scilly

Thanks, Jsmith for confirming what I thought had happened all those years ago.

I think hat if you get married outside a church or other religious building in Canada and do not have religious person as the celebrant, then the pre-wedding meeting might not happen.. My sis-i-law was was an Anglican priest, and I know she did conduct weddings outside the church ........... once on the side of a local mountain just weeks after she completed chemotherapy. She met with that couple beforehand.

Two of her children were married by a Registrar in outdoor settings, one in a home garden and the other at a ski resort. I have no idea how much was said before the actual wedding. However they both had to have 2 witnesses.

This is where what Meghan said is so weird, and against what is legal in Britain. She did marry her first husband on a beach in the Caribbean somewhere though, at least I think that is what happened.

Sje didn't know what was happening, weird though that might be ......... at least that is the best view of what she said, or else she out-and-out lied!

Siouxie

I can confirm that - I got married in Niagara Falls at the 'Two Hearts Wedding Chapel' - I booked it a few days beforehand, no meetings with the officiant until she performed the short ceremony.

Megan clearly has no clue about the laws of the UK in respect of marriage\ nor about royalty customs.. she wasn't silenced, just asked to conform to royal requirements - what is expected of all members of the royal family.
It's a shame Harry hasn't grasped this..

abner

Yeah, that's why he denigrated her--note the historical roots of that verb--on-air at every recent opportunity, and rage-quit his own prime-time TV program when finally challenged on it.

This didn't strike me as a German political thread, but OK...?

But all kidding aside, I agree.

Serious question for you: why are you treating Harry like a bystander, and assuming that Meghan orchestrated all the casting of aspersions?

To my mind, he has held a mostly legitimate grudge for decades, concerning the treatment and fate of his mother, at the hands of both the British press and the Royals.

Meghan, in many, many senses, is the instrument of *his* revenge.

BEVS

Reread my post.

Jingsamichty

Why? I'll tell you why. These people have decided that they are better than me and you. They have created a caste system which places them at the very top. They wish to perpetuate this system and to enjoy the trapings of wealth, privilege and status. They wish to keep the institutions in place that ensure their privilege and they work extremely hard to prevent criticism or challenge. They use their privilege to influence government - they say they don't, but they do... - and they refuse to move with the times, citing "tradition" to maintain their Downton Abbey lifestyles. One way or another, we pay for this too.

That's why I'm interested, and anything that helps to chip away at their pompous position, or undermines the mindless royal sycophancy is fine with me. The more royal crises the better, then we can stop pretending that they are beyond question.

abner

I just did, and I'm still failing to see your point in terms of the question I posed. You seem to view Harry as a passive creature whose only action against The Firm was in failing to educate Meghan about the realities of Royal life, and how to 'behave accordingly'. Meghan, in this view, apparently did all the rest--the Wallis Simpson of the modern era.

IMHO, Harry knew from the outset, directionally if not in precise detail, that his marriage to Meghan would profoundly challenge a stale institution, and the press parasites that feed off it. And, after that challenge only closed the ranks against the couple instead of reforming / modernising / opening the institution, I believe that Harry was fully involved in the decision to formally withdraw from the poisonous environment that had engendered his mothers' death.

abner

While reinforcing their value as entertainers and tourist magnets. At this point, particularly after Andrew's, errm, extended social engagement within Jeffrey Epstein's orbit, they're really the UK public sector version of the Kardashians.

With nicer houses, and a more colorful security contingent, so there's that.

Former Lancastrian

I applaud your honesty. Now granted if a UK citizen they are our Royal family. I know we have posters who are citizens of other countries or live in countries where they have Royal families and interested to hear their views on say the Japanese, Thailand, Spanish, Saudi, Dutch, and Swedish ones. There are at least 28 countries with Royal families and at least 16 others with a Monarchy.

I am neither for or against the Firm. It has been around for years and I agree the question should be asked if it is still relevant today or should it be abolished or whatever else. Is our RF different to any of the others and how many haven't had problems? It is an establishment and obviously being born into it then one is expected to conform to it. Have the Dutch and Swedish RF's had to deal with a person of colour in their families or how about the Saudis or Thais having to deal with a white coloured person?

