Any comments on the Royal Interview?

[Beguile's Mistress]

Well, here in the US a lot of couples will have a small private ceremony, even if it isn't called a "marriage ceremony" and something that is legal, just to have the closeness of two people pledging themselves to each other.  Many don't understand this with Harry and Meghan because they just want to see the negativity of these two people.  At one time a man I was engaged to went with me to a place that was meaningful to us and exchanged vows on our own because he was being deployed overseas and we couldn't have a formal ceremony.  There wasn't time.  A friend who is a minister blessed us.  This wasn't the legal transaction so many are yammering about but it meant more to us than two celebrities standing in front of thousands of people being made to put on a show to please the royal family and the masses.

[Mechelle]

The other thing is this put the Archbishop of Canterbury in a very awkward position. He can hardly acquiesce in  a false marriage of people whom he has already secretly married, and I can see why he felt the need to make his point.

I imagine it was some sort of blessing or sharing of vows, but having heard the relevant bit of the interview again today, Meghan said it was a "wedding" and, after keeping his head down for a time, Harry repeated the word.

[Dice]

Haven't read the article, won't. Don't care. Just wanted to point out one thing.

Marriage in the emotional sense is impactful and does not always have to be legal. I went to weddings between couples who, because of their gender, could not legally marry. I and my wife had a long engagement. We just started saying we were married long before the paperwork got filled out.

You don't even really need a ceremony in modern times. Defacto living and laws around it can bind people without ever stepping within a country mile of a Justice of the peace.

[Iniquitous]

Haven't read the article, won't. Don't care. Just wanted to point out one thing.

Marriage in the emotional sense is impactful and does not always have to be legal. I went to weddings between couples who, because of their gender, could not legally marry. I and my wife had a long engagement. We just started saying we were married long before the paperwork got filled out.

You don't even really need a ceremony in modern times. Defacto living and laws around it can bind people without ever stepping within a country mile of a Justice of the peace.

^

I suspect that this situation is nothing more than Meghan said one thing and everyone refuses to accept that what was meant is totally different than how it is being taken.

I am willing to bet that what was done was a private, intimate, personal exchanging of vows meant for just the two of them overseen by the Archbishop so that they had something of their own before the very public spectacle.  I am also willing to bet that Meghan -knew- this wasn't the legal ceremony because no paperwork was signed that day. 

What I am not willing to bet on is her choice in words.  She knew it was not a legal 'wedding' and could have (should have) used the word 'ceremony' to keep this very situation from happening. Now, could it be that she (and possibly Harry) feel that the private exchange of vows is when they were truly married? Sure.  And if that is the case, then who are we to tell them 'nope, can only be married when it was legally done.'  They know when the legal wedding happened - as does the whole damn world - but that doesn't mean they can't choose to say the emotional, intimate day of their joining was 3 days earlier.

They aren't lying - but they aren't clarifying the facts either.

[Haibane]

Many people opt to have a private and meaningful ceremony that is more personal to the couple a short time before the main event.

As the Archbishop of Canterbury said he met with the couple in a "pastoral and private setting" several times over a number of days prior to the public ceremony but he did not marry them then. Their marriage certificate is dated the day of the ceremony in Windsor Castle and it would be illegal and potentially annul the marriage if the date on the certificate did not match the date of the wedding vows.

I am not clear on the relevance of the rest of your post about the Royal family but on this point UK law is clear. Meghan and Harry were either legally married at Windsor Castle on the date of their public ceremony or they were not married at all.

It seems Meghan has misunderstood what their private meetings were about and to then go public with that misunderstanding shows massive ignorance.

[RedRose]

This is so interesting to me. I know people who have only their closest kin, I know people who have big weddings, but I don't know of both. But again I hear Americans REHEARSE!

[Beguile's Mistress]

A traditional part of wedding preparations here in my region is the so-called rehearsal dinner which follows a run-through of the ceremony done mostly to make sure people participating know what to expect and how to do their part.  Marriage ceremonies that combine different faiths or cultures can be a surprise to those not familiar with those traditions and the rehearsal helps to make sure the day goes smoothly.  Vows are not exchanged at the rehearsal but the officiant will make some suggestions if he or she feels it is necessary and appropriate to help with any logistical issues that may arise.  In fact, in some cases the family will have a stand in for one or both of the bride and groom to avoid any chance a preemptive marriage could accidentally take place. 

One wedding I attended had one of these surprises though it happened on the day of the ceremony and didn't involve the couple.  Their flower girl was a first grade student at a Catholic school and was to have been making her First Communion the following Spring.  The priest inadvertently gave her Communion during the mass along with everyone else simply because they hadn't gone through that at the rehearsal.

Still, when weddings become elaborate due to family participation in the planning the couple can feel the importance of the occasion is ignored or buried under the hoopla and will take some time to privately exchange vows so the marriage becomes the important event it is meant to be.  A marriage and a wedding are not always seen as the same thing and when a couple wants the marriage to be the center of their lives the intimate exchange of vows, while not a legal transaction, becomes for them the true marriage and wedding is just the show.

I've read a lot of stories in which the couple have two ceremonies, a civil ceremony with a magistrate or Justice of the Peace and the religious ceremony which is the big show.  Many of those stories take place in the UK.  In fact, Charles and Camilla had a civil ceremony in they were wed and a religious ceremony to celebrate their union.

[Iniquitous]

Charles and Camilla had a civil ceremony because the Church of England considers marriage a lifelong commitment, and discourages divorce. With Charles set to become the head of the church when his mother dies he cannot be seen as violating that.  They did not have a church wedding.  They had service of prayer and dedication.

[Lilias]

I've read a lot of stories in which the couple have two ceremonies, a civil ceremony with a magistrate or Justice of the Peace and the religious ceremony which is the big show.  Many of those stories take place in the UK.  In fact, Charles and Camilla had a civil ceremony in they were wed and a religious ceremony to celebrate their union.

