Prince Harry: Relationship Suggestions and Musings 2016-2017

[MARG]

unless you follow royalty, spend your entire adult life social climbing to become a royal a la kate middleton or are part of the royal family most people, espescially americans, don't know anything of the tradition that royalty generally remains apolitical never making public statements. taking all of this into context, i highly doubt fro his point forward she will be making any such statements and if she does it will only be another sign that she will likely never marry harry.

i think this is a situation where he is more into her than she is into him. i believe she enjoys the publicity and the idea of being royalty but at the end of the day shen isn't willing to fall in line like kate and the others to get the title. i think someone in her camp leaked the relationship.

And therein lies the rub. You can't always get what you want and, should Harry ask Meghan to marry him and she agrees, she is accepting that she no longer has a public voice at all. No if's no buts and the fact that she is an American is irrelevant. There is no way she will be HRH the Duchess of ? and continue doing her own thing on that level.

The CoE has allowed divorcees to marry in a church since 2002, provided that whoever performs the ceremony consents to it.

In the case of Charles and Camilla, I believe the issue wasn't so much that they couldn't get married in the church as it was decided that given the circumstances it was probably best that they didn't - the fact that the two of them played parts in each other's divorces being a big part of the issue.

The Archbishop of Canterbury decided that, being the erudite theologian that he is, he could not make up his mind what to do. The fact that marriage of divorcees was allowable and the "blame game" had to be balanced with "judge not lest ye be judged" was a bit much for him. It was no surprise that he "resigned" his appointment as opposed to "retired" in the not too distant future. Come the crunch, he had no backbone and Charles gave him a get out of jail free card.

Ya'll Meghan is American! A marriage to a Royal does not change that. She has a right to express an opinion about what's happening in her country. This is not the dark ages nor is it the the 1980's. I do not want a marriage to turn into a silent wall flower.

Well Ya'll, marrying a member of the BRF nixes all that. I do not believe she would have to change her citizenship but the quickest way to the divorce court is to disrespect the in-laws, the Prime Minister and the government of your adopted country because doing your own thing is more important than your husband, your family and his. After all, what's a little thing like an international incident so long as you exercised your "rights". As a member of the BRF she would have NO such right. The great privilege bestowed by her marriage is balanced by the obligations she would assume.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Ok, let's take a step back. What international incident? How has Meghan even suggested disrespecting her possible future in-laws, the Prime Minister, and the UK? I'm confused here.

If Harry is going to marry an actual adult woman, most likely we ALL have voiced our opinion on politics and political leaders at some point of our lives, and yes, loudly, in public. BRF simply can't expect Harry's future wife to have lived in a bubble preparing for her future role as his wife, even before they were in a serious relationship.

 

[Jacknch]

I think most people are quite capable of adapting to change, wherever they come from or move to - provided they have time to get used to it, move at their own pace and there are circumstances in the first place that make them want to make such change.

Of-course, suddenly finding oneself a member of a royal family overnight would be fraught with obstacles and problems. But the reality is that already Meghan has known Harry for several months, she will have an inkling of what his life as a royal is like. Over time, if the relationship progresses, she will get to know the various customs and intricacies of Harry's family and the country in which he lives.

 

[Mbruno]

Now, I have read the last posts in this thread. I bet Harry will work it out so that she can continue acting while they are married if she wants to do that. Times are changing. Harry is number 5 not number 3. I am sure he and Meghan have talked about all the things you all mentioned.

It is impossible for Meghan to marry Harry and continue acting on America TV. As I said, she will have to give it up as Grace Kelly, who was an Academy Award winner and a huge movie star, did when she married Prince Rainier.

Furthermore, Meghan cannot decline a title. The moment she marries Harry, she will automatically become "The Princess Henry" and, if Harry is created a royal duke, she will be "HRH The Duchess of xxx". The only way to avoid that would be if Harry and Meghan had a morganatic marriage, in which case her children wouldn't have succession rights and titles either. I don't see that happening.

 

[Mbruno]

Ok, let's take a step back. What international incident? How has Meghan even suggested disrespecting her possible future in-laws, the Prime Minister, and the UK? I'm confused here.

If Harry is going to marry an actual adult woman, most likely we ALL have voiced our opinion on politics and political leaders at some point of our lives, and yes, loudly, in public. BRF simply can't expect Harry's future wife to have lived in a bubble preparing for her future role as his wife, even before they were in a serious relationship.

