Prince Harry: Relationship Suggestions and Musings 2016-2017

[AristoCat]

I do think that a lot of people need to give up on the concept that Harry is going to marry some Nobel prizewinner who will supposedly be every little thing that everyone wants them to be and somehow take the monarchy to some mythical new level. The job will consist of cutting ribbons and showing up, nothing more than that. Women at this point in their lives are either established and uninterested or still drifting and unfocused. I don't think Harry will be with someone who will want to throw her life away and I don't think the RF wants someone who isn't settled and ready for married life. Someone who is drifting will not really want to stay in the RF for long once they get bored and want to do something else.

[Madame Verseau]

Originally Posted by eya

MEGHAN MARKLE reportedly dumped her ex-boyfriend, Canadian chef Cory Vitiello, for Prince Harry.

Meghan Markle’s EX: Canadian chef Cory Vitiello was DUMPED for Prince Harry | Life | Life & Style | Express.co.uk

How could this story get any traction anyway? Considering Camila's road to becoming HRH and the consort of the next monarch, this story is a nothing burger.

[Denville]

so what is this? Harry wotn want a woman who is going to be suitable for the royal job, ie content to "cut ribbons"? and yes IMO the RF wont want thim to marry a woman who ISNT ready to settle for "royal duites"...so it looks like harry is doomed to being single or to leaving his family

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

I am wondering because of Trump's image he would take it as a sleight if he were not invited. Meghan may live and work in Canada but she's an American citizen; and Trump would be of a mind that as president he should be in attendance, particularly if the Obamas attend. His world renowned Twitter habits would be a pall on the wedding. Meghan and Harry would have a lot of adjustments (Meghan mostly); they don't need that.

It'll be Harry and his bride's wedding and politics won't enter into it at all. If anyone feels slighted at not being invited, its their problem to deal with and have absolutely no impact on things. It mostly will be like what happened with Will's wedding. He was not happy with the invite list handed to him by the courtiers and his grandmother's reaction was "throw it out" and start with who you want to be there and we'll work from there.

If Harry and Meghan should decide they want the Obamas at the wedding, that's their prerogative. Same with the Trudeaus as they are good friends of Meghan's. If they wanted to invite Batman and his sidekick, Robin, they will. Politics won't enter into it.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

I do think that a lot of people need to give up on the concept that Harry is going to marry some Nobel prizewinner who will supposedly be every little thing that everyone wants them to be and somehow take the monarchy to some mythical new level. The job will consist of cutting ribbons and showing up, nothing more than that. Women at this point in their lives are either established and uninterested or still drifting and unfocused. I don't think Harry will be with someone who will want to throw her life away and I don't think the RF wants someone who isn't settled and ready for married life. Someone who is drifting will not really want to stay in the RF for long once they get bored and want to do something else.

To be fair, royals have never been historically expected to marry "Nobel prize winners"; quite the opposite actually. Royals, especially heirs to the throne (which is not Harry's case), were primarily expected originally to marry other royals (obviously from another European country). That later evolved to marrying women from the "upper class" , i.e. daughters from old noble families like Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Diana Spencer, Mathilde d'Udekem d'Accoz, and Stéphanie de Lannoy, or "gentry" like Camilla Shand or Sarah Ferguson.

As royals began to mingle increasingly more often with the middle class (as they started going to normal schools and universities and became part of the same social circles as rich people in general), that standard was downgraded and we got the likes of Kate Middleton, Letizia Ortiz, Máxima Zorreguieta, Mary Donaldson, Sophie Rhys-Jones, etc. , i.e. generally well-educated middle-class women and, at least in Letizia's, Sophie's and Máxima's cases, with accomplished professional careers of their own. Royal consorts like Mette-Marit, Daniel Westling or Sofia Hellqvist are perhaps one step further down than the former, but they are not the norm yet, I think.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Osipi

It'll be Harry and his bride's wedding and politics won't enter into it at all. If anyone feels slighted at not being invited, its their problem to deal with and have absolutely no impact on things. It mostly will be like what happened with Will's wedding. He was not happy with the invite list handed to him by the courtiers and his grandmother's reaction was "throw it out" and start with who you want to be there and we'll work from there.

If Harry and Meghan should decide they want the Obamas at the wedding, that's their prerogative. Same with the Trudeaus as they are good friends of Meghan's. If they wanted to invite Batman and his sidekick, Robin, they will. Politics won't enter into it.

