However, Meghan has given an interview with Vanity Fair magazine and is on their front cover. She talks about her romance with Harry. I find it startling that this has been OKd by BP actually, but I believe this interview to be a preemptive strike before an engagement announcement. It is only a short time now before the Invictus Games and Meghan will no doubt appear with Harry at some events, even if they are only evening ones. It's an interesting interview and Meghan says they met in July, so they've dating for about 14 months.
Cover Story: Meghan Markle, Wild About Harry! | Vanity Fair (https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/09/meghan-markle-cover-story)
'We're two people who are really happy and in love': Meghan Markle speaks about her relationship with Prince Harry for the first time in the strongest hint yet that a royal engagement IS imminent
Meghan Markle confirms romance with Harry for first time | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4853642/Meghan-Markle-confirms-romance-Harry-time.html)
Double post auto-merged: September 05, 2017, 01:39:29 PM
Meghan Markle Breaks Silence on Prince Harry Relationship: We're 'Really Happy and in Love'
Meghan Markle Breaks Silence on Prince Harry Relationship - Us Weekly (http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/meghan-markle-breaks-silence-on-prince-harry-relationship-w501127)
Double post auto-merged: September 05, 2017, 01:43:57 PM
Meghan Markle on Prince Harry: 'We're a couple, we're in love
Meghan Markle on Prince Harry: 'We're a couple, we're in love' (http://news.sky.com/story/meghan-markle-on-prince-harry-were-a-couple-were-in-love-11021559)
Double post auto-merged: September 05, 2017, 01:49:44 PM
'Everything changed' Meghan Markle reveals 'challenges' being Prince Harry's girlfriend
Meghan Markle tells Vanity Fair challenges being Prince Harry's girlfriend | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/850211/meghan-markle-prince-harry-girlfriend-news-engaged)
Double post auto-merged: September 05, 2017, 01:51:55 PM
'We're happy and in love': Meghan Markle opens up about relationship with Prince Harry
'We're happy and in love': Meghan Markle opens up about relationship with Prince Harry - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2017-09-05/were-happy-and-in-love-meghan-markle-opens-up-about-relationship-with-prince-harry/)
Hahaha. Confirmed all I've already said about MM and their relationship. Omg though, even with all I've said I haven't thought either would be this stupid, but then H is clearly not a smart person, no royal listens to their advisors, they are stubborn and MM is just such a fame-w. I'll see how their marriage will unfold (oh they are getting married) cause there is serious potential for a trainwreck.
This interview with Meghan has, without a doubt been vetted and passed by BP and Clarence House and KP advisers. Harry of course knew what she was going to say.
I think it's a very nice interview, quite discreet, she hasn't let any info out that she shouldn't have, just confirmed what everyone knew. Royal correspondents and long time Royal watchers in various forums and Twitter sites have stated that this interview would have been OKd up the chain of command and that it probably signals an engagement later this year.
Someone I know on another forums with links to BP has stated that it was believed that Harry has already been to see the Queen and that therefore the family know. I think Harry and Meghan have in fact been privately engaged for several weeks.
Quote from: psm on September 05, 2017, 02:27:30 PM
Hahaha. Confirmed all I've already said about MM and their relationship. Omg though, even with all I've said I haven't thought either would be this stupid, but then H is clearly not a smart person, no royal listens to their advisors, they are stubborn and MM is just such a fame-w. I'll see how their marriage will unfold (oh they are getting married) cause there is serious potential for a trainwreck.
Jealous much?
Emmmmmm, I agree with Pam and Curry.
I am on the fence about it.
40-60.
I think she , cover story on Vanity Fair, should have said ,,,well that was too much.
Meghan Markle opens up about her relationship with Prince Harry: 'We are really happy and in love'
Meghan Markle Vanity Fair interview: The Suits star opens up about her relationship with Prince Harry for the first time (http://us.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/2017090542143/meghan-markle-vanity-fair-interview-prince-harry/)
Double post auto-merged: September 05, 2017, 07:41:49 PM
Meghan Markle on Dating Prince Harry: 'It's Really Simple. We're Two People Who Are Really Happy and in Love'
Meghan Markle Talks About Prince Harry for First Time (http://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-talks-dating-prince-harry-first-time-were-in-love/)
No. Cover story is titled, Wild About Harry.
He is not an entertainer.
She is an entertainer, actress.
Vanity Fair is a big deal, big being the cover story.
She does not want her claim to be because she is Harry's special friend. Boyfriend/girlfriend sounds so juvenile for older adults.
Her claim to fame is being an actress. She is lead on a little know American cable tv show called Suits.
She has a degree from a university and worked her way as an actress and in her charitable causes before PH met her.
THERFORE, as an actress, not Duchess, she should not confirm the extent of their relationship.
The public already knows.
If she and PH are engaged, discussed a future, or he already talked to QEII, the public does not know and needs not know.
She should enjoy her time with him as in privacy ...for now...while they still can. They have gone through a lot and have done all kinds of huge, inconvenient ways to travel back and forth and be together and take vacations. These are things normal people all the time do with ease.
If he marries her, and I think so, she will be on covers all the time. Not in a good way either. She will be not an actress, but The Duchess of___________. Susex? Her life with PH will be exposed...every day...all the time...for the rest of her life.
