Harry and Meghan wedding chat- the build up!

[Carolla5501]

I doubt that most Americans truly care that much about this marriage or whether or not the wedding is televised. To say that the American people are vested in this event is, IMO, a gross over- statement. Or wishful thinking.
Oh, the bling pageatryt hat the British Royals present themselves with is impressive indeed & who wouldn't die for the jewelry they drape themselves with on state occasions but we threw them out once & I doubt many us would want them back.
However, if she retains her American citizenship & the Royals have to pay taxes to the U.S., government, image the laugh Paul Revere & company will have over THAT turn of events.

So if you aren't interested then why are you reading this thread and posting????

Actions speak louder than words

(And yes I am interested and would like to see it on TV )

 

[skatesindreams]

Prince Harry has earned his happiness.
I look forward to watching what the couple choose to do in the years ahead.

I'll be cheering for them!

 

[MLIS]

I wonder if she'll actually wear a tiara, since she's a commoner (and yes, Kate was too, but Meghan's commoner-ness seems a bit different). And though she and Harry will likely be 'gifted' a dukedom, will she be able to use the royal title officially if she's not a citizen? Or would she just be "Princess Henry of Wales?"

I also wonder if Harry will wear a ring. Both his brother and father do not, citing tradition, but I could see Harry going for one.

I'll be shocked if she doesn't wear a tiara, although I suppose stranger things have happened. Autumn Phillips did for her wedding to Peter Phillips (grandson of the Queen, son of Princess Anne), also at Windsor. Nearly all British royal brides do.

And she should be able to use any of Harry's titles (including any he might receive on their wedding day) as soon as they're married. Citizenship shouldn't affect that. I expect it would be a different question if she was being given titles in her own right, but in this case she'll only be using his titles.

 

[Winnipeg]

Can she hold dual citizenship?

 

[MLIS]

I'll be shocked if she doesn't wear a tiara, although I suppose stranger things have happened. Autumn Phillips did for her wedding to Peter Phillips (grandson of the Queen, son of Princess Anne), also at Windsor. Nearly all British royal brides do.

And she should be able to use any of Harry's titles (including any he might receive on their wedding day) as soon as they're married. Citizenship shouldn't affect that. I expect it would be a different question if she was being given titles in her own right, but in this case she'll only be using his titles.

Sorry to reply to myself, but I've been thinking about this a bit more (what, it's more fun than a lot of the stuff I have to think about!) and I think if Meghan doesn't wear a tiara it'll be because she's divorced, not because she's a commoner. I forgot about her divorce when I replied earlier. The Church of England has only recently allowed divorced people to be married in the church at all and while the Archbishop of Canterbury has already given the green light for Meghan and Harry, it is possible that they may downplay certain elements. When Prince Charles and Camilla, both divorced, were married (also at Windsor) they had a civil service at the city hall followed by a "blessing" in the church, and Camilla did not wear a tiara. However, she was also a more mature bride and did not wear a traditional wedding dress or anything like that (she did look stunning, I think, perhaps the best she's ever looked). If Harry and Meghan go for traditional marriage service in the church, I think she'll wear the traditional gown and tiara.

 

[Winnipeg]

I thought the whole point of the CofE was to allow divorce so King Henry VIII could get one and remarry? Isn't that why they created the CofE as different from the Catholic Church?

 

[attyfan]

Divorce -- as (both) it is mentioned in the Torah and we know it -- is a dissolution of a valid marriage, which would allow both parties to contract new marriages that would also be valid. This option simply did not exist in Tudor times. The C of E was founded to give Henry VIII what we now call an annulment -- i.e., a determination that his marriage to Katherine of Aragon was invalid from the outset. If Henry could have gotten a divorce as we now define it, Mary's legitimacy would have been protected ... and Katherine would not have to accept that she was Henry's "harlot" (for having slept with him outside of a valid marriage).

 

[MLIS]

Can she hold dual citizenship?

As far as I know, she can, as long as the UK and the US both allow dual citizenship. She may choose to renounce her US citizenship for a variety of reasons, not least of which are the tax implications. I am not an American (or a lawyer!) but my understanding is that the US is one of the few countries that taxes based on citizenship, not residency, so she would have to continue to file returns and pay taxes in the US as long as she is an American citizen. Plus if she is still an American citizen when (if) she has children, those children will be dual citizens and also subject to this, even if they never live/work in the States. This article explains it: https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/p...s-irs-gets-a-look-at-royal-bank-accounts.html One of those things the fairy tales don't really cover.

