# Breaking news Prince Harry to Marry Meghan Markle



## hollydolly (Nov 27, 2017)

The engagement of Prince Harry and the American actress meghan Markle has been officially announced from Buckingham Palace this morning.

They are expected to wed in the Spring. Congratulations to both of them, and for me I think it's a breath of fresh air rather than the stuffy Royal enclosure that's kept mostly hidden from the general public..... however what are your views  on this if any?

Harry has always rowed his own boat where possible within the constrictions of the royal family, so it comes as no surprise that he has chosen  to love and marry and potentially have children with a woman who has no connection to the royal family ...however she's recently divorced... an actress, an American, and also a different race... which means if they have children, it will be the first time (knowingly to the public anyway)...that the blood line will not be pure white.. ( personally I am excited to see the change) 

Now none of that would usually be of any concern to a so called Normal citizen...but in all honesty, do you think that any one or all of those things might cause problems...

People are talking about the fall of the royal family...and the beginnings of a republic... now given that the Queen and prince Philip are now in their 90's and there's little doubt that Charles (Harry's father) will be in his 70's before he becomes King... do you think that perhaps when William becomes King (which he has publicly declared he'd rather not have to be)... that he along with his brother may be the cause of the ''downfall'' of the Royal house of Windsor...and that Great Britain may then become a republic... ?


----------



## RadishRose (Nov 27, 2017)

I'm just wild about Harry!

I don't really know if the monarchy is a great value to the UK or not. I know they bring in lots of tourist money which is great, but  a lot is spent on them too. ( I read that Charles has a man put toothpaste on his toothbrush for him). I don't know how the scale tips....

Being divorced shouldn't matter anymore, nor should being American,  partly black or even (horrors) if she was Catholic. I don't think the people care much about these things anymore. 

As far as the Queen, she probably still does in her heart, but they lost all this control a long time ago and she knows it. All of this has been done before and as far as race, who really knows?

It's my feeling the people want a nice wedding more than anything else. 

It may just very well be that the monarchy is on the way out, but who knows when?


----------



## Aunt Bea (Nov 27, 2017)

I'm happy for Harry.

I think that Harry and his bride will have a few bumps in the road but I'm confident that Harry will be able to handle them.

I believe that if William takes the throne he will do his part to preserve the monarchy for future generations.

We'll see!


----------



## Smiling Jane (Nov 27, 2017)

Neither William nor Harry could possibly do as much damage to the British monarchy as their father Charles has inflicted.


----------



## Ken N Tx (Nov 27, 2017)




----------



## Wren (Nov 27, 2017)

Poor Meghan, she’s certainly  being ‘thrown in at the deep end’, wonder what she will make of all the royal protocol during Christmas at Sandringham.....


----------



## Lara (Nov 27, 2017)

I'm sure William would preserve the tourist-loving parts of the British Monarchy and make changes to the suffocating rules that don't work for today and for the future. I don't think either sons would want to be the reason for a complete downfall, but good healthy changes? Yes.

If William was offered the royal seat, I'm not sure he would take it. He reealllly doesn't like it nor does it fit into his lifestyle. He just wouldn't be happy. Nor would he want to leave it to his children. Would he? I'm just guessing since I'm not all that privy to it...in-the-know that is (in the uk, privy probably means toilet lol).


----------



## Falcon (Nov 27, 2017)

LOL     Lara


----------



## Cap'n Mike (Nov 27, 2017)

One thing is certain, they'll lack for nothing! Sure hope it works out for them. Here's the latest over here...........