The problem is not Meghan having voiced political opinions before she met Harry, but rather keeping doing that after they get married, which is totally hypothetical of course. Being political while they are dating, but are not engaged or married yet is a little bit of a grey area, but it might prove problematic too.

As a side comment, the requirement that royals be politically neutral is not an archaic rule that amounts to stripping one of his/her freedom of speech. On the contrary, it is an imperative of constitutional monarchy. Royals can make comments on humanitarian causes and issues that are important to them. That is somewhat more common in continental Europe than in Britain ( CP Victoria for example has often spoken in support of refugees), but it happens in the UK sometimes too (Prince William for example is known for his campaign in favor of endangered animals ; Prince Charles has strong views on global warming and climate change). What cannot happen is a royal being partisan in the sense of speaking in support of or against a particular political party or candidate.

 

[wyevale]

She will be the most popular royal in that family simply because she is American.

Possibly on your side of the Pond, but she will have to work doubly hard to 'earn her stripes here', not because she is 'mixed race', but because she will [as an American] be perceived as not having an understanding of the 'system' as someone homegrown would.
If Harry chooses her, then I will wish them EVERY Happiness, but I don't think it will be easy for either of them.
'Time will tell'..

 

[Cocoasneeze]

I don't think it will be easy for anyone dating/marrying Harry. It might be easier for Meghan, because she already has experienced online harassment to some degree due to her character's actions on the show. She can take that. IMO she drew a line in paps harassing her mother, defaming bs articles and breaking into her home. I don't think it would be any harder for her than a British woman. The tabloids go hard in on any woman Harry dates.

 

[Curryong]

Of course Sarah Ferguson was English, upper middleclass, to a certain extent had mixed with the royals since childhood and presumably understood 'the system and the process'. She married a second son, and proved to be an absolute disaster as a Royal Duchess! I don't think we can really predict how a person is going to act when they enter that world until they are in it, unfortunately.

 

[Rudolph]

We won't know how serious they are until Meghan decides to wind down her entertainment career and lives full-time in the UK. That will be the first sign.

Then there will have to be a period where she acclimates herself to the Firm and sees what will be expected of her as a member of the BRF.

All of this is a big 'if'. Dating for few months doesn't mean this will end in marriage.

 

[Dman]

We won't know how serious they are until Meghan decides to wind down her entertainment career and lives full-time in the UK. That will be the first sign.

Then there will have to be a period where she acclimates herself to the Firm and sees what will be expected of her as a member of the BRF.

All of this is a big 'if'. Dating for few months doesn't mean this will end in marriage.

Yeah, they're just dating. People should really stop getting ahead of themselves with the marriage talk. It's what Harry don't want people to do so early on.

 

[Empress Merel]

But the question is, would he bother with such a public statement and practically claiming her as his, if they both just wanted to see where the relationship is heading. Feels to me they are both extremely serious about this.

 

[Dman]

But the question is, would he bother with such a public statement and practically claiming her as his, if they both just wanted to see where the relationship is heading. Feels to me they are both extremely serious about this.

Yes, the statement is very serious, but we can't get too ahead of ourselves with wedding talk. It's the kind of pressure Harry don't want everyone putting him and his girlfriend. He mentioned this in an interview not that long ago. I think Harry just want everyone to relax and allow him the room to build towards a future. It can be annoying when people see you with a girl, and suddenly you get drowned in wedding and baby talk.

People were going into marriage talk when he was dating Cressida, which really really didn't make much sense, because it really did look like Harry was babysitting his little sister. Also, I think it scared her off too.

 

[HistoryGirl]

But the question is, would he bother with such a public statement and practically claiming her as his, if they both just wanted to see where the relationship is heading. Feels to me they are both extremely serious about this.

I agree. Clearly he deems it serious enough to label her his girlfriend. Not just an acquaintance or friend which would still have gotten the message across. He made a deliberate choice to identify as his girlfriend to the public.

 

[Countessmeout]

Hmmm so why did Anne marry in Scotland? I've always heard it was because of her divorced state that she didn't marry in the CoE.


LaRae

Because Anne and Tim were married 24 years ago in 1992, ten years before the Church of England started allowing such marriages. The Church of Scotland was like the Church of England now, it allowed it with the consent of the clergy.

 

[Pranter]

Ah gotcha...forgot it'd been so long ago!


LaRae

 

[loonytick]

The problem is not Meghan having voiced political opinions before she met Harry, but rather keeping doing that after they get married, which is totally hypothetical of course. Being political while they are dating, but are not engaged or married yet is a little bit of a grey area, but it might prove problematic too.