Her children's names, schools, homes, jobs as in BRF duties, clothing, staff, doctors, means of travel, schedule, auto vehicles, food, personal items, etc. will all be done.
YESYES, I know, We know, YES, PW and PK chose. PH and his wife will be able to names , schools, godparents, etc. are chosen by them byt from the list or of approved things or of appropriate things, people, places.
Names. No Samanthas or Mirandas.
No living in Wimbledon. Even when K grocery shopped while living in Wales, she no doubt , did not buy personal items.
I think and hope PH marries her. She is a well put together young woman , smart, pretty, great face and shape, photogenic, personable, well traveled, worldly, knows PM Trudeau and his wife, mature, and is university educated and degreed and has her own charitable causes and his age group. He deserves his own wife and family.
She is going to dragged in the British press worst than PD and Sarah and Andrew on their worst days.
Camilla is happy because MM will be public enemy #1 by the British media and people. The British people still , read comments, go after Pippy and Carole , for being at Wimbledon. What Pippa and Carole went through in the media before K and W got married, was awful Shameful.
Add, the American press will not be kind. Add the Black American media and people will go after her for not being "woke" and not backing and/ or attending the BET Awrds, NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Black Lives Matter and refusing invitations to be commencement speaker at HBCU's.
None of that would be her life.
QuoteI think Harry and Meghan have in fact been privately engaged for several weeks.
I agree and I wouldn't be surprised if there is an engagement announcement this fall once QEII has returned from Balmoral.
https://www.yahoo.com/style/meghan-markles-vanity-fair-story-prince-harry-romance-sparks-sexist-claims-015225156.html
If they get married, it is going to be so bad for her. The people of UK and media went after Kate, Carole, and Pippa, but is not gong to be close like the pure silliness and disgust and just vile things at MM.
This cover story Wild About Harry was not a good idea. He is not an entertainer. It gives too much information the public did not need to know.
It seems to me that this little article is criticising Vanity Fair for not asking serious in depth questions of Meghan rather than pointing the finger at Meghan herself.
Nevertheless, as a longtime Harry supporter and a well wisher of a Harry/Meghan union, I've seen the depths some online Twitter and Tumblr sites have plunged to since October/November last year when it all exploded, not to mention what the British tabs are capable of. It seems to me that in some quarters being an actress= fame w***e and being American of somewhat humble background is practically a hanging offence.
Personally, I feel like I've been in the trenches sometimes since last autumn, engaged daily in throwing back 'live grenades' at opposition posters online. :D It's been ridiculous!
I'm not liking the Hollywood feeling I get from Meghan. I wish she was more discreet. The magazine cover makes me nervous but I guess the press would turn her into a cover girl eventually anyway as a young royal bride. Kate is on every cover now.
Surprised me as well but she is an L.A. raised actress. So what is so surprising about it really. She is not raised with British protocol or any real respect of the Monarchy. This is celebrity for her. She got George Clooney of the RF. And she will carry on the way she was raised. I know, I am born and raised in L.A. Still there. I know how it is with Hollywoodites. I would have tried to be one, but my mom put her foot down on entertainers in her family. So I am an attorney instead. But once the Queen accepted divorce and the Middletons in the mist, it was bound to unravel the old rules and protocol. Here comes Hollywood. Diana would be proud.
Meaghan actually left LA behind a long time ago, although her mother still lives there, far from Hollywood. Meghan's lived a down to earth life in Toronto, Canada for at least seven years.
As far as the Vanity Fair article goes, Meghan wouldn't have done it without Harry's permission. Girlfriends have been dropped for less. A lot of Royal correspondents/observers believe that it was almost certainly run past the Press office at KP and Harry's Press Secretary, Jason Knauf as well, because of inevitable Press queries that would come up after the article was published. Some longtime Royal watchers believe that Charles and the Clarence House office was briefed as well.
Latest reports state that apparently Harry and Meghan were quite pleased with the VF puff piece. I believe they've been secretly engaged for some time and that we will see them together at the Invictus Games.
I dont know why but I find myself terribly middle of the road about this woman. Like I'm not against her or for her or anything she's just okay.
It's wonderful that MM has such cheerleaders with inside sources as some people on this forum. It's almost as if it is some people's job to promote her. One never leaves their roots behind, as it is a part of one's inner being. And she left L.A. for a job that was in Canada, not because she got tired of L.A. She was a mature adult when she left. She may prefer now to live elsewhere. People do leave L.A, although more come here to live than leave. That is why we are so overcrowded. But her upbringing is still in her. I agree that the article must have been approved or rather allowed. I doubt it was approved by anyone in the RF. She is going to do things the Hollywood yank way and it is evident. But that is who she is. Remember, when in courting mode, people show forth their best side and make all sorts of allowances to get the man or woman. When they marry, oft times it is a different ball game. Look at Andrew and Fergie. I thought they were so in love and so right for each other. And they at still friends but marriage was quite a different thing than dating. So time will tell how this all unfolds. Grace Kelly regretted giving up acting in her later years. Both H and MM come from broken homes and she is already divorced once. Marriage is quite another thing and hard work. Look at all the celebrity divorces of couples I swore were so right for each other. So this is not a fairy tale couple. They have a hard road to walk if they make it work. And maybe they will and maybe they won't. Time will tell. Harry is still finding himself. But one thing I know, they will both be fine no matter what happens down the line. And I'd say MM has had her life made for her now. So she is one lucky mature woman.
