think Harry is just as important as William. They think William and Harry will have a joint reign.

Why isn't Harry a Knight of the Garter?

Why doesn't Harry have a country estate?

Why isn't Harry a royal colonel?

Why shouldn't Harry have a big wedding?

Monarchy is hierarchical. Prince George is already more important than Harry.

Harry has options for his wedding that William didn't. A wedding at Windsor would be fitting for his role in the family.

Hendrik-Jan77 · #**3984** 02-13-2017, 04:21 PM

As the second son of the next King I think it will be a televised wedding service at Westminster Abbey.

jacqui24 · #**3985** 02-13-2017, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph

A lot of people seem to think Harry is just as important as William. They think William and Harry will have a joint reign.

Why isn't Harry a Knight of the Garter?

Why doesn't Harry have a country estate?

Why isn't Harry a royal colonel?

Why shouldn't Harry have a big wedding?

Monarchy is hierarchical. Prince George is already more important than Harry.

Harry has options for his wedding that William didn't. A wedding at Windsor would be fitting for his role in the family.

I'm not sure how all of that came about since no one is saying Harry will have the wedding on the scale of William. The differences of opinion (let's face it, that's what both sides' is until it actually happens) started whether or not there would be foreign royals there and some started saying it'll probably just be a family affair. It's unlikely to be the case. William was already more important than Andrew when he married Sarah, and look at what happened with his wedding. Bottom line is, unless Harry doesn't marry until George is in his twenties, it's unlikely this will be like Zara's wedding.

miche · #**3986** 02-13-2017, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hendrik-Jan77

As the second son of the next King I think it will be a televised wedding service at Westminster Abbey.

That not guarantee as Meghan is a divorcee

Hendrik-Jan77 · #**3987** 02-13-2017, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miche

That not guarantee as Meghan is a divorcee

Before the Anglican Church Meghan is unmarried.

American Observer7 · #**3988** 02-13-2017, 04:38 PM

Harry's wedding will be a big deal folks!

He is marrying an American and she's biracial. That alone is an attention grabber! It will be televised. And Harry is a senior and the most popular Royal even over his brother! The BRF will capitalize on that for good press and exposure.

jacqui24 · #**3989** 02-13-2017, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miche

That not guarantee as Meghan is a divorcee

I think her being a divorcee is less of an issue than proper protocol. She was never married in he Church and he wasn't a reason for the divorce. BTW, does anyone know for sure the rule on the divorcees who weren't married in the Church before? I know for Catholic church, they aren't considered married previously unless they married in church. I would think the Church of England is the same as Henry VIII wanted to marry his second wife while his first wife was still alive?

Rudolph · #**3990** 02-13-2017, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I'm not sure how all of that came about since no one is saying Harry will have the wedding on the scale of William. The differences of opinion (let's face it, that's what both sides' is until it actually happens) started whether or not there would be foreign royals there and some started saying it'll probably just be a family affair. It's unlikely to be the case. William was already more important than Andrew when he married Sarah, and look at what happened with his wedding. Bottom line is, unless Harry doesn't marry until George is in his twenties, it's unlikely this will be like Zara's wedding.

I think Edward and Sophie's wedding is more in line with what Harry will have.

It can still be televised, it will have lots of guests but not too big.

The trend for British royal events nowadays is smaller, not bigger. At one time royal women didn't leave the palace without a tiara and now a tiara is a rarity.

So Harry can still be 'prince popular' without it being a state occasion.

Ish · #**3991** 02-13-2017, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno

As I wrote before, if Harry marries while Queen Elizabeth II is still occupying the throne, I bet there will be no foreign royal guests at the wedding . Basically, it would be unusual for foreign royals to attend the wedding of a grandson of a monarch who is not in direct line to the throne unless they have some kind of personal connection to the groom, which is not the case with Harry. In fact, Harry's wedding during Elizabeth's reign might even be just a private, family event.

