Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[Lemonade20]

@AxelAnnie The first ceremony, whatever it was, was conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the elected head of the Church of England. If the ceremony was illegal or "a big F you" to the church, I seriously doubt he would have agreed to officiate it.

I really don't think it was official, but just a run through or a chance for them to say their vows. What bothers me is Meghan seems to recollect it was a legal ceremony, when it's not. Why wait three years then bring it up in the Oprah interview?

 

[MacMadame]

I really don't think it was official, but just a run through or a chance for them to say their vows. What bothers me is Meghan seems to recollect it was a legal ceremony, when it's not. Why wait three years then bring it up in the Oprah interview?

Harry said the same/agree with her. Why is everything always Meghan's fault?

 

[marbri]

I really don't think it was official, but just a run through or a chance for them to say their vows. What bothers me is Meghan seems to recollect it was a legal ceremony, when it's not. Why wait three years then bring it up in the Oprah interview?

Probably the same reason they announced the sex of the baby, to signal they are doing things and announcing things their own way now.

I don't really care when they got married but it seems to be a big debate here about if it was real or not. Did Meghan not say in the interview that their private marriage was also the date on their marriage certificate? If I am remembering that correctly then it seems she isn't confused about what took place that day.

 

[millyskate]

Since they had to have a very public wedding, I completely understand wanting something intimate just for themselves, even if it was not official (something they could have made clearer in the interview).

What is standard practice is for the clergyman to visit the couple in their home ahead of the marriage and get them to practice the vows so they are not overcome with emotion on the day. It can be an emotional moment - often people cry - but it’s not a wedding. Sometimes the clergy will pray for the couple at the end of it etc so it can feel quite formal. Simple Services of Blessing and dedication for marriages are available with the CofE but normally should occur after the legally binding event.
When the rehearsal is in a church and the witnesses are present, the vicar will cut off the couple before the saying of the crucial parts to ensure they are not legally married before the day. Normally, people are that careful about process.
I just presumed that M&H were overstating this standard rehearsal exercise but who knows. Maybe Justin Welby was so star-struck he was willing to do anything for H&M - it’s quite possible .

An extra technicality is that CofE’s are licensed to issue wedding certificates but if you get married in another approved venue (like a Methodist church or country house with an officiant), the route to obtaining your paperwork and publishing bans is different. If not in the CofE, you have to notify your registry office x amount of time ahead and they publish the bans of marriage etc... after a certain period you then have to collect the paperwork and hand it to your licensed venue ahead of the day.
If you’re getting married in a CofE building, the church simply needs to read the bans I think 3 weeks in a row.

I guess the CofE can’t respond here. Either they have to come out and accuse H&M of lying - "it was clearly just a rehearsal and I'm not sure why they referred to it as a private wedding, there was never any ambiguity" - which would cause a backlash against them in terms of public reaction, or admit Justin Welby did something completely illegal which should lead to his resignation and wouldn't reflect wonderfully on them either.

There are really strict rules about weddings in the CofE which are taken very seriously by vicars (and generally in the UK, private weddings are not allowed full stop - only licensed venues) and during the past year, to comply with lockdown rules as well as their own, some churches had the couples marry on the doorstep and the small number of guests sit outside in the church courtyard. Not all churches allowed that and many couples were denied the opportunity to use outside space at all.
There has been quite a lot of talk this year in the British press to allow a loosening of the rules because of the impossible situations created by **** Many couples have not been able to marry at all because private ceremonies are illegal.

The context means H&M’s comment has attracted more interest.

 

[Judy]

I really don't think it was official, but just a run through or a chance for them to say their vows. What bothers me is Meghan seems to recollect it was a legal ceremony, when it's not. Why wait three years then bring it up in the Oprah interview?

I’m happy to hear you were there as an eye witness. Pictures please?

???

 

[AxelAnnie]

I really don't think it was official, but just a run through or a chance for them to say their vows. What bothers me is Meghan seems to recollect it was a legal ceremony, when it's not. Why wait three years then bring it up in the Oprah interview?

Most people have a rehearsal dinner as a run-through.
Bring it up on Oprah i would imagine Meghan thought it bolstered her claim that she wanted to keep her private life private. Unfortunately her actions belie that claim.

Time will tell but I think that interview will have done more harm than good.

 

[skategal]

Maybe there were two witnesses present and H&M are protecting them now so not to drag them into it?

Maybe it was not official? Maybe it was?

It was meaningful to them. That’s all that matters.