I don't know what you're implying, but I've never had a job promoting anybody. I've followed Harry since he was 19 and have always taken a huge interest in his girlfriends. It started off by my helping my young niece who collected everything she could find in print in newspapers and magazines on him.
I've also been a Royal watcher since my childhood in England and travelled to and fro between England and Australia where I have lived on and off since my twenties, and have picked up quite a bit of knowledge over the years about the BRF operates.
I knew nothing about MM before last October. However, I believe, after the Chelsy Davy and Cressida Bonas years, that Harry's found someone to make him happy.
Thanks for sharing your info, Curryong. I apologize for being so cautious about this union, but I'm from the old days where things were different. I went to a posh high school here in L.A., Marlborough School for girls, and my group of friends were actually set up with Eton boys who traveled here. It was such a culture clash, and I always felt they were snobby to us although fun to be with. My Grandpa was British and received an OBE (when it meant something apparently) for his work in WWII. Through him and my relatives in England, I have always been aware of the class discrimination in England and Scotland. It is still there. So I have been so surprised with how the young royals are allowed to mix these days. It would never have happened in my day. So I am out of touch.
But with all my caution, I am secretly excited that there will be an American princess up on that balcony, and a racially mixed one. First Obama, now MM. The world is maturing from the old discriminatory days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's ok, ik1957. Harry wasn't very happy at Eton, it wasn't his cup of tea at all. He's also not a cookie-cutter type prince, I always think he's very down to earth and friendly in personality. Im not blind to the fact that a lot more difficulties lie ahead of the two of them because they come from such different backgrounds and worlds. However, they've managed very well so far I think. Now they just have to complete it all, live together for a while and get the British public used to an American Princess!
Quote from: lk1957 on September 08, 2017, 02:21:15 PM
It's wonderful that MM has such cheerleaders with inside sources as some people on this forum. It's almost as if it is some people's job to promote her. One never leaves their roots behind, as it is a part of one's inner being. And she left L.A. for a job that was in Canada, not because she got tired of L.A. She was a mature adult when she left. She may prefer now to live elsewhere. People do leave L.A, although more come here to live than leave. That is why we are so overcrowded. But her upbringing is still in her. I agree that the article must have been approved or rather allowed. I doubt it was approved by anyone in the RF. She is going to do things the Hollywood yank way and it is evident. But that is who she is. Remember, when in courting mode, people show forth their best side and make all sorts of allowances to get the man or woman. When they marry, oft times it is a different ball game. Look at Andrew and Fergie. I thought they were so in love and so right for each other. And they at still friends but marriage was quite a different thing than dating. So time will tell how this all unfolds. Grace Kelly regretted giving up acting in her later years. Both H and MM come from broken homes and she is already divorced once. Marriage is quite another thing and hard work. Look at all the celebrity divorces of couples I swore were so right for each other. So this is not a fairy tale couple. They have a hard road to walk if they make it work. And maybe they will and maybe they won't. Time will tell. Harry is still finding himself. But one thing I know, they will both be fine no matter what happens down the line. And I'd say MM has had her life made for her now. So she is one lucky mature woman.
True except or no one here is promoting her. Who can anyone here? No one is on her or PH PR paid team.
I just had a strange thought and I want to know what you all on this thread think. I see posts from mad Brits not wanting to pay for an American princess and these antics they think will come. So what if either the couple volunteers or they are forced by a vote of Parliament to not accept British taxes for their upkeep. Would then MM be able to say, "Okay, I'll help support our lavish lifestyle by acting again." She would get multimillion's per role with her title. Anyways, that is one way to shut up disgruntled tax payers, allow her to act here and there earning her keep Ala the American way, and to really modernize the Monarchy. I have heard but don't know for sure, that the Swedish Monarchy pay for themselves. All these Monarchs are fabulously wealthy and can afford it. I mean PC earns quite a nice income from Cornwall, not to mention the billions they all own in private investments. They really can afford to be royal without the taxpayers. Just make a few palaces public to pay for incidentals and repainting on the necessary live in palaces and they can buy their own second homes. Some have already obviously. Oh well this was just a thought. Feel free to tell all the reasons why this could never be.
Double post auto-merged: September 09, 2017, 12:52:34 AM
One other thing. She could be like Princess Grace.... only she'd marry the prince first, then win the Oscar! Enough of me. But you have to admit on some level, that would be kinda cool to watch one day on the Academy Awards.
Mad posts feature in the ravings of people who let loose in the online comments section of newspapers like the Daily Mail (known by everyone as the Daily Fail) if that's what you mean. The cretins who comment there don't like anyone and usually show it, by their ignorant and stupid remarks. Others are a few little teenagers on blogs, Twitter etc who don't want Harry to marry whoever. I remember they didn't like Cressida Bonas, Harry's last serious ex, either.
