Prince Harry: Relationship Suggestions and Musings 2016-2017

[Ish]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Ish]

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:

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]

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

 

[jacqui24]

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]

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]

Good news for the Markle family.

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]

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.

 

[jacqui24]

Good new for the Markle family.


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

If he really wanted what's best for his sister, he would've just gone away. It always amazes me how same parent can have totally different children.

 

[Mbruno]

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

William's wedding was attended by foreign ambassadors accredited in the UK, who are state representatives. What is the point of inviting official foreign state representatives if it is not a state event ? Furthermore, as someone else said, the wedding was attended by all Governor Generals of the Commonwealth realms and seven Commonwealth realm PMs, who are elected heads of government.

The important point is that kings, PMs, and ambassadors are unlikely to attend Harry's wedding as it won't be a state event

 

[Mbruno]

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.

That is OT, but, anyway, we don't know if they didn't ask and, even if they didn't, they may not have asked because they knew (or were told) that it would have been embarassing for the church's hierarchy to agree to it.

 

[Ish]

William's wedding was attended by foreign ambassadors accredited in the UK, who are state representatives. What is the point of inviting official foreign state representatives if it is not a state event ? Furthermore, as someone else said, the wedding was attended by all Governor Generals of the Commonwealth realms and seven Commonwealth realm PMs, who are elected heads of government.

The important point is that kings, PMs, and ambassadors are unlikely to attend Harry's wedding as it won't be a state event

William and Kate's wedding wasn't a state event. It was at best a semi-state occasion.

As per St. James' Palace: "The wedding will not be a formal state occasion since Prince William is neither the sovereign nor the heir to the throne."

I believe the main difference that we saw is that when Charles got married, many foreign heads of state were invited based on their country's relationship with Britain. In addition, Governor Generals and Prime Ministers of Commonwealth realms were also invited.

When William got married, some foreign heads of state were invited and some ambassadors were invited, along with many foreign royals and of course the GGs and PMs of the Commonwealth.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

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.

The polls that matter are those who ask whether you are for or against the monarchy, and approval ratings.

The unserious favourite royal polls are meaningless, but let us go through them.

The Queen came first (over both the Queen Mother and Diana) in almost all of the few polls that were made in the 80/90s.

From 2002 to 2010, the Queen came first in almost all of the few polls that were made.

The Queen has (since 2011) shared the first place with William, Kate and Harry. And yes, Harry has been more popular than William in some polls for three years now, but that is not going to last forever. And a possible wedding for Harry has nothing to do with popularity.

And let's go through the YouGov most admired person in the UK poll:

2014 - The 30 most admired persons in the UK:
1: The Queen with 18,74%
9: William with 2,6%
19: Kate with 0,80%
Harry was not even included in the poll.

2015 - The 15 most admired Women in the UK:
1: The Queen with 17%
5: Kate with 5,2%

2015 - The 15 most admired Men in the UK:
5: William with 6,5%
8: Harry with 5,9%

2016 - The 30 most admired Women in the UK:
1: The Queen with 19,5%
7: Kate with 3,6%

2016 - The 30 most admired Men in the UK:
4: Harry with 6,4%
6: William with 5,6%

The Queen was also polled the most admirred woman in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany in the 2016 poll.

The Queen is the head of state of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 12 other Countries. She is also the head of the Commonwealth and in that capacity the figurehead of 2 billion people. She is the most popular, iconic, well-known and most famous head of state (many would say person) in the world.

And let's go through the Royal Weddings:

Princess Elizabeth 1947: To and from Westminster Abbey in closed carriages and appearance on the balcony.

Margaret 1960: To and from Westminster Abbey in closed carriages and appearance on the balcony. (That had not happened today)

Anne 1973: To and from Westminster Abbey in closed carriages and appearance on the balcony. (That had not happened today)

Charles 1981: To and from St Paul's Cathedral in open carriages and appearance on the balcony.

Andrew 1986: To and from Westminster Abbey in open carriages and appearance on the balcony. (That had not happened today)

Edward 1999: A big televised Royal Wedding at St George's Chapel with a carriage procession in Windsor.

William 2011: A scaled-down wedding in comparison with the Abbey weddings mentioned above.