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry-engaged-100348057.html


----------



## RadishRose (Nov 27, 2017)

Cap'n Mike said:


> One thing is certain, they'll lack for nothing! Sure hope it works out for them. Here's the latest over here...........
> 
> https://uk.style.yahoo.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry-engaged-100348057.html



What a beautiful couple. It's so exciting. They said the families are happy for them. I just hope the media behaves.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 27, 2017)

Lara said:


> I'm sure William would preserve the tourist-loving parts of the British Monarchy and make changes to the suffocating rules that don't work for today and for the future. I don't think either sons would want to be the reason for a complete downfall, but good healthy changes? Yes.
> 
> If William was offered the royal seat, I'm not sure he would take it. He reealllly doesn't like it nor does it fit into his lifestyle. He just wouldn't be happy. Nor would he want to leave it to his children. Would he? I'm just guessing since I'm not all that privy to it...in-the-know that is (*in the uk, privy probably means toilet lol*).




Not in the modern world...perhaps in my grandparents world when they used an outside toilet lol


----------



## Falcon (Nov 27, 2017)

She is gorgeous and I wish them well.

BUT.....there  may be some problems  when  the stork starts delivering  the babies.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 27, 2017)

I've always had the feeling that the British public loves their monarchy, although that love may have worn a bit thin during the period immediately following Diana's death. Admittedly, I get most of this from the movies and documentaries I see. I did get the feeling that Diana had been horribly mistreated, was greatly loved (by the public, probably not by her husband), and the Queen behaved pretty badly after her death. The monarchy may have reached a low point then, but I think the Queen, and the monarchy, snapped back.

There must be a need for all the pomp and circumstance, unless the people feel that it is devastating to the economy.

I'd like to know how the Brits in this forum feel about it.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 27, 2017)

Personally I think I'd rather have a Monarchy than a president...and so many british people feel the same although not all by any means...many see the monarchy as expensive mannequins, not fully understanding the role of the family..

However I do believe that it's outdated in this country..in that if for example, Trump died, his immediate first born would then become president, without any voting from the public, and then his first born and so on regardless of their ability ..I'm sure the American public would be up in arms about that.. however that said, our Royalty doesn't make the important decisions , our government does, but they still have to defer to the queen before any huge decisions are agreed upon in Parliament..and although she can make her opinions clear, she can't for the most part make changes.

There's a lot of rot spoken about royalty being good for tourism, but it's nonsense for the most part, because tourists don't get to visit with the Queen or the royal family..nor do they see them out on the streets unless there's some huge celebration like a wedding or funeral ..the closest a tourist can get is to the gates of a palace or walk around a royalty owned public garden...so if we had no royals those things would still be available to tourists..as they are in all other countries.. 

All that said I would describe myself for the most part as a royalist..but only limited to those who seem to earn their money...the Queen and Prince Philip, Princess Anne and Zara phillips... prince Harry...

Lots of British feel that (rightly or wrongly ) that William and Catherine are not pulling their weight...and neither are the rest of the royal family, particularly Prince Andrew and his ex wife sarah who is still hanging on by her coat tails and living off him, and their 2 daughters never hold a job for longer than a few weeks..and are eternally on expensive holidays at the public expense..

In a nutshell..because I could go on about this forever... , I would be very happy to have a Monarchy but severely pared down..so that only the immediate family are recognised as crowned heads.. and the the rest although born into blue blood should like they do in many other countries..have to work and live outside in the community among normal every day people...


----------



## Marie5656 (Nov 27, 2017)

*So, what is the protocol for her  Will she need to become a citizen of GB?   Last time we had an American become royalty, I think was when Grace Kelly married into the Monaco royal family.*


----------



## Kaya (Nov 27, 2017)

I don't get the fascination people have with this stuff.


----------



## applecruncher (Nov 27, 2017)

*@hollydolly*

I don't see how you can compare the Royal family to an American presidency. AND don't forget, Britain has a Prime Minister (Theresa May). The Royal family is ceremonial, they don't govern the UK citizens, and they have no power/authority re: laws.  Here in the US the President has tremendous power and authority. If Trump died, Mike Pence would automatically become president - that's the main reason why we have a Vice President.