Those people always say 'WE Pay For Them, therefore They Have To Do What WE Want' when it comes to royalty and politicians. In fact the British public pay directly for only two members of the BRF, the Queen and her consort. She uses money from her Duchy of Lancaster income (an arrangement that dates back to the Middle Ages) to help pay the living expenses of her children and elderly cousins like the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra, who though in their eighties, still perform Royal duties.
That doesn't mean Harry. The only money he gets directly from the Queen might be his security when he's on tour around the Commonwealth in her name. Charles pays an allowance to his two sons to help with security costs, expenses when they are on engagements and their lifestyle, and also for the running of the Kensington Palace Press Office, which concentrates on PR.
Charles gets millions a year from the Duchy of Cornwall and it comes out of that. It's been said that he pays for Kate's clothing when she's on public duties. The Cambridges have a family and big household, therefore they would get more from Charles, though nobody really knows. His Duchy accounts are audited and presented to Parliament but family expenses aren't detailed.
Harry's income comes from that money, possibly Trust Fund money from his greatgrandmother the Queen Mother and from interest on the invested millions left to him by Diana. His income per year is probably between 900,000 and a million a year after tax. (A guess) That's not much by princely standards and until William becomes Duke of Cornwall and gets his paws on the Duchy money himself Charles will be forking out for both households after Harry joins his brother in wedded bliss. Of course, accommodation, a home in the country and an apartment at KP would be rent free. The Queen, Charles and possibly Harry, would pay for any renovations.
Could Harry's wife work after they marry? It would be very, very difficult, as Sophie Wessex found. In Meghan's case Harry is a senior Royal. As the Queen and Prince Philip age even more, and Charles and Camilla are no Spring chickens, Harry and William are expected to take on more and more duties, and their wives are expected to help them, apart from having babies of course.
If Meghan acted in a role in England the tabloid Press would be constantly hanging round the set hoping for gossip and probably paying money to cast and crew for it. In both Britain and the US there would be jealousy from other actors about her salary and publicity. There'd be complaints from the British public about security (British police from a special squad at Scotland Yard which specifically looks after royals) hanging around film or TV studios all day. And what if a project flopped and Meghan had been in the cast and paid a huge salary? Meghan would get the blame and her name would be mud around producers/directors.
The British people wouldn't like her living in the US while she was working either. There would be queries about why she wasn't in Britain helping the Royal Family and her husband. It just wouldn't work.
Besides which, she and especially Harry have spoken separately about wanting a family. Harry has always wanted children. Meghan will have to produce a couple in the next few years or it may be too late. I think both of them know their future is in Britain as part of the BRF, with public duties and children part of the picture.
Double post auto-merged: September 09, 2017, 02:38:00 AM
There would be few European monarchies who totally support themselves. Prince Albert of Monaco, a Principality (fabulously wealthy from casino, property, low taxes), may be one. I'm not sure about duchies like Lechtenstein, where the Grand Duke is also very wealthy. Middle Eastern potentates, ie Saudi Arabia, use their own wealth.
The Swedish monarch doesn't support himself. He gets an allowance from Parliament and doles out expense money to his children who perform Royal duties from that, called 'apanages'. His living expenses for himself and the Queen come out of that. The Dutch royal family gets paid the most through their Parliamentary arrangements, I believe.
These royal families have private wealth of course but if they were told to totally support themseves with no Parliamentary help, I'm sure most Royal families would say 'Well thanks, but we can find better things to do with our lives than perform sometimes very boring duties just for the love of it and using our own money until it runs out. We'll retire, and good luck to the new President!'.
Currong,
Thanks for the info. My girlfriend who is a royal watcher seemed to think most of them do pay for themselves. I will let her know what you said. She'd be interested. Oh well, so much for MM's acting career.
Of course she wont work as an actress after her marriage. however, its very possible that she will find this difficult as actresses "love to act". Even Grace Kelly, who was sick of Hollywood, became fretful about the restrcitions of her life as a Princess, and wanted to do some acting again.
However it does seem as if Harry is serious about her. I think that there will be some coolness towards the idea of an American who "isn't au fait with royal ways" entering the RF. As a royal our taxes WILL Be going for her security and other expenses, and I think we certainly have a right to express an opinion.
No. She could not work as an actress or any job for pay , income if she and PH marry. Conflict of interests.
She is not an Ocpscar winning type of actress. She has a good role on a little known cable show, drama-soap opera, on USA cable tv.
PGrace received an honorary aoscar ...was it Lifetime achievement ....
PGrace, like all of these who had freedom before and their own lives, gained more freedom and yet less after marriage. It was a , is a different kind of unique life.
I think the citizens of TUK are justified in thoughts they are taxpayers .BRF receives income from the Duchys. Ok, but the Duchys are part of the country. It is a circle to me.
How should the BRF respect their people and be respected? Respecting their country abroad. Promoting companies and talents of people there. Living decent lives. Supporting causes there. Giving of themselves to their country. It is really not that much in exchange for the lifestyles they live.
After Camilla and Charles, how can anyone say MM is simply not worthy. Same for Kate then .
The British monarchy is well past the moralizing bits when it comes to royal marriages (thank God for that). If Harry and Meghan are inclined to get married, it will be up to them. I doubt that queen will raise objections about a marriage that is currently inconsequential to the succession. The virginal aristocrat woman is no longer a strict requirement. They tried that in 1981 and it was an all round disaster and one they will be anxious not to repeat.