 

[antmanb]

The semantics over the language used is really starting to piss me off.

I was civil partnered in 2010. I refer to it as being married and our wedding and Mr Antmanb as my husband....none of those things are technically true because gay marriage was not legal at the time. So fcuking what?

And whether the ceremony H&M had in a garden was a legal wedding or not, they had the big church ceremony within (a?) day(s?) so who honestly cares? It's not like there's a question around whether they are married at all - they clearly are.

 

[millyskate]

And whether the ceremony H&M had in a garden was a legal wedding or not, they had the big church ceremony within (a?) day(s?) so who honestly cares? It's not like there's a question around whether they are married at all - they clearly are.

I think it's indeed irrelevant with regards to H&M, probably more relevant with regards to the CofE and Justin Welby + the general push to extend the context in wish people can be legally married in the UK.

If Justin Welby carried out a private ceremony, it resonates as an endorsement of deformalising wedding processes in the UK. That could mean an easier path for lots of couples moving forwards, and it's also relevant to all the local vicars receiving calls from couples who want a garden ceremony now. It's harder for them to say "no" if Justin Welby himself has set a precedent, and it can also act as lobbying with the government as they examine the proposals to change the law.

Very few people are almost institutionally bound to have their weddings televised worldwide, so if ever there was an exception made to conventions it wouldn't be hard to understand here. However, since the topic of what constitutes a wedding has been a significant debate in the past few months, it's unsurprising the story stands out.

Weddings: Call to allow ceremonies outdoors and at home

A law reform body says couples in England and Wales should have more freedom over where they wed.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Jenny]

I think a couple has a right to define their own anniversary. They certainly wouldn't be the first to have a series of events over several days (or months even) in which somewhere in there it was "official." It's also possible that for everything they've been through since, Meghan and Harry look back on that quiet day in the garden when they rehearsed their vows in such an intimate setting and maybe they even did some paperwork too, so in their minds that's when it happened, for them.

What's more interesting is that they chose to tell the world this (I would think) rather private thing. Perhaps it is a way to try and say that the big wedding with all the pomp and celebrities and tradition etc etc is not who they are now, that if they had to do it all over again, it would have been in the garden like that, perhaps the last day when they felt that their relationship was theirs alone.

And it certainly underscores their positioning of "us against the entire world." Guess they didn't imagine that the reaction would be lengthy debates over the technicalities of marriage rather than a collective "awwww that's so romantic!"

 

[quartz]

I always considered my husband and I “married” years before our actual wedding. The commitment to each other is what binds us together, not a specific ceremony. It’s a state of being between us, not something a church decrees.
Our wedding was the public celebration of our relationship, and making it a legal union was a practical consideration. We didn’t magically become married at the pronouncement of “you are now husband and wife”, that had already developed and was established over 7 years prior to that moment. We were only 18 when we met, so there needed to be some maturity gained and financial security established, before we were even able to have our friends and family gather with us at the chapel. (non-denominational, no 1 Corinthians 13, and absolutely no submitting on either side)

Even my 3 times married/3 times divorced, best Christian mother, told me before we were even planning a wedding, that she saw us as being more “married” than she ever was.

I hope Harry and Meghan can manage to stay true to themselves and their babies - the amount of external interference is staggering. Though they may say they want a more private life, they know it’s impossible for them. They are damned if they stay silent and damned if they speak.

 

[taf2002]

Maybe their ceremony wasn't making a statement or setting a presedence at all. Maybe it was nothing other than they wanted to give their vows in a setting that was meaningful to them. And if they want to celebrate that day as their anniversary day what's it to anyone but them? GMAFB. Next I'm expecting some of you to re-watch the public wedding in order to find something else to pick apart.

 

[becca]

I don’t care when Meghan and Harry celebrate their vows but I don’t think their should be one rule for the royal family and one rule for every one else.

Also if the Archbishop did them a favor it’s extremely unfair for them to put him on the spot by announcing them. They didn’t say we had a small gathering before to celebrate their union they made it say they got married.

Furthemore Harry is a grown man and he shouldn’t get a free pass. It’s his family.

I personally feel it’s giving Harry a huge pass to say it’s the rest of the royals fault Meghan didn’t get help when he is the one who lived with her and should have been the first person to get her help.

 

[canbelto]

especially

I don’t care when Meghan and Harry celebrate their vows but I don’t think their should be one rule for the royal family and one rule for every one else.