 

[Parsley Sage]

I was also wondering if there would be issues with the ceremony due to Meghan's previous marriage but I read somewhere that because her first wedding was a civil ceremony on a beach in Jamaica and not a religious ceremony that there would be no issues.

 

[PDilemma]

Sorry to reply to myself, but I've been thinking about this a bit more (what, it's more fun than a lot of the stuff I have to think about!) and I think if Meghan doesn't wear a tiara it'll be because she's divorced, not because she's a commoner. I forgot about her divorce when I replied earlier. The Church of England has only recently allowed divorced people to be married in the church at all and while the Archbishop of Canterbury has already given the green light for Meghan and Harry, it is possible that they may downplay certain elements. When Prince Charles and Camilla, both divorced, were married (also at Windsor) they had a civil service at the city hall followed by a "blessing" in the church, and Camilla did not wear a tiara. However, she was also a more mature bride and did not wear a traditional wedding dress or anything like that (she did look stunning, I think, perhaps the best she's ever looked). If Harry and Meghan go for traditional marriage service in the church, I think she'll wear the traditional gown and tiara.

1--Charles' divorce was irrelevant to his marriage to Camilla as his former spouse was deceased and he was free to remarry regardless.
2--In 2002, the Church of England changed doctrine to allow remarriage of divorced persons in the church. However, that allowance may not be made for couples who had an affair that led to one or both of their divorces--at the discretion of their bishop. Since Charles and Camilla's affair impacted her divorce, they were not allowed a church wedding under current Church of England teaching.
3--Megan was divorced in 2013 and did not meet Harry until 2016 which means that her divorce was not influenced by their relationship; therefore, they would be allowed a church wedding.
4--I don't think the venue of the wedding had anything to do with Camilla not wearing a tiara. My best guess is that it had to do with having a more modest ceremony with less pomp and circumstance and with not setting off the Diana cult by casting her as a royal right away.

 

[Lorac]

As far as I know, she can, as long as the UK and the US both allow dual citizenship. She may choose to renounce her US citizenship for a variety of reasons, not least of which are the tax implications. I am not an American (or a lawyer!) but my understanding is that the US is one of the few countries that taxes based on citizenship, not residency, so she would have to continue to file returns and pay taxes in the US as long as she is an American citizen. Plus if she is still an American citizen when (if) she has children, those children will be dual citizens and also subject to this, even if they never live/work in the States. This article explains it: https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/p...s-irs-gets-a-look-at-royal-bank-accounts.html One of those things the fairy tales don't really cover.

When someone applies for US citizenship they make the oath that says you will defend the US constitution above all others and will swear allegiance to the US flag (I paraphrase but that is the jist). There are some who argue that means you automatically are forsaking your country of birth or whatever nationality you are. However if the country you hail from allows dual nationality then you are a dual citizen. Some countries don't so if you become a US citizen you do lose your previous citizenship. The UK allows for dual citizens however so no problems there. However I do not know how the US reacts when a US citizen from birth wants to become a citizen of another country whilst retaining there US citizenship. I have heard that they don't like it and force the person to choose but I have no idea how true that is or if it is an urban myth.

It is true that if Meghan retains her US citizenship her children would automatically be US citizens and thus - under current US tax rules - will be liable for US taxes on their worldwide income. The question is how would that income be determined. In fact Meghan could have little or no income here in the UK but live off Harry's money which as he isn't a US citizen could not be taxed by the US. Interesting times ahead.

 

[AxelAnnie]

My daughter was born in the UK. (I am an American). This was long ago (in a far off land) and I was told that when she was 21 she had to pick one or the other.

The tax implications would be astounding! Can you imagine the gift tax she would have to pay on a tiara. Or the land that went with a Dukedom (or whatever that is called)

 

[Prancer]

However I do not know how the US reacts when a US citizen from birth wants to become a citizen of another country whilst retaining there US citizenship. I have heard that they don't like it and force the person to choose but I have no idea how true that is or if it is an urban myth.

They don't like it, but there are US-born Americans who have dual citizenship. Our own @Louis and @allezfred are examples

 

[Lorac]

My daughter was born in the UK. (I am an American). This was long ago (in a far off land) and I was told that when she was 21 she had to pick one or the other.

