The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1901  
Old 12-09-2016, 10:36 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
She wouldn't really need to convert as I understand it. Not since they change things. Harry can marry a Catholic without losing his place in the line of succesion.


LaRae
She would not need to convert to the CoE, but she would definitely need to agree to raise her children as Anglicans. This is the "fine print" that some people seem to ignore when discussing the barriers removed from Catholics marrying into the BRF.

For most devout Catholics that would be a deal-breaker but perhaps like Autumn Kelly Meghan thinks "it's all the same anyway".
__________________

__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
  #1902  
Old 12-09-2016, 11:31 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,835
Don't believe the marriage rumors folks. William and Catherine were due to marry hundreds of times before an announcement really came. Let's give them some time guys.
__________________

__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #1903  
Old 12-09-2016, 11:57 AM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
She would not need to convert to the CoE, but she would definitely need to agree to raise her children as Anglicans. This is the "fine print" that some people seem to ignore when discussing the barriers removed from Catholics marrying into the BRF.

For most devout Catholics that would be a deal-breaker but perhaps like Autumn Kelly Meghan thinks "it's all the same anyway".
There's that, but my gut also tells me that that the old guard would prefer to see the new rules used first on family members much lower down the line of succession. It's just very handy to set a precedent farther out of the public eye before someone as prominent as Harry does something that was prohibited for centuries.
  #1904  
Old 12-09-2016, 12:16 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
People on Twitter don't have to pay for shutting down the center of London.

Is it really necessary to shut down central London?

Other people marry in Westminster Abbey without causing massive traffic jams, etc.
  #1905  
Old 12-09-2016, 12:32 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,722
As popular as Harry is, I think the public would be very disappointed to be excluded from the goings on around his wedding. They'll want to see the bridal couple coming and going from the church and the balcony scene and in general have a wonderful day to celebrate.

I do think its much further down the line then a lot of people are perhaps expecting but one thing for sure, like all members of the royal family before him that were expected to leave the single life behind and marry, Harry will be constantly followed until the ring is on her finger (whoever she may be) and then it'll be baby bump watch time and camping out at the hospital for the birth.

People in general love this kind of stuffs.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1906  
Old 12-09-2016, 12:45 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I still don't see Harry having a wedding like Williams regardless that he's the son of the PoW. It's her second wedding. Most generally when divorcee's re-marry they do not have big productions of it. It's usually considered in bad taste. Charles didn't even get married in a Church.



LaRae
Both Charles and Camilla had been married previous. They both had the big church wedding. This is totally a different situation. Harry has never been married before. Neither has children. Both are younger. You will find its not taboo for second weddings to be big now a days. Meghan hasn't had a church wedding, it wouldn't be unusual even if not to Harry, her scone wedding she wanted more formal. With Charles and Camilla there was also the shadow if how they started which was a deciding factor.
  #1907  
Old 12-09-2016, 12:49 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
Is it really necessary to shut down central London?

Other people marry in Westminster Abbey without causing massive traffic jams, etc.

If you want carriages, the Household Calvary, Bearskin wearing Guardsmen and marching bands, 2000 guests including foreign royals and the entire BRF , you do.
  #1908  
Old 12-09-2016, 12:54 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
When we look at the Queen's children, Charles had the huge St Paul's wedding. A State occasion. Anne, Andrew and Edward all had smaller, 'lesser' weddings although still grand.

We can see the progression. I'm not suggesting Harry will get married in a tiny chapel by an Elvis impersonator but I don't think he will be given a wedding on the scale of William's just because his fans will have a meltdown if he doesn't' get it.

Just as Charles' wedding was the benchmark in the 80s, William's is the benchmark for today. I think all other weddings from here on out will be 'smaller' but still befitting the status of the individual.
  #1909  
Old 12-09-2016, 01:08 PM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
I'd be so curious to know how much speculative "just in case" planning has already been done for the possible future wedding for Prince Harry and what scope of celebration the powers that be may have already deemed appropriate.

It seems unlikely that there hasn't been at least some degree of thinking ahead of time about would be appropriate for the second son of the heir to the throne, perhaps since he reached adulthood. After all, he's in a tricky spot, currently being of lower rank than those who've had huge public event weddings but still one of the most visible and popular royals. Sorting out what makes the most sense from the financial and PR perspectives could be a lengthy process, but this family has a history of engagements that are really only long enough if you start hiring bakers, dressmakers and florists right away.

I imagine portfolios already prepared with options (big ceremony at the Abbey with procession to Buckingham Palace, private wedding at Windsor, smaller public affair in a city other than London, etc.) complete with pro/con lists and budget proposals. Because I'm sure the Queen wants to be able to decide quickly what parameters her grandson should be given as everyone shifts into wedding planning mode, and she'll need a lot of information to make the choice.
  #1910  
Old 12-09-2016, 01:32 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
People should never underestimate the costs. William was married at the height of his popularity and there were still some grumblings about the disruption of the bank holiday and the massive security costs for shutting down central London.