Exactly. Most of us probably recall what the Queen said to William (as he relayed in an interview) about his own wedding. He's not going to be obligated to invite Trump or Trudeau or Obama ...it will be up to he and his bride to decide. This is not a State event.


LaRae

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

If Harry and Meghan make if official, would their wedding be considered a state occasion? Harry is 5th in line to the throne, but when Charles ascends Harry becomes the second son of the monarch. The late first lady Nancy Reagan led the U.S. delegation for Andrew and Sarah's wedding; could there be a chance the Trumps would attend? (Given the current sentiment towards Trump in the U.K. I would hope they would think on this.)

Given that it's not going to be a state wedding, Trump is unlikely to be invited. Even if he was, if the bride is Meghan, she would probably cross him off the list as long as it's not against protocol. She can't stand misogyny.

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

I am wondering because of Trump's image he would take it as a sleight if he were not invited. Meghan may live and work in Canada but she's an American citizen; and Trump would be of a mind that as president he should be in attendance, particularly if the Obamas attend. His world renowned Twitter habits would be a pall on the wedding. Meghan and Harry would have a lot of adjustments (Meghan mostly); they don't need that.

He can take it to Twitter if he wish. It'd just make him seem petty, although it's never stopped him. I doubt Meghan would care. I know I would get a little satisfaction knowing he's pouting about it.

[Countessmeout]

This is the difference even with William. While William had a lot of control over guests, certain people were to be invited. Heads of the commonwealth countries and foreign royals were not personal guests. They were there because of the occasion.

Any who attend Harrys will be personal guests of the couple. They will be there due to a relationship with the couple. Even the celebrities, many will have a much closer relationship, then those invited to Cambridge wedding as they did charity work with William.

The Trudeaus and Obamas if invited, because of a friendship with bride or groom. Celebrities, people like the Mulroneys. Maybe some minor royals, as like the Yorks, Harry is friends with some.

[Leopoldine]

A sitting American president would ruin the wedding because of the huge security operation. Even just Nancy Reagan at Prince Andrew's wedding involved apx. 200 Secret Service agents.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

A sitting American president would ruin the wedding because of the huge security operation. Even just Nancy Reagan at Prince Andrew's wedding involved apx. 200 Secret Service agents.

This fits in nicely with my thoughts about security concerns surrounding Harry's wedding. For all we know, Harry and Meghan (if she's to be the bride) will decide they want close family and friends only and it'll be a small, intimate wedding at St. George's Chapel at Windsor. The crowds will be kept to a minimum and to be honest, I think even televising the event is something up in the air until the actual wedding plans are announced. There are just so many different ways Harry could go with this.

[Pranter]

I'm not convinced it will be televised. Due to the privacy aspect, and we know how they are about it, their ages and Meghan with her previous marriage...I wouldn't be shocked at all to see them have a 'smaller' wedding and very little media.


LaRae

[Osipi]

There is still the possibility that Harry and Meghan could duck out of it all and get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas. Not likely but possible.

[Pranter]

Well he does have a history with Vegas.....

[ROYAL NORWAY]

As I've wrote here before, the wedding (if there are going to be one) will likely be held at St. George's Chapel and will be very similar to that of Edward and Sophie in 1999.

Originally Posted by Pranter

I'm not convinced it will be televised. Due to the privacy aspect, and we know how they are about it, their ages and Meghan with her previous marriage...I wouldn't be shocked at all to see them have a 'smaller' wedding and very little media.


LaRae

If it's not, the media will go crazy, Harry is going to be criticized as never before and the support for the monarchy could drop as a consequence of the heavy criticism that will come from the commentattors/experts and the press. So after taking this into consideration, then I'm pretty sure that it will be televised.

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

How could this story get any traction anyway? Considering Camila's road to becoming HRH and the consort of the next monarch, this story is a nothing burger.

Both Will and Kate where both dating other people when they first met. Who cares.

[Madame Verseau]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

This is the difference even with William. While William had a lot of control over guests, certain people were to be invited. Heads of the commonwealth countries and foreign royals were not personal guests. They were there because of the occasion.

Any who attend Harrys will be personal guests of the couple. They will be there due to a relationship with the couple. Even the celebrities, many will have a much closer relationship, then those invited to Cambridge wedding as they did charity work with William.

The Trudeaus and Obamas if invited, because of a friendship with bride or groom. Celebrities, people like the Mulroneys. Maybe some minor royals, as like the Yorks, Harry is friends with some.