All we are seeing now is dirty laundry and accusations being thrown around and dependent on your views your are now probably being labelled as being either in Camp Harry & Meg or the Firm. Now the UK rags will be running endless stories about this and publishing even more. Already the photos of Harry in the Nazi uniform have appeared or that in 2009 he used the P word and rag head to describe a colleague and fellow cadet but it was said without malice.

scilly

One of the problems that Diana had was that she point-blank refused to continue to receive security coverage after the divorce. It seems she argued with the Met police department responsible for security coverage about the matter, and declined continued coverage although they thought it should be continued and were willing to do so. Shen then had to pay for it herself, or have someone else pay.

So to blame the Royal Family for removing her security coverage and thus be responsible for her death, is disingenuous at the very least.

There is an interesting article in the DM online today showing who in the Royal Family gets 24/7 security coverage, and who only gets protection during official engagements.

Basically the top 6, those in the direct line of inheritance and spouses, get full coverage, the other working Royals such as Prince Edward, Anne, etc get only partial coverage during official engagements.

Others who don't do official engagements, such as Prince Andrew or his daughters (he may pay for private coverage for them) and Zara Tindall, don't get any coverage.

Looking at that list, it seems that Harry and Meghan should have come under the middle category, security only during official engagements.

Danny B

I bet this bloke regrets giving this interview yesterday....he resigned a few hours ago...

OrangeMango

I think it was a very moving interview. However, it was only one side of the story. What wasn't mentioned, was how much money exchanged hands? 5 Million, 6, or even 7? For two hours? Whatever it was, it was the kind of amount no average human ever makes in his/her lifetime.

I also find it very questionable to play the "racism card" and speaking about suicidal thoughts, when one has a very good financial background but apparently doesn't fit into a family where one marries voluntarily into......

There are millions of black US Americans who are really disenfranchised have darker skin than Meghan, are really in poor financial situations, and they don't get the same kind of attention as Meghan does. In that respect, I find Meghan's behaviour even offensive. If others have a choice, they chose to visit and pay their psychiatrist if they have suicidal thoughts, not get paid by US network television.

It's also a very US-centric and US-cultural thing. Take a look at the UK: Sadiq Khan for instance, poor immigrant background, dark colour, Muslim religion, but made it to Mayor of London, no racism, and not even himself always mentioning his background, it's. simply accepted. Or Rishi Sunak, nobody would think twice about his colour or background? He's simply doing his job. Overall the UK is so much further on this, than the US.

scrubbedexpat099

On the plus side Mehan and Archie will be eligible for Reparations.

scilly

OrangeMango ..........

It has been said that H&M did not receive any payment for the interview.

They did it for free, for Oprah.

Oprah's own TV company did the filming and recording.

Oprah therefore has been reported as receiving $6-7 million dollars from CBS, who in return have sold the rights to many other TV stations for unknown amounts ...... although ITV is said to have paid £1 million.

Plus CBS (and presumably all the other TV stations) upped the cost of ads shown during the programme ........ CBS reportedly charging either $250,000 or $350,000 for every 30-second ad.

What H&M have got out of this reveal is, they hope, name recognition, especially in the US. This then leads to all those people now recognising their names to hopefully pay to view their contributions on Netflix and the other service that have paid them huge amounts "if they perform".

No get the paying audience numbers, no get the money offered in the contracts.

Netflix is rumoured to have paid $100 million.

scilly

She's not a British citizen, although Archie is.

Is a non-British citizen eligible for reparation.

She also apparently let her visa run out, and didn't stay for 3 years.

OrangeMango

What also bothers me about Meghan, is that she didn't dare to say who exactly made that reference about the skin colour. It was only mentioned that it was neither the Queen nor Philipp. This leaves the audience to question, who it could have been.... If one had courage or the proof of such an accusation of racist remarks, then one also can name names, if one can't then they shouldn't mention anything. Also family matters should remain family matters and are not royal duties, nor any cause to put the monarchy in disrepute.

Also the discussion on racism and colonialism is a bit out of place. As far as I know the house of Spencer has partial and distant roots in India. Thus different ethnic backgrounds go very far in the royal family these days...