As a side comment, the requirement that royals be politically neutral is not an archaic rule that amounts to stripping one of his/her freedom of speech. On the contrary, it is an imperative of constitutional monarchy. Royals can make comments on humanitarian causes and issues that are important to them. That is somewhat more common in continental Europe than in Britain ( CP Victoria for example has often spoken in support of refugees), but it happens in the UK sometimes too (Prince William for example is known for his campaign in favor of endangered animals ; Prince Charles has strong views on global warming and climate change). What cannot happen is a royal being partisan in the sense of speaking in support of or against a particular political party or candidate.

Here's the thing about Markle's political statements that stands out to me: so far as I've seen, they've all suggested the US move in a direction to make it more like the UK. Take gun control, for instance. Saying you support that while standing on US soil is a strong political stance. Saying it's a good thing when you're in the UK, where guns are controlled so tightly that most police don't have them, seems to be more only slightly more intense a statement than coming out as a fan of ice cream. Which is to say that the issues that seem to rile her up to the point of needing to speak out are already settled in the UK -- and settled in the way she would prefer -- so she might have an easier time keeping neutral there.

 

[wyevale]

This is TRUE loonytick..
The problem however, may be that if she is habituated to expressing controversial opinions, that is something that must STOP [instantly and permanently] the moment she is engaged to Prince Harry.

 

[Dman]

This is TRUE loonytick..
The problem however, may be that if she is habituated to expressing controversial opinions, that is something that must STOP [instantly and permanently] the moment she is engaged to Prince Harry.

If an engagement came about, Meghan won't be engaging in politics. This is not something anyone have to worry about, wyevale.

 

[Rudolph]

Gushing and emoting on social media is the 'in thing' with all of these celebrity/actress types. It's just what they do. They think the world hangs on their every utterance.

We get updates on politics, the state of the world etc. Every 'right on' cause is supported.

This will be one of the biggest changes for her.

 

[Ish]

But the question is, would he bother with such a public statement and practically claiming her as his, if they both just wanted to see where the relationship is heading. Feels to me they are both extremely serious about this.

We have to remember that Meghan is different than previous girlfriends in two key ways: she was a public person prior to dating Harry and she doesn't live in the U.K.

There is no way she's not facing a degree of press and paparazzi harassment that Harry's previous girlfriends (or William's for that matter) never got; the press in North America have a different attitude towards royally connected individuals than the British press do. They also were already aware of Meghan and likely where to find her, her social media, etc, well before she was dating Harry because she was a public person (regardless of whether you've heard of her before, the press certainly has).

Add in to the fact that Harry's previous girlfriends never faced the racist tirade that Meghan's facing...

In all likelihood, the statement he's made regarding the relationship has more to do with how she's being treated by the press and public than how serious the relationship is. Harry and Chelsy were together for years without a similar statement, but Chelsy was more protected by British attitudes (and her whiteness) than Meghan is.

 

[American Observer7]

People don't realize that the more they attack Meghan, the more he will dig his hills in. I think he's fallen in love. Harry will push back even more and the result will be an engagement and a short one at that leading to marriage.

 

[miche]

Chelsy was also protected b/c the press, paparazzi and public cared more about than girlfriend Kate than they ever did about her

 

[Empress Merel]

Social media wasn't that relevant back then. It protected Chelsy.

 

[Angel.10]

I already think Harry manifested because is serious. He was not going to expose himself just for an unimportant affair. And I agree, the more the press and the people chase her, the closer they will be

 

[Tiggersk8]

I'm still catching up on the thread, but accidentally hit the Post button. So in order to not lose all this...

What does the poppy have to do with it?

She's an individual who works and lives in Canada and is currently in the UK. It's the day before Remembrance Day. Why wouldn't she be wearing a poppy, even if it's just to pick up groceries?

I know it's not a thing in the US, but in Canada most people are wearing poppies all the time starting the last week of October, up until Remembrance Day.

Thank you!!

She wasn't wearing one when she was photographed in Canada a few days ago. Why would an American who previously never wore a poppy suddenly put one on? Especially for a quick errand.

Because from what I have seen over the years, a British Poppy seems to be able to be fastened far more securely than our Canadian Poppies are. One year I ended up somewhere close to 30 Poppies over the course of The Poppy Campaign. Ours are attached by a very flimsy stick pin and that's it, so it doesn't take much to lose one as you go about your day.