The tax implications would be astounding! Can you imagine the gift tax she would have to pay on a tiara. Or the land that went with a Dukedom (or whatever that is called)

But if that land belongs to the Dukedom (not sure if that is a real word but I like it) and Harry then Meghan wouldn't have any tax implications from that land etc. As to gifts - I'm sure they will be given to the Dukedom and Meghan would 'borrow' them to wear

 

[mag]

Meghan will have investment income which will need to be declared somewhere. Not that it is any of our business of course, but this marriage will be more complicated in the details than previous royal marriages.

 

[skatingguy]

But if that land belongs to the Dukedom (not sure if that is a real word but I like it) and Harry then Meghan wouldn't have any tax implications from that land etc. As to gifts - I'm sure they will be given to the Dukedom and Meghan would 'borrow' them to wear

Dukedom is a real word.

• a territory ruled by a duke
• the rank of duke

 

[Vagabond]

Meghan will have investment income which will need to be declared somewhere. Not that it is any of our business of course, but this marriage will be more complicated in the details than previous royal marriages.

I don't know about that. A good number of previous royal marriages were flat out arranged, often with .

 

[mag]

I don't know about that. A good number of previous royal marriages were flat out arranged, often with .

Absolutely! In those cases, however, it was generally not the bride’s own money, but the bride’s family money given to the groom. Here we have an independently wealthy woman marrying into the family. Harry is also significantly different from other “spares” in that he has a substantial amount of money of his own. Diana left at least half, if not more, of her estate to him. I believe part of the issue with Prince Andrew is that he really had no money of his own.

 

[Parsley Sage]

While Harry will most likely be made a Duke the day of the wedding, I don't think the title comes with any land.

 

[Vagabond]

Absolutely! In those cases, however, it was generally not the bride’s own money, but the bride’s family money given to the groom.

Money was the least of it.

 

[AxelAnnie]

While Harry will most likely be made a Duke the day of the wedding, I don't think the title comes with any land.

Aren't you the Duke of something? Doesn't something have a house?

 

[Vagabond]

Aren't you the Duke of something? Doesn't something have a house?

Newly created peerages do not come with estates any more, and they haven't for a very long time.

 

[mag]

Newly created peerages do not come with estates any more, and they haven't for a very long time.

I thought it is Sussex that will be given to Harry. That is not a newly created peerage.

 

[Vagabond]

I thought it is Sussex that will be given to Harry. That is not a newly created peerage.

But it is, or would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Sussex

There have been eight creations of the Dukedom of York. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_York

 

[AxelAnnie]

I thought it is Sussex that will be given to Harry. That is not a newly created peerage.

Way over my pay grade. I thought if you were the Duke of something you "owned" it. Wrongamundo!

Just for the heck of it I looked up William and Kate's Amner Hall.

Family home
Anmer Hall, which boasts a swimming pool and private tennis court, was given to the Duke and Duchess by the Queen. It was originally intended as a country property for the couple, but following the birth of Princess Charlotte they took up full-time residence in Norfolk, as William focused on family and his new flying career with East Anglian Air Ambulance.

So, I am thinking US Taxes would require Meghan to declare and pay taxes on the "gift" Are there ways around it? A million.

I think Meghan would be hard pressed to NOT give up here US Citizenship. I would think it would be considered unseemly.

 

[aftershocks]

I've been following the story of Meghan and Harry ever since the news broke that they were dating. They didn't give us very much to follow of course during the time they were staying under the radar simply trying to build their relationship while taking care of other commitments. It's not easy managing such a high profile, long distance relationship. I believe Harry was very determined that once he met someone he was really attracted to again (after his break-ups with Chelsy and Cressida), he was going to ensure their privacy out of the spotlight in order to truly get the chance to know each other without flashbulbs and tabloid over-scrutiny. It was surely a difficult balancing act, but Harry had his royal protection officers, status, access and enough clout to eventually ensure that Meghan was never seen at airports. She was simply whisked off the plane and carried direct to KP in a royal limousine. The fact that they had traveled to Botswana in August 2016 at the very beginning of their relationship is amazing for the fact that few people knew about it, and it never got leaked. Perhaps they did not travel there together. Possibly Meghan later joined Harry there for five days, as Harry said, "under the stars." And it definitely seems that the stars aligned for these two.