Charles coronation is expected to cost big bucks, so there is also that. Harry is popular, there is no doubt but there will be public comment as to why he needs a wedding on the same scale as William's given he is never going to be king.
  #1911  
Old 12-09-2016, 01:38 PM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
When we look at the Queen's children, Charles had the huge St Paul's wedding. A State occasion. Anne, Andrew and Edward all had smaller, 'lesser' weddings although still grand.
The difference between the state weddings, like Charles and Diana's, and those of Anne (her first one), Andrew and even Princess Alexandra seems almost just semantic, really. They didn't have the laundry list of diplomatic expectations in terms of who was or wasn't invited from other nations, there weren't as many subsidiary events surrounding the actual ceremony, but they still filled the Abbey, people still lined the streets by the thousands, and the wedding parties' drives back to the palace still shut down traffic. Those were still massive and costly public events. And the thing is, if people decide they want to line up tens deep to try for a glance of Harry and his bride, the only way the powers that be can control costs are to hold the wedding in a place where it's not really possible for people to gather. If a well-loved royal marries at Westminster, they really have no option but to put a massive. expensive crowd control strategy into place. So smaller has to mean a wedding in a more controlled environment, such as Windsor, or a smaller city, like the Duke of Kent's wedding in York.
  #1912  
Old 12-09-2016, 01:46 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
People should never underestimate the costs. William was married at the height of his popularity and there were still some grumblings about the disruption of the bank holiday and the massive security costs for shutting down central London.

Yes, but wouldn't the increase in tourism offset the costs?
  #1913  
Old 12-09-2016, 01:54 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Marietta, United States
Posts: 139
That is a great point...Meghan has never been married in a Church at all...Would her marriage even be seen as "Real" to the CofE since it wasn't in a church?...
Sorry not familiar with the rules of that church...
  #1914  
Old 12-09-2016, 02:06 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
Yes, but wouldn't the increase in tourism offset the costs?
But it's always a perception thing. Tabloids tend to go with '£30 million cost to tax-payer for William's wedding' and bury the tourism boost and economic spinoff.

Look at the costs for renovating BP. The Queen is immensely popular but you have senior members of the Labour party saying she should pay out of pocket for it.

Harry may get a humongous wedding but there will be newspapers and media and politicians who ask why.
  #1915  
Old 12-09-2016, 02:19 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilacmagnolia View Post
That is a great point...Meghan has never been married in a Church at all...Would her marriage even be seen as "Real" to the CofE since it wasn't in a church?...
Sorry not familiar with the rules of that church...
A Catholic who marries in a non sacramental(civil) ceremony or who marries in another religion without Catholic consent is considered to have never been married at all.

Such marriages are invalid according to Roman Catholic canon law(see Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano's first brief civil wedding)

I am not sure if the same rules apply in the CoE but Meghan is a single woman who has never been validly married according to the Vatican.

ETA: Her status will be the same if she marries Harry in the CoE without a dispensation from her bishop
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
  #1916  
Old 12-09-2016, 03:03 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
[QUOTE=Moonmaiden23;1945368]
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilacmagnolia View Post
That is a great point...Meghan has never been married in a Church at all...Would her marriage even be seen as "Real" to the CofE since it wasn't in a church?...
Sorry not familiar with the rules of that church...[/QUOTE

A Catholic who marries in a non sacramental(civil) ceremony or who marries in another religion without Catholic consent is considered to have never been married at all.

Such marriages are invalid according to Roman Catholic canon law(see Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano's first brief civil wedding)

I am not sure if the same rules apply in the CoE but Meghan is a single woman who has never been validly married according to the Vatican.

ETA: Her status will be the same if she marries Harry in the CoE without a dispensation from her bishop
Lots of kids go to Catholic schools but aren't Catholic. Doesn't seem like I've seen anything indicating she's ever been a practicing Catholic.

LaRae
  #1917  
Old 12-09-2016, 03:05 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,763


Good point-I agree!

I just remember reading on Daily Fail that she was brought up Catholic. Which means it should be taken with the largest grain of salt possible.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
  #1918  
Old 12-09-2016, 03:12 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 489
Prince Harry's Christmas Gift to Meghan?

I wonder what it will be? I hear he is keen on jewelry.
  #1919  
Old 12-09-2016, 03:25 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Marietta, United States
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
I wonder what it will be? I hear he is keen on jewelry.
Do you mean an engagement ring? I know we are getting so ahead of ourselves but it's so fascinating Harry has a girl im so excited!!!
  #1920  
Old 12-09-2016, 04:39 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilacmagnolia View Post
Do you mean an engagement ring? I know we are getting so ahead of ourselves but it's so fascinating Harry has a girl im so excited!!!
YES, WE MIGHT! But I Harry may surprise those that insist it's too soon or premature during Christmas or New Years. We'll see.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asian baby names baptism birth britannia british british royal family british royals camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan history king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein line of succession list of rulers luxembourg meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten names pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan st edward sussex suthida swedish queen tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×