Which is what could have happened in the photo you are referring to. As to why she's d wear when not a Canadian? It's called showing respect, & when in someone else's Country, you respect their Culture & Traditions. Especially when comes to something as important as this.

I find this you using this as a reason to attack Megan over as rather offensive. There other "mis steps" I'm sure you could find to harp on about I have no doubt, but to use wearing a Poppy as one? Sad, very offensive and disgusting too.

How do we know if she never wore poppy before? Most people say they have never heard of her until the past 2 weeks or so, we have no clue if she wore one before. She would no doubt get called out if she didn't wear one.

Exactly!! She's working and living in Canada most of the year for many years now. She would have had to live under a rock to not learn what the Poppy stands for and means. Plus it was Remembrance Weekend in the UK. I don't even want to remotely think what the headlines would have been if there wasn't a Poppy on her coat when in London this weekend.

Of all the things I thought I would see a Royal girlfriend get grief over....A Poppy!! *shakes head in disbelief*

BTW...For all those wringing their over her being an actress and oh me oh my I just *know* she's going to be *indiscreet* because we know they all blab about everything..."? I'm old enough to remember Prince Andrew's relationship w/ certain Katherine "Koo" Stark, an actress who had made a few soft porn films IIRC & had also posed nude & just how serious that relationship was. Sadly, it didn't work out & it wasn't too long after that a certain Redhead came on the scene.

All these years later & which one is it who is constantly bringing up her Royal "connections" in the Media & who has kept her mouth shut?

Just something to put out there to ponder over...


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[wyevale]

*Said* !? ANY excuse for Click bait..

 

[DanyT]

I'm still catching up on the thread, but accidentally hit the Post button. So in order to not lose all this...




Thank you!!




Because from what I have seen over the years, a British Poppy seems to be able to be fastened far more securely than our Canadian Poppies are. One year I ended up somewhere close to 30 Poppies over the course of The Poppy Campaign. Ours are attached by a very flimsy stick pin and that's it, so it doesn't take much to lose one as you go about your day.

Which is what could have happened in the photo you are referring to. As to why she's d wear when not a Canadian? It's called showing respect, & when in someone else's Country, you respect their Culture & Traditions. Especially when comes to something as important as this.

I find this you using this as a reason to attack Megan over as rather offensive. There other "mis steps" I'm sure you could find to harp on about I have no doubt, but to use wearing a Poppy as one? Sad, very offensive and disgusting too.




Exactly!! She's working and living in Canada most of the year for many years now. She would have had to live under a rock to not learn what the Poppy stands for and means. Plus it was Remembrance Weekend in the UK. I don't even want to remotely think what the headlines would have been if there wasn't a Poppy on her coat when in London this weekend.

Of all the things I thought I would see a Royal girlfriend get grief over....A Poppy!! *shakes head in disbelief*

BTW...For all those wringing their over her being an actress and oh me oh my I just *know* she's going to be *indiscreet* because we know they all blab about everything..."? I'm old enough to remember Prince Andrew's relationship w/ certain Katherine "Koo" Stark, an actress who had made a few soft porn films IIRC & had also posed nude & just how serious that relationship was. Sadly, it didn't work out & it wasn't too long after that a certain Redhead came on the scene.

All these years later & which one is it who is constantly bringing up her Royal "connections" in the Media & who has kept her mouth shut?

Just something to put out there to ponder over...


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

Attack? Harp on? Not really. It was a comment on the fact she is already being advised on royal pr. I stand by my opinion that she was possibly advised to wear it due to the possibility of being photographed. I am not faulting her for wearing one nor would I care if she didn't. Good lord

 

[Alisa]

This is one unusual royal romance.
So much talk- official statement from KP, racist, sexist, and nationalistic comments. Not to mention Miss Markle's own sister airing the family's dirty laundry.
And the supposed couple have yet to be photographed together.

 

[Curryong]

No they haven't been photographed together yet, not in Toronto or London. (Harry Potter's Cloak of Invisibility, perhaps!) However, I do think we're beyond the 'supposed couple' stage. Harry himself came out and said as much in the famed KP statement. He also said they have been going out together for 'some months', (seemingly since June.) I don't think he was lying.

Whoever does manage to photograph them together (perhaps next month) is going to rake in an absolute fortune! Perhaps the next time they go to the Soho House venue someone with a cell phone could hide behind the bar!

 

[Dman]

Those pictures of them together will be big and it's what everyone is waiting for.