The main criteria for marriage is that the two couples agree. The old exclusions of divorcee mean absolutely nothing these days. They are hypocritical, judgmental and out of sync with modern life. The royal family has adapted accordingly.
^ ^ But the Queen and Prince Charles are taxpayers too. They both pay tax on their incomes each year. It's simply that before medieval times and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall were put in place Kings could tax the bej**** out of the poor peasants and the Heir was completely dependent on his father the King for his expenses and way of life, and that wasn't good either.
In George III's time the income of the King was regulated and George gave up his tax levying abilities in return for a secure yearly income. Parliament was more than happy to oblige, so I don't think they were the losers by it.
Upkeep of the royal palaces and minor royals eventually became the responsibility of the Civil List and this evolved into the Sovereign Grant. It's all supervised by Parliament and audited each year, the accounts presented to Parliament etc. No-one is diddling UK taxpayers out of anything.
And at the moment the British monarchy is popular, so if there is to be a monarchy at all then the sovereign has to be paid to do his/her job properly and also help support relatives who represent him/her all over Britain and overseas.
For the record, Grace Kelly won an Oscar for Best Actress in "The Country Girl" This was before her marriage in 1954. She did not get any achievement Oscar. She was also nominated for another movie. And as to who wins Oscars..... usually it is a certain type of actress but look at Cher. No one would have thought in the 1960s as a Sonny and Bono pop singer or the star of a variety act they did later on T.V. that Cher would ever win any acting award. If you ever saw the 1960s movie they made, it would have sealed that thought. But she trained, got a good role and won. So you never know. Hilary Swank was a neighbor of mine with Chad Lowe and doing karate movies. I would have never thought in a few years after I met them that she would win two Oscars. So you never know where one's acting career goes. But I see that MM has to give up hers while married to PH. Although who would have ever thought a senior royal would marry an older, ( I realize it is only three years) divorced, American bi racial actress and get approval. So who knows what the future will bring. I've learned that now.
Double post auto-merged: September 09, 2017, 05:51:32 PM
And one other thing on my last note is that this is PH's first marriage. Charles and Camy were both divorced. The first marriages for the royals have been with non-divorced persons except Edward VIII.
So even though divorce has been accepted by the RF for marriages, it is remarriages. So this is a changing thing in all respects from any non ousted member of the RF. So anything goes in the future I think. Next it will be a gay marriage that has to be accepted. Who knows? Except I know change happens.
Double post auto-merged: September 09, 2017, 05:55:02 PM
Okay, what I said applies to post Henry VIII because he invented divorce although all his wives were first time brides and Edward IV married a widow. But other than them that I am aware of, Royals first marriage are to non divorced persons.
Double post auto-merged: September 09, 2017, 06:10:59 PM
Stand corrected again. Catherine of Aragon was widowed and Henry didn't invent divorce but started it in England with the new church. My only point is that I'm not sure that one can say for sure that MM can't act in the future because of protocol and engagements. Rules are changing for everything slowly but surely in the UK and RF. We'll see what happens and post.
Princess Michael of Kent was married to Tom Troubridge, an English banker, in 1973. The marriage only lasted a couple of years then they separated. They were divorced in 1977, the Pope annulled the marriage in 1978, and almost immediately Prince Michael (cousin to Queen Elizabeth) then married her. He had never been wed before.
Like Harry he had nothing whatsoever to do with the demise of the Troubridge marriage, and the Queen gave him permission to marry. (In those days practically everyone in line of succession to the British throne was required to formally ask permission but few that lived overseas or were connected with other royalty, and there are dozens, did so. Now it's only the first six.)
Charles and then William intend to really slim the recognised Royal family down a lot, to probably monarch, consort, monarch's heir and wife and a sibling and wife, to cover the load. There have been a few rumours that Charlotte and the new baby won't be required when adults for Royal duties in William's reign, so it may be pulled back even further.
I just can't see that happening with Harry and wife, though. Charles will probably be a man in his seventies when he comes to the throne. Camilla is older than Charles and hasn't that much stamina. She has to rest sometimes when on tour and doesn't acclimatise to heat well. She also looks a little bowed, even now. There's a question really as to whether, if she lives into her nineties she would be like Queen Energiser bunny and keep on going with hundreds of engagements a year. Charles probably will, but this couple, elderly when they reach the Throne, will need all the help they can get.
George may well begin full time Royal duties at an earlier age than his father was allowed to do. However it's become a tradition in the BRF over the last couple of generations for the heir to go to university, get a degree and then go into the armed services for at least a few years. Unless there's a disaster, I can't see that being changed. So, for at least 20 years, and probably more, Harry and his wife will be needed on the front line.
Even if everything is simplified, the hundreds of charities and organisations the royals deal with now quietly dropped, and a couple of dozen of the most important put in separate Foundations for each Royal person put in place (like the Dutch and Spanish RF), with all the ceremonial stuff the British monarch and his heir have to do that will all be just too much for four people, Charles, Camilla, Will, Kate to handle, especially as the latter might very well still have a young family.
So, sorry, but for those practical reasons alone I just can't see Harry AND his wife escaping the Royal round for the foreseeable future. And in another twenty or so years Meghan will be in her mid to late fifties. A bit late to have a return to TV roles!