If, on the other hand, Harry marries when Charles is king , then there may be some junior foreign royals in attendance as it will be the wedding of a monarch's son after all and, therefore, probably a state wedding.

That's a bit of a stretch statement... frankly, it is unusual for the grandchild of a monarch to get married. Most grandchildren of monarchs are, well, children. Currently, the only adult grandchildren of a European monarch are Queen Elizabeth II's grandchildren - every other monarch's grandchildren are still underage. I believe the closest in age to Harry outside of his family is 21-year-old Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein, the grandson of Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein. Other than the Liechtensteins, Ingrid-Alexandra of Norway is 13, Christian of Denmark is 11, Estelle of Sweden is 4... there are other grandchildren of monarchs who are either younger (being the younger siblings of the named) or are further from the direct line (being the children of the younger children of the monarch).

Harry is in a rare position of being an adult grandchild of a monarch born to the monarch's heir apparent. He's not going to get all the bells and whistles at his wedding that his brother had, as he's not the heir, but he's going to get more bells and whistles than someone else whose status has never been higher than "grandchild of the monarch"; Harry is more than that, he's also the son of the future monarch.

He won't have a state wedding - William didn't, so why would Harry? He won't have nearly as many politicians as William did. He likely won't have all the Governor Generals of the Commonwealth Realms and the various PMs. But unless he has a very small wedding, he probably will have some of the continental royals at his wedding; perhaps not as many monarchs, but he's certainly likely to still have some representation from the other continental monarchies. He'll probably also have a few Greek royals, owing to their relatively close relationship, and possibly a couple German ones (the descendants of Prince Philip's sisters). Certainly some members of the British nobility; those who are related to him (the descendants of Lord Mountbatten and the Spencers), as well as those who are close family friends (the Grovenors).

Skippyboo · #**3992** 02-13-2017, 04:51 PM

The weddings of Charles and Camilla, Edward and Sophie were televised too. They weren't super huge Westminster Abbey, BP balcony weddings. Even CNN in the US showed the royals arriving/leaving the church for Zara's wedding.

jacqui24 · #**3993** 02-13-2017, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish

That's a bit of a stretch statement... frankly, it is unusual for the grandchild of a monarch to get married. Most grandchildren of monarchs are, well, children. Currently, the only adult grandchildren of a European monarch are Queen Elizabeth II's grandchildren - every other monarch's grandchildren are still underage. I believe the closest in age to Harry outside of his family is 21-year-old Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein, the grandson of Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein. Other than the Liechtensteins, Ingrid-Alexandra of Norway is 13, Christian of Denmark is 11, Estelle of Sweden is 4... there are other grandchildren of monarchs who are either younger (being the younger siblings of the named) or are further from the direct line (being the children of the younger children of the monarch).

Harry is in a rare position of being an adult grandchild of a monarch born to the monarch's heir apparent. He's not going to get all the bells and whistles at his wedding that his brother had, as he's not the heir, but he's going to get more bells and whistles than someone else whose status has never been higher than "grandchild of the monarch"; Harry is more than that, he's also the son of the future monarch.

He won't have a state wedding - William didn't, so why would Harry? He won't have nearly as many politicians as William did. He likely won't have all the Governor Generals of the Commonwealth Realms and the various PMs. But unless he has a very small wedding, he probably will have some of the continental royals at his wedding; perhaps not as many monarchs, but he's certainly likely to still have some representation from the other continental monarchies. He'll probably also have a few Greek royals, owing to their relatively close relationship, and possibly a couple German ones (the descendants of Prince Philip's sisters). Certainly some members of the British nobility; those who are related to him (the descendants of Lord Mountbatten and the Spencers), as well as those who are close family friends (the Grovenors).

You just said everything I wanted to say, but in much eloquent manner.

Dman · #**3994** 02-13-2017, 04:59 PM

I think Harry's future wedding will be a televised event at St. George's Chapel, Windsor.