----------



## Kaya (Nov 27, 2017)

NO monarchy. They have no power. Look at the mess they have now with all those refugees. The old kings and queens are rolling in their graves how far Britain has fallen.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 27, 2017)

Harry is very clucky and his bride is 36(?) so I expect that children will happen soon unless there is a fertility problem.
I hope they are very happy together and am confident that they will be. It is a love match after all and they have already been living together. The ceremony is just a formality.

No-one has mentioned Meghan's activism on behalf of women I understand she has worked with the UN (?) Shades of Diana and no doubt something that Harry will support.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 27, 2017)

applecruncher said:


> *@hollydolly*
> 
> I don't see how you can compare the Royal family to an American presidency. AND don't forget, Britain has a Prime Minister (Theresa May). The Royal family is ceremonial, they don't govern the UK citizens, and they have no power/authority re: laws.  Here in the US the President has tremendous power and authority. If Trump died, Mike Pence would automatically become president - that's the main reason why we have a Vice President.



if you read back at my post you will see that I said that our Queen doesn't have the power to govern as our parliament does... although they do have to consult with her on major issues.. 

Our elected Govt makes all the decisions in this country which is why we vote them in as you do with your president...but unlike our Royals ...our elected presidents' children would not automatically govern the country..instead our Home secretary would probably assume the chair in the event of Mrs May's sudden death for example..until an elected prime minister is chosen by the people..there's no automatic right govern this country in parliament, as there is for an automatic rule by birthright in the royal family..


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 27, 2017)

Kaya said:


> NO monarchy. *They have no power. Look at the mess they have now with all those refugees. The old kings and queens are rolling in their graves how far Britain has fallen*.




Yup...I have to say there's a lot of truth in that, unfortunately ..


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 27, 2017)

Marie5656 said:


> *So, what is the protocol for her  Will she need to become a citizen of GB?   Last time we had an American become royalty, I think was when Grace Kelly married into the Monaco royal family.*



I would imagine she would be permitted dual citizenship....only surmising tho'


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 27, 2017)

In recent centuries even the King or Queen and/or consorts were foreign nationals being either Scottish (James I), French (Richard the Lion Heart), Greek (Prince Phillip), Spanish (Catherine of Aragon), Dutch (William of Orange) or German (George III). Queen Alexandra of Denmark was the wife of Edward VII.

Plucked them out of my memory so I can't swear to the accuracy but I reckon Meghan will fit right in in 21st century.


----------



## applecruncher (Nov 27, 2017)

hollydolly said:


> if you read back at my post you will see that I said that our Queen doesn't have the power to govern as our parliament does... although they do have to consult with her on major issues..
> 
> Our elected Govt makes all the decisions in this country which is why we vote them in as you do with your president...but unlike our Royals ...our elected presidents' children would not automatically govern the country..instead our Home secretary would probably assume the chair in the event of Mrs May's sudden death for example..until an elected prime minister is chosen by the people..there's no automatic right govern this country in parliament, as there is for an automatic rule by birthright in the royal family..



Ahh....I see.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 27, 2017)

here's a sweet little interview they did together today..


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5122055/Harry-reveals-romantic-proposal-Meghan-Meghan.html


----------



## applecruncher (Nov 27, 2017)

I saw part of that interview.  Meghan is quite stunning (as is Kate, imo.)


----------



## Kaya (Nov 27, 2017)

Diana did very well with her two boys. Both are gentlemen. Too bad I can't say the same for their dad.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 27, 2017)

Holly, I think your Prime Minister is the equivalent of our President.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 27, 2017)

Sunny, there are some huge differences. The PM is the 'first among equals' in that he/she is the leader chosen by the majority party. The PM cannot sign legislation into law after it is passed by both houses of parliament. That is the duty of the monarch or in the former colonies such as Canada, Australia and NZ, her appointed viceroy known as the Governor General.