Double post auto-merged: September 10, 2017, 02:45:20 AM
The Times of London is probably the most prestigious newspaper in Britain. It has high up contacts at Court. It's barely mentioned the Harry-Meghan romance so far. However, it's now printed an article in which Harry would like Meghan to not have to give up the acting she loves for full time Royal duties.
Wouldn't work for the reasons I've already stated, and certainly wouldn't do so in the new reign (I've already gone over those reasons as well.) Meghan will have enough to learn and absorb without taking on occasional acting roles as well. However, this article puts it out there. The reality when it hits will be very very different!
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle drop hints of wedding | News | The Times & The Sunday Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-drop-hints-of-wedding-2507jtb5q)
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle drop hints of wedding | News | The Times & The Sunday Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-drop-hints-of-wedding-2507jtb5q)
QuoteSources close to the prince suggest he may be planning "a modern kind of royal marriage" that would allow Markle to pursue her career and charity interests beyond official royal duties.
What is in bold here is what caught my attention. :lol: I have been saying all along that this was the way Harry wants it, for them to have their marriage and Meghan her career along with it!
[admin]quote reduced for copyright reasons[/admin]
^ For various reasons, that I've put down in two of my posts today, I don't think Harry's going to get his way on this one, especially in the new reign when his father will need BOTH sons AND their spouses on board.
It might work for a short time while there are a lot of royals to pick up the slack, but longterm, no, too difficult. AND they want a family. There'll be too much for Meghan to pick up and learn about BRF/Royal duties in the first years, for a start.
Quote from: Curryong on September 10, 2017, 06:47:32 AM
^ For various reasons, that I've put down in two of my posts today, I don't think Harry's going to get his way on this one, especially in the new reign when his father will need BOTH sons AND their spouses on board.
It might work for a short time while there are a lot of royals to pick up the slack, but longterm, no, too difficult. AND they want a family. There'll be too much for Meghan to pick up and learn about BRF/Royal duties in the first years, for a start.
We'll see. My bet is on Harry. We'll find out soon enough. Many of you have this girl giving up her US citizenship and her career! Harry does not want her giving up everything!
And what Harry says goes, does it, goes down the tubes, along with the support he's always given to his grandmother the Queen, the father who still pays him a generous annual allowance, and Britain itself? Just, 'My wife, in spite of the immensely privileged life she and I will lead as members of the BRF, wants to act, so stuff you all!'
In fact, in previous interviews Meghan has hinted that her acting career may well be coming to an end and she wants her charity endeavours to take first place in her life. As I posted before, I don't believe that the Queen would object to short trips to Rwanda or India to help charities. I don't even think she'd care if Meghan did some UN work.
However, British royals do not involve themselves in commercial enterprises (like acting in productions on TV/film.) Sophie Wessex tried to work at PR in business after her marriage and it ended in absolute disaster.
Actually, I don't believe Harry's said anything of the kind that's been reported in The Times to members of his family in aides' hearing at all. The newspaper may be The Times and therefore more reliable than the Daily Fail. However, the statements you're referring to in the article are replete with 'may be' 'hopes to' 'might' etc etc.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will go to Invictus Games | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4869690/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-Invictus-Games.html)
The fact that she is a divorcee also raises the spectre of Wallace Simpson, whose relationship with Edward VIII led him to abdicate, causing a constitutional crisis in 1936.
Really...its HIS potential marriage to a divorcee that raises the spectre...thats bloody rich considering his father and step-mother!!! I think other than the palaces desire to control things, the horse has left the barn in them wanting to fret and fidget over stuff like that, they have no more cards to play thanks to Charles if thats going to be the sticky wicket. As long as she really doesnt put her foot in it, or some scandal tape or something come to light, shes likely past the worst of it.
I think given her celebrity/charity work theyre more worried about a mini-Diana in their midst again.
They can do whatever they want.Yes. BRF do whatever they want. HOWEVER, there are just a very few, small limits on them expected by their country in exchange for all their unbelievable wealth, privilege living in a world of riches and some riches surrounding them are truly priceless, really priceless works of art, palaces, and jewels. RPOs. Etc.Jobtitles. Live ordinary, then be ordinary.
Marrying Camilla, sure. Working just a little for it took the longest time, sure. Marrying MM, ok. Telling all the dirt about each other in books and interviews...yep. Rebuilding and remodeling KP and then choosing not to make that the full time home, but on hold for later use as full time home, yeah. Another estate was and more estates to come...fine.. Needing a year to do nothing, I mean learn before stepping into the role, ok.
Working as an actress , a court jester, an entertainer after becoming
HRH, Duchess of -----, The Princess Henry, ...ummmmmm NO,
Yes yes, changes due to time, modernized monarchy, yes. Work for pay and where one can be manipulated, have loyalty conflict, etc as an actress or any job for pay as anHRH, ummmmmm, NO. Never.
Double post auto-merged: September 10, 2017, 06:40:07 PM
The people, their subjects , will not ever nor will Brit politicians allow that.
For the most part , BRF really does have much freedom.