Also if the Archbishop did them a favor it’s extremely unfair for them to put him on the spot by announcing them. They didn’t say we had a small gathering before to celebrate their union they made it say they got married.

Furthemore Harry is a grown man and he shouldn’t get a free pass. It’s his family.

I personally feel it’s giving Harry a huge pass to say it’s the rest of the royals fault Meghan didn’t get help when he is the one who lived with her and should have been the first person to get her help.

Omg. Drag them off to the Tower of London! Off with their heads! Also as a Catholic isn't the C of E marriage not even a real marriage? That was Mary Queen of Scots' argument against Elizabeth I.

 

[taf2002]

I don’t care when Meghan and Harry celebrate their vows but I don’t think their should be one rule for the royal family and one rule for every one else.

Also if the Archbishop did them a favor it’s extremely unfair for them to put him on the spot by announcing them. They didn’t say we had a small gathering before to celebrate their union they made it say they got married.

Furthemore Harry is a grown man and he shouldn’t get a free pass. It’s his family.

I personally feel it’s giving Harry a huge pass to say it’s the rest of the royals fault Meghan didn’t get help when he is the one who lived with her and should have been the first person to get her help.

You make such a parade of your faith & then you post such mean-spirited things. You & Piers Morgan are 2 of a kind. You clearly don't also believe a word she says. So why are you here? We get it - for some reason you hate her. Such a Christian spirit - NOT!

 

[becca]

You make such a parade of your faith & then you post such mean-spirited things. You & Piers Morgan are 2 of a kind. You clearly don't also believe a word she says. So why are you here? We get it - for some reason you hate her. Such a Christian spirit - NOT!

Huh? She said she got married? I didn’t say it.

I never said I don’t believe a word she said I said I won’t dispute her mental health claims. Because I think that environment is Tough.

I did say though that the person who should be blamed first for not getting her help is Harry which is fair notices I didn’t blame her. So now I don’t agree with Piers on everything.

I don’t hate Meghan I don’t know her. Her public persona rubs me wrong way. She is the one who chose to give an interview trashing her husbands family. And if she exaggerated about the wedding she could have exaggerated about other things.

I also dont like that she disowned her own family for talking to the press but does the same to Harry’s.

However I also think she is gorgeous! Smart! And talented.

I see her biracial heritage as a plus.

 

[becca]

Omg. Drag them off to the Tower of London! Off with their heads! Also as a Catholic isn't the C of E marriage not even a real marriage? That was Mary Queen of Scots' argument against Elizabeth I.

C of E is a real marriage. Catholicism recognized two Baptized Christians getting married in non Catholic service as A sacrament. Non Christian marriages are also fully valid but not sacraments

It only wouldn’t recognize it if let’s say a Catholic was involved without permission.

As for Henry VIII his marriage to Anne Boylen wasn’t recognized because the church already recognized him as married to Catherine of Aragon

 

[antmanb]

I don’t care when Meghan and Harry celebrate their vows but I don’t think their should be one rule for the royal family and one rule for every one else.

you really don’t understand being British or what the royal family is in this country then because that is basically the first rule of the BRF!!

 

[AxelAnnie]

No but exposing it my prevent it from happening again. Good for Harry and Meghan for shining a light on the dark. May their words and deeds help now and in the future.

Sure.....except for the things they lied about and/or made up.

 

[overedge]

I don’t care when Meghan and Harry celebrate their vows but I don’t think their should be one rule for the royal family and one rule for every one else.

Um, that is basically what monarchies are built around. But for what it's worth, the British sovereign is also the head of the Church of England, so they have a vested interest in maintaining the rules. So, for example, Princess Anne's second wedding had to be in the Church of Scotland because the CoE at that time did not allow divorced people to be remarried in a church ceremony - even though her mother was (and is) the head of the church.

I personally feel it’s giving Harry a huge pass to say it’s the rest of the royals fault Meghan didn’t get help when he is the one who lived with her and should have been the first person to get her help.

How do you know he didn't try?

 

[el henry]

I really don't think it was official, but just a run through or a chance for them to say their vows. What bothers me is Meghan seems to recollect it was a legal ceremony, when it's not. Why wait three years then bring it up in the Oprah interview?

And this thought is based on what?

And your criticism of Meghan's recollection is based on what?

I did not know we had someone knowledgeable about Anglican marriage ceremonies and what the ABC can and cannot do on this Board, so I would be pleased to know on what action of the C of E General Synod you base this conclusion. My reading is different, but certainly if there are other interpretations let me know.