Parliament has the power to remove a PM from that position if there are enough numbers in the House to pass a vote of no confidence in either the government or the prime minister. Then it is  back to the monarch (or viceroy) to report that the government no longer has the numbers to govern. The monarch may then summon the leader of another party to see whether they have the numbers. If no, then parliament is dissolved pending a new election.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 27, 2017)

here's the full 20 minute interview with Harry and Meghan 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=Ymovqj73k1Q


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 27, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Sunny, there are some huge differences. The PM is the 'first among equals' in that he/she is the leader chosen by the majority party. The PM cannot sign legislation into law after it is passed by both houses of parliament. That is the duty of the monarch or in the former colonies such as Canada, Australia and NZ, her appointed viceroy known as the Governor General.
> 
> Parliament has the power to remove a PM from that position if there are enough numbers in the House to pass a vote of no confidence in either the government or the prime minister. Then it is  back to the monarch (or viceroy) to report that the government no longer has the numbers to govern. The monarch may then summon the leader of another party to see whether they have the numbers. If no, then parliament is dissolved pending a new election.




  Exactly warrigal... explained  so much better than me


----------



## Lara (Nov 27, 2017)

I saw Prince Harry and Meghan together on TV tonight and they both look happy and in love. They both seem kind and tender and protective of each other. I think this will be a beautiful thing. If only the media will leave them alone (as radish rose said). I hope they don't dig anything up from her past and then sensationalize it like they did with Kate and a pic of her modeling a bikini (or negligee?) while in college.


----------



## Big Horn (Nov 27, 2017)

When Edward VIII chose to marry American divorcee Wallace Warfield Simpson, it was necessary for him to abdicate.  I'm curious about this rule, that is, who made it, and under what authority.  Is it purely religious or is it civil?  Would the Archbishop of Canterbury refuse to officiate at his coronation, should that unlikely event come to pass?  If he remains in his present station, would the marriage be morganatic"


----------



## jujube (Nov 27, 2017)

Harry seems to be in the Catbird Seat as far as being a royal goes.  Now that the heir has a spare, and another spare, and yet another spare on the way, Harry can sit back and relax.  Of course, by the heir, I'm talking William as I'm pretty sure the only thing that's keeping the Queen alive is the dread that Charles will ever ascend to the throne.  

Anyway, good on Harry for having some fun and marrying who he pleases!


----------



## Cap'n Mike (Nov 28, 2017)

hollydolly said:


> However I do believe that it's outdated in this country..in that if for example, Trump died, his immediate first born would then become president, without any voting from the public, and then his first born and so on regardless of their ability ..I'm sure the American public would be up in arms about that.



Not quite the same thing hollydolly as Trump was initially elected and only for a fixed term in office. Our monarchy goes back to the 11th century and has never been "elected" as such.  I think most citizens are happy having them there, they have little power after all, don't get involved with the running of the country and are basically self supporting. Yes the Queen gets an "allowance" but then again she also pays taxes on her huge wealth.
Personally I do object to all the hangers-on and there are hundreds of those!


----------



## Kaya (Nov 28, 2017)

Charles takes the throne, that woman he cavorted with while making Diana miserable will be crowned queen, won't she?


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 28, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> When Edward VIII chose to marry American divorcee Wallace Warfield Simpson, it was necessary for him to abdicate.  I'm curious about this rule, that is, who made it, and under what authority.  Is it purely religious or is it civil?  Would the Archbishop of Canterbury refuse to officiate at his coronation, should that unlikely event come to pass?  If he remains in his present station, would the marriage be morganatic"



Edward became King the moment his father died but the coronation takes place up to a year later.

The Act of Settlement passed by Parliament in 1701 prohibited the succession to the thrones of England and Ireland of anyone who was a Roman Catholic. In addition anyone who became a catholic, or married a catholic was disqualified.

The King or Queen of England is also the titular head of the Church Of England. When Edward wanted to marry Wallace Simpson the Church of England was the sticking point because she was twice (thrice) divorced and the church at that time would not sanction remarriage of a divorced person. Also, the Commonwealth countries has a say because the monarch is also monarch of Canada, Australia etc. The former colonies had objections to the marriage. His choice was clear, he could either marry Wallace or he could be King, but not both. He chose to abdicate.