Ish · #**3995** 02-13-2017, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I think her being a divorcee is less of an issue than proper protocol. She was never married in he Church and he wasn't a reason for the divorce. BTW, does anyone know for sure the rule on the divorcees who weren't married in the Church before? I know for Catholic church, they aren't considered married previously unless they married in church. I would think the Church of England is the same as Henry VIII wanted to marry his second wife while his first wife was still alive?

The only document I can find that discusses the issue of civil marriages in the Church of England is in an argument against legalizing same-sex civil marriages in England; it's a 13 page document that I've only skimmed, but it has this line:

Quote:

In law, there is one social institution called marriage, which can be entered into through either a religious or a civil ceremony. To suggest that this involves two kinds of marriage is to make the category error of mistaking the ceremony for the institution itself.

The sense that I'm getting from the overall document, but particularly from the quoted line is that the CoE recognizes all legal marriages (with the possible exception of the same-sex marriages), and as such Meghan's first marriage would still count as a divorce. That said, their stance on the remarriage of divorcees is that "No Anglican cleric can be compelled either to solemnise the marriage of any person whose former marriage has been dissolved and whose former spouse is still living, or to permit such a ceremony in the church of which he or she is the minister." Thus, no Anglican priest can be forced to marry Harry and Meghan, nor can they be forced to allow the marriage to take place in their church... but they can consent to it.

That means that if they want to get married at Westminster Abbey, it is entirely up to the Very Rev. John Hall, Dean of Westminster.

That said, given as Meghan has been divorced for a number of years now and her divorce had nothing to do with Harry, it seems unlikely that the Church isn't going to consent to the marriage (if it happens).

miche · #**3996** 02-13-2017, 05:17 PM

What religion is Meghan? She might not want a church wedding or a CoE wedding?

jacqui24 · #**3997** 02-13-2017, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miche

What religion is Meghan? She might not want a church wedding or a CoE wedding?

Some have suggested she's Catholic because she went to a Catholic school. However, in US at least, Catholic school do allow children of other religions to study there. In some cities where public schools aren't so good, it's an alternative for parents. She's certainly never made it known that she's Catholic. Either way, it doesn't seem like she's terribly religious. However, if she marries Harry, who will one day be the son of a reigning monarchy, it's likely that she'll convert.

Mbruno · #**3998** 02-13-2017, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hendrik-Jan77

Before the Anglican Church Meghan is unmarried.

And so was Camilla, who had married Andrew in the Catholic Church, not in the CoE. Yet, Camilla was denied a church wedding.

Rudolph · #**3999** 02-13-2017, 05:30 PM

Good news for the Markle family.

Quote:

Meghan Markle's half-brother has been cleared of charges alleging he held a gun to his girlfriend's head in a drunken rage.

Two charges against Tom Markle Jr were dismissed after authorities in Oregon were 'unable to locate' his girlfriend Darlene Blount, DailyMail.com has learned.

In court papers filed on Thursday at Josephine County Circuit Court deputy district attorney Matthew Wojcik asked a judge to dismiss the case as the state was 'unable to locate essential victim'.

The judge granted the motion and the case is now closed.

Reached on Blount's phone, Markle Jr, 50, said: 'I heard yesterday (about the dismissal)'.

Asked if Blount, 36, had forgiven him and did not want to testify against him, he said: 'Obviously', but declined to comment further.

Read more: Meghan Markle's brother cleared of gun attack on partner | Daily Mail Online

jacqui24 · #**4000** 02-13-2017, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno

And so was Camilla, who had married Andrew in the Catholic Church, not in the CoE. Yet, Camilla was denied a church wedding.

They weren't denied. They never asked I believe. Even back when they married, the COE have allowed certain divorcees to remarry in the Church at the discretion of the clergy. However, their case was pretty extreme. Camilla and Charles had an affair, which his then wife attributed to the break down of their marriage. And it was highly publicized.