Otherwise, it's on the level of "Well, Jason Brown doesn't even try a quad, waaaah, he must just go out there and skate around in circles at practices" criticism.

Not fact based.

 

[Simone411]

Sure.....except for the things they lied about and/or made up.

I just have to ask because I'm curious of your response. Why would they make up anything? They wouldn't have gained anything from it. Unless you witnessed something, then you can't be 100% sure and assume they made anything up.

 

[Lemonade20]

And this thought is based on what?

And your criticism of Meghan's recollection is based on what?

I did not know we had someone knowledgeable about Anglican marriage ceremonies and what the ABC can and cannot do on this Board, so I would be pleased to know on what action of the C of E General Synod you base this conclusion. My reading is different, but certainly if there are other interpretations let me know.

Otherwise, it's on the level of "Well, Jason Brown doesn't even try a quad, waaaah, he must just go out there and skate around in circles at practices" criticism.

Not fact based.

The point being, she said they legally married three days before, and archbishop said that's not the case.

 

[el henry]

The point being, she said they legally married three days before, and archbishop said that's not the case.

The ABC, as far as I know, hasn't said anything. I would love to see what he said (I'm serious, not snarking) can you point me to the article.

The Vicar from St. Swithin's in the Swamp repeating what he claims a nameless functionary in the ABC's office told him, to me, is not the ABC.

 

[Judy]

you really don’t understand being British or what the royal family is in this country then because that is basically the first rule of the BRF!!

I am a bit lost. What rule are we talking about?

 

[Jimena]

I am a bit lost. What rule are we talking about?

Becca said, without a hint of irony, that there shouldn't be one rule for the public and a different rule for the BRF. She was referring to the non-issue of whether Meghan and Harry got married for real the day before the wedding.

And antmanb pointed out that that IS what the British Monarchy is all about: one rule for the BRF, another one for the mere mortals.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I just have to ask because I'm curious of your response. Why would they make up anything? They wouldn't have gained anything from it. Unless you witnessed something, then you can't be 100% sure and assume they made anything up.

People generally make up things to show them in a more favorable light.

In his new book, Battle of Brothers: William and Harry – The Inside Story of a Family in Tumult, royal historian and biographer Robert Lacey explains that Harry and Meghan were less-than-honest with the press (and, by extension, the masses of royal fans around the world) when it came to announcing Archie's arrival.

Meghan claims that no one prepared her for her role as a royal. And yet

rince Harry's sweetheart told Oprah that she "didn't grow up knowing much about the royal family" and didn't need to 'Google Harry' because he told her everything she needed to know.

These reports came out at the time of the wedding. Kate a traditionalist wanted Charlotte to wear tights (which is considered proper etiquette. Meghan said no.

Rumours of tension between the two Duchesses escalated following reports that Catherine was reportedly left "in tears" after her daughter Princess Charlotte's bridesmaid dress fitting for Meghan's wedding in May.

Prince Harry also confirmed Archbishop Justin Welby was present for the intimate ceremony held in the gardens of Nottingham Cottage ahead of their lavish ceremony at Windsor Castle in May 2018, but according to Newcastle vicar, Rev Mark Edwards, the whole thing is a lie.

While a visit was had at the estate where Meghan and Harry were living before walking down the aisle in Windsor, there were certainly no ‘I do’s’ exchanged.

“Justin had a private conversation with the couple in the garden about the wedding, but I can assure you, no wedding took place until the televised national event,” he added.

What’s more, even if Meghan and Harry are claiming they were married three days prior, rules set in place by the Church of England, which involves at least two witnesses to be present, means the marriage wouldn’t have been legally binding or formally recognised by the church.

Other rules include the public having “unrestricted access” to the ceremony for any formal objections to the marriage, it must take place in a “certified place of worship”, and the inability to be married twice."

Someone mentioned up thread that it was a functionary for the CoE that gave this information. That may be true, but the above information are RULES of the church. Kind of like the 10 Commandments. Note they are no called the Ten Suggestions.

I suspect the claims of the staff against Meghan are based in part on this: Insiders said the royal exchanged heated words with staff when they told her it would be a breach of royal protocol to keep the freebies, with one telling The Sun: 'As an actress it was perfectly acceptable to take freebies sent by fashion chains and designer labels.

Unlike in Hollywood where designer clothes are often given to stars to use, it is not done that way in the UK. The designer clothing is donated to charity. And we are not talking a small amount of money which would have done a LOT OF GOOD for the charities they would have benefited.