These archaic rules have recently been modernised to remove some anomalies. 
Harry is free to marry his sweetheart in spite of her status as a divorcee.

http://www.refinery29.com/2017/11/182622/meghan-markle-royal-divorce-marriage-laws-church-england


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 28, 2017)

Kaya said:


> Charles takes the throne, that woman he cavorted with while making Diana miserable will be crowned queen, won't she?



He wants that but at the time of their marriage that was not possible. She could be his consort but not his queen. Under the new Succession to the Crown Act (2013) the barrier may have been removed. You'll have to ask a Brit. 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20/contents/enacted


----------



## Kaya (Nov 28, 2017)

I wonder what most Brits would think about her becoming queen if it is allowed.

Off to bed. 3am here. Goodnight, ladies and gents.


----------



## Bee (Nov 28, 2017)

Kaya said:


> I wonder what most Brits would think about her becoming queen if it is allowed.
> 
> Off to bed. 3am here. Goodnight, ladies and gents.



It really wouldn't bother me, in *my* opinion, note I said *my* opinion, Diana was no innocent.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Nov 28, 2017)

Bee said:


> It really wouldn't bother me, in *my* opinion, note I said *my* opinion, Diana was no innocent.



Diana may not have been an innocent, but she's dead and Charles the tampon and his rottweiler wife have to live with the consequences of their terrible behavior.


----------



## applecruncher (Nov 28, 2017)

Remember the game show "Deal or No Deal"?  In 2006 Meghan was a briefcase model.

Maybe Howie Mandel will get an invite to the wedding.  Then again, maybe not.  :shrug: :laugh:

https://www.today.com/popculture/meghan-markle-was-once-deal-or-no-deal-case-model-t119351


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 28, 2017)

Marie5656 said:


> *So, what is the protocol for her  Will she need to become a citizen of GB?   Last time we had an American become royalty, I think was when Grace Kelly married into the Monaco royal family.*




According to the Media today...Meghan will take British Citizenship when she marries Harry and will become a Dual National

*Divorcee Meghan, a protestant who went to a  catholic high school, will be baptised and confirmed before the spring  ceremony to comply with the royal family's beliefs that they should all  join the Church of England. 
*
*American  Meghan will also be taking British citizenship to become a dual  national before May, a process that usually takes years.*
*The  couple have shunned a larger wedding at Westminster Abbey or St Paul's  for a more intimate church service at St George's where his father  Charles had a blessing after marrying Camilla in the nearby Guildhall in  2005.*







http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html


----------



## Big Horn (Nov 28, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> Diana may not have been an innocent, but she's dead and Charles the tampon and his rottweiler wife have to live with the consequences of their terrible behavior.


This is about Great Britain.  It's unseemly for Americans and other foreigners to opine, particularly to condemn..


----------



## applecruncher (Nov 28, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> This is about Great Britain.  It's unseemly for Americans and other foreigners to opine, particularly to condemn..



"Unseemly"?  Pffft. That's almost comical. 

This board is and _has always _been full of people from other countries coming here to "opine", condemn, villianize, and eviscerate AMERICANS and the USA.


----------



## RadishRose (Nov 28, 2017)

applecruncher said:


> This board is and _has always _been full of people from other countries coming here to "opine", condemn, villianize, and eviscerate AMERICANS and the USA.



Unfortunately, this is true.


----------



## applecruncher (Nov 28, 2017)

Thanks, RR. You're one of the few with the guts to come out and admit that what I said is very true.

Now, back to Prince Harry & Meghan Markle................


----------



## Big Horn (Nov 28, 2017)

applecruncher said:


> "Unseemly"?  Pffft. That's almost comical.
> 
> This board is and _has always _been full of people from other countries coming here to "opine", condemn, villianize, and eviscerate AMERICANS and the USA.