To Westminster Abbey in cars and back to the palace in open carriages for William/Kate and the bridal party, and closed carriages for the Queen/Philip, Charles/Camilla and Kate's parents and appearance on the balcony.

And remember: William was as popular as Harry (if not even more) when he married, and there were still complaining from media and other people about the costs.

A possible wedding for Harry: I'll be very surprised if he gets a Abbey wedding with a carriage procession and a balcony apperance.

I think we'll see much of the same as we saw for Edward in 1999, A big Televised Royal Wedding at St George's Chapel with a carriage procession in Windsor.

 

[American Observer7]

Well, your British so you would know more than I. But I still think many will want to see the wedding in big part because who the bride is. I mean, it's different, fresh and new. If she were a Brit, I would not be this interested if at all.

 

[royal rob]

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

I thought I read she is Jewish

 

[American Observer7]

Meghan's brother gave an interview to inside edition. He apologized to Meghan and the entire royal family. Meghan's father needs to shut him up.

He needs to shut up! I am so glad she doesn't talk to him.

 

[miche]

Well, your British so you would know more than I. But I still think many will want to see the wedding in big part because who the bride is. I mean, it's different, fresh and new. If she were a Brit, I would not be this interested if at all.

The don't take the American public feelings into account when it comes to matters that involve the BRF

 

[Pranter]

I thought I read she is Jewish

Hard to tell...I don't think she's confirmed (to media) what faith she adheres to.. I've seen on article that said she said she was Jewish..but not sure about anything direct from her.



LaRae

 

[cepe]

Well, your British so you would know more than I. But I still think many will want to see the wedding in big part because who the bride is. I mean, it's different, fresh and new. If she were a Brit, I would not be this interested if at all.

The American interest is understandable if there is going to be a wedding. But majority of people on this forum are interested in Monarchy

When we raise potential issues, we are not being anti-Megan, we are drawing on previous events and knowledge of the BRF

IF there is a wedding, it will be televised IMO but it is more likely that the wedding will take place at Windsor Castle (St Georges) than Westminster Abbey. And when I say that its because of how the BRF are now (rather than in the 1980s) and also that Harry is not one for large scale, formal events.

It wont be ignored but Harry is not in the direct line (and I think he's happy about that) and therefore it will be different.

But who knows? - none of us!

 

[royaldreams]

I agree with this, Harry's wedding will be a big deal. Also, keep in mind that his wedding will be the last one to be worthy of being televised (or at least garner great attention) until Prince George or Princess Charlotte get married, and that's a good 25+ years away.

So, the monarchy and the British media will milk Harry's wedding for all it's worth. Trust.

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.

 

[Countessmeout]

I didn't mention Harry... but I will.

David Beckham was the only footballer and he was invited because of his work with William on England's World Cup bid.

As for the 'celebrities', again most have charity connections or are friends of Prince Charles.

Harry's guest list won't have the same foreign royals, politicians, members of the armed forces or clergy.

His friends are pretty much the same friends as William's, so they will be the same.

Of course not. It doesn't matter who Harry married, there isn't going to be the list if dignitaries that were at williams. Just like Andrew, Edward and annevdudnt gave the same as Charles. Had nothing to do with the bride. Or even the group. These are not personal invited. These are representatives.

What were talking here are personal invites. Those people who are actually there for the couple. There will be some foreign royals like the Greeks, German cousins, likely the Bavarian Harry hunts with.

It's not gaudy to have celebrities at williams because they were connected to his charities? Oh so it's only gaudy when it is the non royal who invited them. Lovely double standards. Okay for William to invite a celebrity he may meet once or twice at a charity dinner, but cringeworthy for Meghan to have coworkers.

Harry served in the military. And he is involved with many patronages. I would expect many of his old military bosses, like William, to attend. He has many patrinages as well. He works with celebrities all the time. So if Bryan Adams, Dominic west, and any other celebrities from walking or the Invictus games attend, is that gauche?

There could be some government. Meghan knows Justin Trudeau and his wife. As well as the mulroneys. Harry is friendly with the Obamas. For foreign royals how about prince Seeso who Harry works with on senteble?