I see there would have been more formality to William's wedding because he is a future head of state. Harry's not. And I like Edward and Sophie's wedding, it had the pomp for a marriage of a prince of the United Kingdom but less stuffy.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY

As I've wrote here before, the wedding (if there are going to be one) will likely be held at St. George's Chapel and will be very similar to that of Edward and Sophie in 1999.


If it's not, the media will go crazy, Harry is going to be criticized as never before and the support for the monarchy could drop as a consequence of the heavy criticism that will come from the commentattors/experts and the press. So after taking this into consideration, then I'm pretty sure that it will be televised.

I just went and watched Edward and Sophie's wedding ceremony and to be honest, if the wedding was at St. George's Chapel in Windsor, I think it would be every inch the royal wedding it should be. Its a beautiful setting for a wedding and just as regal and impressive as a bigger venue such as Westminster Abbey but perhaps on a smaller scale.

Its a shame that something like a personal wedding could have so much impact on the people and especially the media. However the public would be invited to participate whether it be televised, lining the streets or whatever should be taken as a privilege and not a right.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by M. Payton

Reading, that his wife should walk behind him out of protocol etc.
Where did you read that? In reading about Prince Harry for years now and seeing how he treats people he meets and interacts with them, IMO, I seriously doubt that he would want his wife to walk behind him, if anything she will be right at his side. What century are we living in today? He seems like a very loving and caring person who treats all with respect and kindness, walking behind him does not show that.

I think that degree of protocol is used for the Queen and Prince Philip and that's it. When Charles is King Camilla will be half a step behind him on state occasions. This is no different from the PM's wife at a state or formal occasion. Two Heads of State meet, shake hands and then introduce their spouses. It is courtesy not what century we are living in.

A perfect example of the expectations of the heir and spare is that of the Crown Prince of Denmark, Frederik and his brother Joachim. When arriving at formal occasions, first out of the car and onto the carpet is Marie followed by Joachim who gets out the other side and walks round to join her. Then comes Frederik who gets out to the car and steps onto the carpet followed by Mary who gets out of the car and walks around to join him. The comes the Queen and Consort and the same format is followed.

The spare is third in importance so he can decide who sits where in the car, etc. However, if he is carrying out a Royal Duty he'll still get out of the car second, but will greet the dignitary and introduce Marie which is, of course, only good manners.

Harry is fourth in importance and since State Dinners are not televised, who knows? Actually, that is a change they can make . . . televise the arrivals and parts of State Dinners or important occasions, then the UK will know what their annual 65p buys them.

[MaiaMia_53]

I don't remember. Was Edward's & Sophie's wedding televised (but just a smaller affair)?

I agree that Harry & Meghan could decide to make theirs a more intimate private wedding that goes untelevised, especially with the way the media has been acting with such disgusting irresponsibility toward Meghan. The more the tabloids push, the more Harry & Meghan will keep their relationship low-profile and underwraps. If they cave to the desire of true well-wishers to see the wedding televised, then I'm thinking we will not see much of them after that except for public occasions. Much like William and Kate, their family life will be strictly off-limits. A line was unfortunately crossed by the media with Diana, which will not be repeated for W&H's wives, nor for their children and their family's privacy.

The DF is monstrously stupid and way out of line with their latest claptrap clickbait trash. It practically crosses a line with no disclaimer. It doesn't work as satire either because it's not the least bit funny (only to the crazy haters, some of whom don't have the sense to realise it's made-up nonsense). It would be good if the royals would sue on Meghan's behalf, but I don't know if it works that way. Somehow, DF need to get the shiv for this latest bit of mean stupidity though. And to top it off they publish it on Harry's mother's birthday!

The stuff about Meghan's former boyfriend is also prying non-news. Neither her former husband, nor her former chef boyfriend will ever have anything to say to the tabloids, just as none of her mother's side of the family who love her have had zip to say. I'd be surprised if Channel 4's trashy plans gain much traction.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by MARG

Harry is fourth in importance and since State Dinners are not televised, who knows? Actually, that is a change they can make . . . televise the arrivals and parts of State Dinners or important occasions, then the UK will know what their annual 65p buys them.

The Queen's procession into the banquet hall with the visiting Head of State and other members of the Royal Family is usually televised and you can see the order of precedence there.

Incidentally, there is an episode of the TV series Victoria where Prince Albert is barred from walking into a state dinner alongside Queen Victoria as, according to the series, Victoria had to be escorted into the hall by one of his uncles who, as a prince of the blood, had precedence over Albert. Eventually, Victoria was able to change that. Nowadays, of course, Prince Philip is the highest ranking male in the UK in order of precedence.