MailOnline were the first to reveal how Meghan had worn clothing worth a staggering £117,934.62 ($149,515.27) during her 16-day Pacific tour with Prince Harry.

Her two wedding outfits cost almost half a million too - meaning throughout the year she splashed out £732,724.62.

Throughout her first pregnancy, the Duchess made sure her bump was well dressed, with her maternity outfits totting up to an eye-watering £514,000 ($675,000).

And for her final round of engagement last March, the royal wowed in breathtakinging outfits and dazzling colours - wearing £26,400 ($34,569) worth of new clothing for the brief five day visit

 

[MacMadame]

I guess the CofE can’t respond here. Either they have to come out and accuse H&M of lying - "it was clearly just a rehearsal and I'm not sure why they referred to it as a private wedding, there was never any ambiguity" - which would cause a backlash against them in terms of public reaction, or admit Justin Welby did something completely illegal which should lead to his resignation and wouldn't reflect wonderfully on them either.

Or they could say nothing. That's what I'd do. This whole tempest in a teapot will blow over. It's been made a bigger deal than it has to be by people who want to criticize them for everything.

If Justin Welby carried out a private ceremony, it resonates as an endorsement of deformalising wedding processes in the UK. That could mean an easier path for lots of couples moving forwards, and it's also relevant to all the local vicars receiving calls from couples who want a garden ceremony now. It's harder for them to say "no" if Justin Welby himself has set a precedent, and it can also act as lobbying with the government as they examine the proposals to change the law.

Which I see as a good thing, myself. The law seems petty and overly restrictive.

The point being, she said they legally married three days before,

No, she didn't. She said they "got married" 3 days before.

 

[overedge]

@AxelAnnie Please, are you this desperate for evidence to attack Meghan with? There is no "proper etiquette" rule as to when children should wear tights and when they shouldn't.

Plus, the rules of the CoE are not the same as the Ten Commandments. The rules in the CoE are voted on at regular meetings (synods) with representatives from the clergy and from the parishioners. And they change over time, e.g. women can now be bishops in the CoE. I don't recall the Ten Commandments being put to a group vote for approval.

 

[el henry]

What is standard practice is for the clergyman to visit the couple in their home ahead of the marriage and get them to practice the vows so they are not overcome with emotion on the day. It can be an emotional moment - often people cry - but it’s not a wedding. Sometimes the clergy will pray for the couple at the end of it etc so it can feel quite formal. Simple Services of Blessing and dedication for marriages are available with the CofE but normally should occur after the legally binding event.
When the rehearsal is in a church and the witnesses are present, the vicar will cut off the couple before the saying of the crucial parts to ensure they are not legally married before the day. Normally, people are that careful about process.
I just presumed that M&H were overstating this standard rehearsal exercise but who knows. Maybe Justin Welby was so star-struck he was willing to do anything for H&M - it’s quite possible .

An extra technicality is that CofE’s are licensed to issue wedding certificates but if you get married in another approved venue (like a Methodist church or country house with an officiant), the route to obtaining your paperwork and publishing bans is different. If not in the CofE, you have to notify your registry office x amount of time ahead and they publish the bans of marriage etc... after a certain period you then have to collect the paperwork and hand it to your licensed venue ahead of the day.
If you’re getting married in a CofE building, the church simply needs to read the bans I think 3 weeks in a row.

I guess the CofE can’t respond here. Either they have to come out and accuse H&M of lying - "it was clearly just a rehearsal and I'm not sure why they referred to it as a private wedding, there was never any ambiguity" - which would cause a backlash against them in terms of public reaction, or admit Justin Welby did something completely illegal which should lead to his resignation and wouldn't reflect wonderfully on them either.

.....

Again, I'm sorry to pick up on technicalities, but that's what I do. And I can't believe we're discussing Anglican weddings, so cool. At least for me.

The ABC can grant a special license for whatever he wants. It is NOT illegal. The ABC is the law for C of E weddings. And the mere fact that there is a Royal Family means they get enormous special treatment, including getting married by the ABC.

ETA: And of course if I wander into St. Switihin's and say, cool, I'd like to be married in the garden, the Vicar is never going to mention the special license. Why would he? I'm never going to get it. It's a lot easier to say, no can do, full stop.

I cannot see how anyone in Britain could say, well, Harry and Meghan got a special license, why not me? Maybe that's an argument to abolish the monarchy, but not for everyone to have a garden wedding. Why not say that everyone should be allowed to wear the Crown Jewels, or whatever, at their wedding too??