If one HRH wants his wife to be a working actress, then, fine. Ok. Then, no gifted royal estates to live in. Buy yourself a nice home like Pippas . No priceless jewlels to borrow that are so priceless and selective about who wears them even members of the Brit royal family do not , are allowed that right. Bea and Eug , Zara, Louise, Sophie even will never wear borrowed tiaras of their grandmother, great grandmother, etc and attend an Official State Dinner at Buck Palace.
Yes, Sophie has some minor tiara borrowed for her wedding and for some foreign European royal wedding, but she has limits due to her position, rank.
Yes, B and E like Z, can use a minor tiara for their weddings which should also be reduced in pageantry.
Quote from: Curryong on September 10, 2017, 03:59:20 PM
And what Harry says goes, does it, goes down the tubes, along with the support he's always given to his grandmother the Queen, the father who still pays him a generous annual allowance, and Britain itself? Just, 'My wife, in spite of the immensely privileged life she and I will lead as members of the BRF, wants to act, so stuff you all!'
In fact, in previous interviews Meghan has hinted that her acting career may well be coming to an end and she wants her charity endeavours to take first place in her life. As I posted before, I don't believe that the Queen would object to short trips to Rwanda or India to help charities. I don't even think she'd care if Meghan did some UN work.
However, British royals do not involve themselves in commercial enterprises (like acting in productions on TV/film.) Sophie Wessex tried to work at PR in business after her marriage and it ended in absolute disaster.
Actually, I don't believe Harry's said anything of the kind that's been reported in The Times to members of his family in aides' hearing at all. The newspaper may be The Times and therefore more reliable than the Daily Fail. However, the statements you're referring to in the article are replete with 'may be' 'hopes to' 'might' etc etc.
Well, that's where you and I differ. I do believe it. Therefore we agree to disagree.
Divorce is not and has never been a constitutional barrier to royal titles. That is just a made up protocol as a sop to attitudes in the 1930s. At this stage, nobody would decline a consort on account of her divorce. It is just ridiculous. The queen of Spain is divorced. The crown princess of the UK and Norway are divorced. The objections to Meghan are to do with race, class and profession not the status of being divorced (btw I am not supporting those objections)
That is your opinion. it doesn't follow that the RF agree. I think that Divorce is still a problem and it took a logn time for the queen to agree to Charles divorcing or marrying a divorced woman. It isn't quite the same for Harry as he's a second son, but it will certainly be taken into consideration, IMO in deciding whether to admit Meghan to the RF. So will her being from a different culture and nationality, and her having a career that she will ceritnaly have to give up... all these factors can make for difficulties in a marriage and IMO the queen will wish to be reasonably sure that this relationship wil be long lasting... so she will taek them al into account.
If the queen was to object to Meghan on grounds of being a divorce, I would consider her to be a hypocrite. This is a woman with three of her children divorced, a senior daughter-in-law who is divorced and a sister who was divorced. Divorce is practically a family tradition now.
the fact that her children have divorced does not mean that she's abandoned her own Christian and moral beliefs. What I SAID was that I'm sure it was something that she will CONSIDER when deciding about whether to give Permission for H to marry her. There are other issues as well, and I'm sure she will taken them all on board when deciding.
True... but I think that a puritanical form of monarchy looks like a joke in modern times. Divorce is no longer an acceptable grounds to deny remarriage and the monarchy knows it. The other factors (race, class and profession) are also full of moral judgements that would pretty soon show the monarchy as being hypocritical. I think many people would be offended that a woman that works is considered to be inferior to women that have never done "real work" in their lives.
For me the pitfalls for Meghan are indiscretion. The moment she begins "opening up" is the moment her marriage prospects start to fade.
i have no idea where you are getting all this from so I'm out...
No worries. It is not really that important.
Somebody , slap me. :hehe:
I :o am agreeing with royalanthro :eyes:
:hi:
And yes, amabel, you have a point about QEII being concerned, taking into consideration....many things, but she is just a grandmother who loves and is loved and is respected by her grandchildren: PW, PH, Bea, Eug, all of them.
If MM is who PH wants, then QEII will approve. It is a formality .
Quote from: Curryong on September 10, 2017, 01:18:12 AM
Princess Michael of Kent was married to Tom Troubridge, an English banker, in 1973. The marriage only lasted a couple of years then they separated. They were divorced in 1977, the Pope annulled the marriage in 1978, and almost immediately Prince Michael (cousin to Queen Elizabeth) then married her. He had never been wed before.
Like Harry he had nothing whatsoever to do with the demise of the Troubridge marriage, and the Queen gave him permission to marry. (In those days practically everyone in line of succession to the British throne was required to formally ask permission but few that lived overseas or were connected with other royalty, and there are dozens, did so. Now it's only the first six.)
I[hrIt's
Idont believe that Marie C's first marriage was annulled before she married P Michael. THey were divorced, but she had to wait a time to get an annulment?
And of course Harry and wife, (whoever she is) are going to have to do the royal round.
Quote from: amabel on October 27, 2017, 11:41:11 AM
Idont believe that Marie C's first marriage was annulled before she married P Michael. THey were divorced, but she had to wait a time to get an annulment?
And of course Harry and wife, (whoever she is) are going to have to do the royal round.
Marie Christine and her first husband Tom Troubridge married in 1971. They separated in 1972, were divorced in 1977 and the marriage was formally annulled by the Pope in May 1978. She and Prince Michael were married on 30th June 1978 at a civil ceremony in Vienna.