 

[hel]

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:



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).

I agree with your assessment. Further, in a document titled "Response from the House of Bishops of the General Synod of the Church of England to the consultation on proposed changes to regulation and guidance to registration officers in respect of the content of civil marriage ceremonies", the first paragraph states:

The Church of England recognises as legally valid all marriages which are solemnised in accordance with and recognised by the civil law of this country, whatever type of ceremony is used and irrespective of whether the marriage is one which is consistent with the Church’s teaching. (https://www.churchofengland.org/media/45644/civilmarriage.pdf)

Since Meghan was married in Jamaica, one has to look at whether the UK would recognize that marriage as legal. You can find that here (spoiler, the answer is yes): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/268020/marriage.pdf

Further, the CoE is quite clear that if you've been divorced, you have to have a degree nisi (final divorce) in order to have your re-marriage even considered. This is because they can't marry anyone who's not legally allowed to wed; in order to be legally allowed to wed, you can't already be married. It would be nonsensical for the CoE to require a legal document (the divorce decree) that they then pretend doesn't exist.

I've looked and I can't find anything to indicate that her first marriage doesn't "count". But I can find the texts above that indicate strongly to me that the CoE would consider her a divorced person.

I am, of course, open to correction if anyone has any sources that I haven't found.

 

[Osipi]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I dimly recall that when William was planning his wedding, he was handed a list of people that he should invite to the wedding and he was not happy with it. He talked with the Queen and she said for him to trash the list and invite who he wanted to invite. I imagine it will be the same for Harry and Meghan should they marry.

They'll invite people that they want to be there first and foremost. It won't matter what walk of life or occupation but their relation to the bride and groom.

 

[Mbruno]

I agree with your assessment. Further, in a document titled "Response from the House of Bishops of the General Synod of the Church of England to the consultation on proposed changes to regulation and guidance to registration officers in respect of the content of civil marriage ceremonies", the first paragraph states:



Since Meghan was married in Jamaica, one has to look at whether the UK would recognize that marriage as legal. You can find that here (spoiler, the answer is yes): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/268020/marriage.pdf

Further, the CoE is quite clear that if you've been divorced, you have to have a degree nisi (final divorce) in order to have your re-marriage even considered. This is because they can't marry anyone who's not legally allowed to wed; in order to be legally allowed to wed, you can't already be married. It would be nonsensical for the CoE to require a legal document (the divorce decree) that they then pretend doesn't exist.

I've looked and I can't find anything to indicate that her first marriage doesn't "count". But I can find the texts above that indicate strongly to me that the CoE would consider her a divorced person.

I am, of course, open to correction if anyone has any sources that I haven't found.

The misinterpretation came, I believe, from a confusion with the position of the Roman Catholic Church, which does not recognize civil weddings or weddings in other churches for the purpose of determining who can wed in a Roman Catholic ceremony (hence, Letizia Ortiz for example could marry in the church even though she had had a previous civil marriage and divorce).

From the sources you quoted, however, that is clearly not the case in the CoE.

 

[muriel]

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

Camilla and Andrew were married at Guards Chapel, which is not a RC church.

 

[muriel]

IF there is a wedding, it will be televised IMO but it is more likely that the wedding will take place at Windsor Castle (St Georges) than Westminster Abbey. And when I say that its because of how the BRF are now (rather than in the 1980s) and also that Harry is not one for large scale, formal events.

It wont be ignored but Harry is not in the direct line (and I think he's happy about that) and therefore it will be different.

But who knows? - none of us!

I agree, I think it will be St George's, with perhaps a carriage ride through Windsor.

 

[Rudolph]

So Meghan is divorced in the eyes of the church. I didn't think they would get married at the Abbey anyway but now I'm certain of it.

The Abbey is too high profile for a divorcee to marry into the BRF

 

[Mirabel]

So Meghan is divorced in the eyes of the church. I didn't think they would get married at the Abbey anyway but now I'm certain of it.

The Abbey is too high profile for a divorcee to marry into the BRF

That is what I was thinking also.

I think Harry will have a scaled-down wedding at Windsor, more in line with Edward's. If that is, he marries Meghan at all.