I admire the way they've handled keeping their relationship under wraps for so long, particularly with all of the OTT interest and speculation in the tabloids, as well as amidst the rampant gossip on Internet sites. I have found it to be a positive and pleasant love story to contemplate in these days of sad WTF news swirling around everywhere. I do not see their being together as exactly a fairytale though. I believe what happened to Diana Princess of Wales, blew the royal romantic fairytale myth out of the water a long time ago. This new royal relationship to me is more about a strong, beautiful, smart, grounded young woman meeting her soulmate, who just happens to be a Prince. Like Meghan noted during the joint engagement interview, "My first question [to the anonymous matchmaker] was, 'Is Prince Harry kind ... If he wasn't, it wouldn't have been worth it.'" I think that statement shows Meghan is not a pushover or a fan girl who was gaga or vapidly eager to carry on a fling with the most popular young bachelor on the planet. She's a lady with sass, class and character who was interested in getting to know someone who was worthwhile getting to know, not because of his status or wealth, but because of his character and kindness. The kicker and trigger when they met was of course (as they said) the fact that they are both committed to humanitarian causes, and they have other interests in common too.

After seeking out treatment for his grief and mental anguish over his mother's death, Prince Harry began to realize that he could use his royal status in ways that could benefit others. Similarly, Meghan said in an AOL Build interview circa early 2016 that she realized her success on Suits provided her with a platform to give back and to help people in important ways. For an excerpt of her comments, scroll to 8:27 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQsq8J2c4w0 Meghan speaks about encouraging other young women to believe in themselves, to value their worth and to realize their dreams, in addition to explaining how she became involved with UN Women and One World Vision in Canada, which led to her humanitarian efforts in Rwanda. It also says something about Meghan's intelligence and purposeful dedication that she has decided to start afresh with a clean slate in Great Britain. She has ended her relationship with her current charities and she plans to spend time getting to know her adopted country first before becoming involved with new charities under the Royal Foundation umbrella.

I don't think Meghan is a perfect person, nor does she come across as someone who thinks she's perfect or entitled. But she's definitely confident and self-assured, and she admits to being "endlessly ambitious," and desiring to "exceed expectations." She made those comments not in relation to Prince Harry, but simply in assessing who she is, well before she met Prince Harry. I don't think there's anything wrong with being ambitious either. That's not a negative. It's an asset to know your strengths and to believe you can purposefully pursue and realize your dreams. What sets Meghan apart though is that she also desires to use her success to make a difference for others. Together, I believe Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will achieve remarkable things. It's really nice to see successful young people who are so eager and determined to do good in the world. They certainly deserve their happiness, as well as their personal privacy to build a strong family life.

Here's more on Meghan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRXcZVVPJKo CNN report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6Wrgig521Y family photos provided by Uncle Joseph, who is also unlikely to be invited to Meghan's wedding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf2rxmOsK7o 20/20 ABC report part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHAHgdBgUzY 20/20 ABC report part 2

I can't find parts 3 and 4 on Youtube, but the entire 20/20 broadcast on Meghan is available in audio podcast format on stitcher.com.

There are recent claims, photos and old video footage provided to British tabloids by Meghan's former childhood friend, Ninaki Priddy. While the video and photos are fascinating, they still only reveal that Meghan is a young lady who had a normal working class upbringing, and who was blessed by parents who loved her and who worked hard to provide her with a top-notch education. Priddy seems like someone jealous and bitter who decided to cash in on Meghan's fame, since she surely will not be invited to the royal wedding! Of course, Meghan's life and family relationships are not perfect by any means. It's what she has been able to do with her disappointments, her gifts, and with the normal ups-and-downs of life that's remarkable. Meghan took advantage of her opportunities and she never gave up on her dreams of success.

 

[Vagabond]

Just for the heck of it I looked up William and Kate's Amner Hall.

It doesn't belong to them. It belongs to his paternal grandmother , who has very kindly lent it to them.

 

[Jenny]

I admire the way they've handled keeping their relationship under wraps for so long, particularly with all of the OTT interest and speculation in the tabloids, as well as amidst the rampant gossip on Internet sites. I have found it to be a positive and pleasant love story to contemplate in these days of sad WTF news swirling around everywhere.

Me too.

 

[skategal]

However I do not know how the US reacts when a US citizen from birth wants to become a citizen of another country whilst retaining there US citizenship. I have heard that they don't like it and force the person to choose but I have no idea how true that is or if it is an urban myth.

My uncle was born in the US and now has dual Canadian/US Citizenship. He got Canadian citizenship in his 40s after living in Canada for the majority of his life.

He has to pay taxes to the US (and Canada) but no one has forced him to choose sides.

 

[AxelAnnie]

It doesn't belong to them. It belongs to his paternal grandmother , who has very kindly lent it to them.

The article I found said it was given to them. Must depend on what the meaning of give is.