You are correct, but it doesn't provide a reason to dive into the sewer with them.  You can show your displeasure by pressing the little star at the bottom left of the post, then clicking. "I disapprove."  Try it; it's very satisfying.


----------



## applecruncher (Nov 28, 2017)

Big Horn, I'm aware of how the forum functions work.  But..... thanks.


----------



## RadishRose (Nov 28, 2017)

Markle sparkles!


----------



## Shalimar (Nov 28, 2017)

RadishRose said:


> Markle sparkles!


She does!


----------



## oldman (Nov 28, 2017)

I know very little about the royalty in England. I could just never understand or figure why people would give so much to the royal families for doing or contributing so little. Just what do they do to earn their money? I was in England a few years ago and did some touring around London. I was very surprised to see the modest housing that the Prime Minister lives in compared to what our President lives in. I did enjoy watching the royal guard coming down the street.


----------



## applecruncher (Nov 28, 2017)

People are so silly. I saw a few comments elsewhere saying Meghan is a golddigger. Actually, her personal net worth is upwards of $5 million. Not in Oprah's league but still a nice chunk of change.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 28, 2017)

oldman said:


> I know very little about the royalty in England. I could just never understand or figure why people would give so much to the royal families for doing or contributing so little. Just what do they do to earn their money? I was in England a few years ago and did some touring around London. *I was very surprised to see the modest housing that the Prime Minister lives in compared to what our President lives in. I did enjoy watching the royal guard coming down the street.*




That's because the equivelent of the white house is where the Monarchy live...lots of Palaces..not just one or 2 but loads...and HUGE>>>>> however that said..the prime ministers' residence while he's in office, 10 downing street may look small from the outside (bear in mind it's in central London and the UK is just a very small Island compared to the USA so not much room for huge abodes except for the monarch and so little land available that the prices of  homes are astronomical for small plots )... 
 The interior downing street is pretty substantial... quite deceiving from the street... also 10 downing street is owned  by the government and is only home to the Prime minister while he's in office (usually only 4 years)... but the prime minister and his family always have their own private homes outside of the Capital.  Theresa May has her own private home in a beautiful village in Sonning in Berkshire (South East  England) and in the same little village George Clooney and his wife have a 5 bed georgian home, and his neighbour is Jimmy Page founder of Led Zeppelin... ... David Cameron had/has a gorgeous big farmhouse in the Cotswolds in middle England ...Thatcher had her place in one of the most exclusive parts of London (Belgravia)...a 6 bed , 6 floor mansion... worth around 30 million...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...state-inside-Margaret-Thatchers-30m-home.html


----------



## Kaya (Nov 28, 2017)

Say what???? Oh, the irony. 





Big Horn said:


> This is about Great Britain.  It's unseemly for Americans and other foreigners to opine, particularly to condemn..


----------



## Kaya (Nov 28, 2017)

I respect that. I also don't believe Diana was innocent but I also think she had help in becoming that way. 
And that is MY opinion. Your own mileages may vary.


Bee said:


> It really wouldn't bother me, in *my* opinion, note I said *my* opinion, Diana was no innocent.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 28, 2017)

Big Horn is being true to his convictions. He does not believe that people like me have any business commenting on American issues so it is logical that he disapproves of Americans commenting on British matters.

I disagree because IMO we learn more by joining the conversation than we do by just sitting on the sidelines reading the posts.
Plus we live in a global world these days and it is unrealistic to think that people outside our own borders are not aware of our issues. They may or may not be interested enough to have an opinion but opinions should be able to be expressed rather than suppressed.


----------



## JaniceM (Nov 28, 2017)

hollydolly said:


> The engagement of Prince Harry and the American actress meghan Markle has been officially announced from Buckingham Palace this morning.
> 
> They are expected to wed in the Spring. Congratulations to both of them, and for me I think it's a breath of fresh air rather than the stuffy Royal enclosure that's kept mostly hidden from the general public..... however what are your views  on this if any?
> 
> ...



Best Wishes to them!!


----------