Who is Princess Michael of Kent? – Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/who-is-princess-michael-of-kent-70492)
I think that interview Meghan did was with Harry's full cooperation. If she did not have his approval, she would have been dropped very quickly.
I think the Queen already gave her approval. Just my impression.
There are jungle drums beating all over the Internet amid reports that the UK tabloids are expecting an engagement announcement from the Palace in less than 24 hours. The British tabloids are in a frenzy, apparently.
I hope it's true. However the fact that the news of an announcement seems to have enamated in the first place from a Daily Fail journo gives me pause. However, if it is true it would explain the number of documentaries released about the couple, in the past few weeks especially.
Double post auto-merged: November 24, 2017, 08:35:42 AM
Later. Charlie Proctor is a reliable source. He says announcement Monday.
As a royal reporter, I can confirm we are certainly primed and ready. Once the announcement is made (likely to be Monday), you will be the first to (https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=635728523482860&id=622908838098162&__tn__=%2As%2As-R)
@Curryong_ I am aware that there were those who thought an announcement might have been made today, but I believe that early next week could be a possibility.
Buckingham Palace staff summoned to an important meeting this morning ? Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/residences/buckingham-palace-staff-summoned-to-an-important-meeting-this-morning-92161)
I do believe and hope that the engagement of Harry and Meghan will happen before the end of the year (please, an end to the speculating and waiting!) However I think the report you've linked, which emanated from The Star, had today with housekeeping matters, the Queen staying longer at Windsor, her appearance on the religious programme 'Songs of Praise' and a few other little things. Or so I read yesterday.
I had a bit of a busy day yesterday, online for hours, as the media had got it into its head that because the BBC were primed for an announcement it must be to do with Harry and Meghan. Lots of PMs from various people talking about the possibility. Twitter and media outlets got into a frenzy but ultimately it was all a fizzer!
Ah thank you
@Curryong. I will admit to being in a food coma for the past 36 hours so I appreciate any help with reading through the articles! :lol:
^ All that delicious turkey, stuffing, thick gravy, pumpkin pie and ice cream, no doubt! I bet you were filled to pussy's bow! Do you have Brussels sprouts with this gastronomic feast? I'm a weirdo. I do like Brussel sprouts, small, sweet and lightly cooked.
I still think their engagement will be in December
I think early December.
Quote from: Curryong on November 25, 2017, 04:26:54 AM
^ All that delicious turkey, stuffing, thick gravy, pumpkin pie and ice cream, no doubt! I bet you were filled to ***'s bow! Do you have Brussels sprouts with this gastronomic feast? I'm a weirdo. I do like Brussel sprouts, small, sweet and lightly cooked.
We have only a few fans of Brussels sprouts in our family so they were not on the menu. I love them sauted in olive oil with salt and pepper and a dash of Balsalmic vinegar.
It has been beastly hot since Wednesday with temps in the low to mid 90's in SoCal. Certainly not the fall weather that we were hoping for, so it did impact how we prepared some items. All of the potatoes were cooked in our slow cookers to reduce the stove top heat, but the turkey needed to be roasted so there was no escaping the oven. Fortunately it did cool off a bit by the time we ate around 5PM. The food coma has come to an end and we're enjoying the last couple of days before returning to school and work.
Thanks TLLK. It sounds divine. My love of Brussels sprouts makes most of my family and friends roll their eyes! The weather sounds good too. We are also experiencing a hot spell though it's not really summer yet.
However, back to the business of the Harry/Meghan threads. The frenzy debacle on Friday has prompted headlines on the front pages of many of the newspapers this weekend. Camilla Tominey,(who is usually accurate) writing in the Express, states that on Thursday Downing St/Teresa May was told about the imminent engagement announcement, ready to send the congratulatory telegram (surely email in this day and age!) when the whole thing got pulled due to KP getting the jitters about worldwide Twitter and media attention! Delicate little flowers! However, the engagement announcement wil probably now be next week.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPgmE35X4AAAm-X.jpg
^^^I also get the sense that the media and their bosses do not want to be taken off guard by the BRF like they were with William and Kate's engagement announcement, so they're eager to jump on anything. From what I recall there was really no "rumors" circulating about that couple's impending announcement like there is about Harry and Meghan. I expect that Harry and Meghan would like to retain some control over how this rolls out over the coming days, weeks and months.
They just want a story, and Harry anad Meghan aren't engaged yet (who knows) so there is plenty of speculation. That' suit the press fine.. they can just run story after story,,,,
they are engaged!! :blowkiss: :blowkiss: :blowkiss: :hug: :hug: :hug: :wub: :wub: :wub:
This is terrific! Wonderful news! I wish them every happiness. I've followed Harry since he was 19 and always hoped he'd find The One and now he has. I'm looking forward to the photocall and interview. And a Spring wedding, before Kate has her baby.
They looked so happy together in the photo op.
They looked so happy and smiling, very natural, beaming at each other, just lovely!
About the ring:
Max Foster (@MaxFosterCNN) | Twitter (https://twitter.com/MaxFosterCNN?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor)
Harry & Meghan's Wedding : General Chat (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=88068.0)