Per UK law, a marriage is legal when witnessed and certified by a Crown registrar. Clergy of the Church of England are Crown registrars by default, so the marriage certificates they issue are valid without any further action. Anyone who marries outside the Church of England needs to either have a Crown registrar present at their ceremony, or have a separate civil ceremony (usually beforehand, because a conscientious religious officiant will not go ahead with a ceremony if there's a chance the marriage won't be legal).

Charles and Camilla's religious ceremony was in the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland, which has no issues with divorce, rather than the Church of England, which Charles will be heading when he becomes king.

[Beguile's Mistress]

This keeps being repeated and the way it is done leaves me with the feeling their marriage may be legal in the civil sense but not valid in the Church of England religious sense.  I know that is probably not the case but it seems so to me and would make me very uncomfortable were I in her shoes.

[Mechelle]

This keeps being repeated and the way it is done leaves me with the feeling their marriage may be legal in the civil sense but not valid in the Church of England religious sense.  I know that is probably not the case but it seems so to me and would make me very uncomfortable were I in her shoes.

It has got very confusing now, but as they were married by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, in the large, public ceremony, I don't think there is any doubt that they were married in the eyes of the church (of England), although Meghan's comments have not helped.

I thought the Church of England has got more relaxed about divorcees remarrying., although Charles and Camilla were married in a civil ceremony  When my parents married in the 1960s, my father was divorced, and they  were not allowed to marry in an Anglican church, but did marry in a Methodist one. Although I am not a believer, I must say that the Church of England is a very liberal, accepting church nowadays, as shown by the fact that a divorcee like Meghan could get married in a Church of England ceremony, even if she said that wasn't her real marriage.

[Lilias]

This keeps being repeated and the way it is done leaves me with the feeling their marriage may be legal in the civil sense but not valid in the Church of England religious sense.  I know that is probably not the case but it seems so to me and would make me very uncomfortable were I in her shoes.

I suspect Camilla doesn't give a monkey's if her marriage is considered valid in the eyes of the CoE. It is legal, it will not cost Charles the crown, the rest can go hang.

[Haibane]

Per UK law, a marriage is legal when witnessed and certified by a Crown registrar. Clergy of the Church of England are Crown registrars by default, so the marriage certificates they issue are valid without any further action. Anyone who marries outside the Church of England needs to either have a Crown registrar present at their ceremony, or have a separate civil ceremony (usually beforehand, because a conscientious religious officiant will not go ahead with a ceremony if there's a chance the marriage won't be legal).

In addition to that a minimum of five persons must be present: the couple being married, the crown registrar and two witnesses who must be adults (over age of 18 I think) and of sound mind and good character. Therefore no matter how emotional, tender, meaningful or committed any discussions were that Harry and Meghan had with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the garden of Frogmore House or elsewhere, it was not a legal marriage and that's why their marriage certificate is dated the day of the public ceremony at Windsor and carries the signatures of the two witnesses, Prince Charles and Meghan's mother.

For Meghan to make this announcement is either just a misunderstanding over US customs vs UK ones (which seems very ill-informed), ignorance on her part (which I can't believe) or deliberately misleading (which I can). The latter is worse than the former when you're a person who has claimed for a couple of years now that they want to be out of the media gaze and enjoy her right to privacy.

(This last being a fact, why this pair keep on shining the spotlight on themselves I have no idea, it seems entirely hypocritical).

Why Harry gave a reluctant agreement to Oprah after his wife's statement I have no idea. It makes him wrong as well. He definitely knows the law.

[Iniquitous]

In addition to that a minimum of five persons must be present: the couple being married, the crown registrar and two witnesses who must be adults (over age of 18 I think) and of sound mind and good character. Therefore no matter how emotional, tender, meaningful or committed any discussions were that Harry and Meghan had with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the garden of Frogmore House or elsewhere, it was not a legal marriage and that's why their marriage certificate is dated the day of the public ceremony at Windsor and carries the signatures of the two witnesses, Prince Charles and Meghan's mother.

For Meghan to make this announcement is either just a misunderstanding over US customs vs UK ones (which seems very ill-informed), ignorance on her part (which I can't believe) or deliberately misleading (which I can). The latter is worse than the former when you're a person who has claimed for a couple of years now that they want to be out of the media gaze and enjoy her right to privacy.

(This last being a fact, why this pair keep on shining the spotlight on themselves I have no idea, it seems entirely hypocritical).

Why Harry gave a reluctant agreement to Oprah after his wife's statement I have no idea. It makes him wrong as well. He definitely knows the law.

We get it. You dislike Meghan.  You also refuse to accept that they may - just may - choose to say the private vows they said to each other is their true marriage date despite the paper saying the ceremony 3 days later is the legal date.

What does it effing matter what day they feel they were truly joined together on?  Why the outrage over this? Should she have kept it to herself? Yeah, but I suspect she just doesn't care anymore.  If they want to say they were joined as man and wife three days earlier let them.  *Everyone* knows the legal part was done 3 days later.

Sheesh.  They didn't lie.  They just didn't explain themselves.  It isn't a misunderstanding or misleading or illegal to say 'we said private vows x number of days before the whole world watched our ceremony and that is the day we FEEL that we were joined as husband and wife'.  How does that affect total strangers? It doesn't. How is that illegal? It isn't.  They did what they had to do by law but nothing in the law says they have to claim that day as their anniversary.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Lots of times when we don't like someone we'll use anything as an excuse to verbally dismember them in public just to watch the blood flow.

[Haibane]

We get it. You dislike Meghan.  You also refuse to accept that they may - just may - choose to say the private vows they said to each other is their true marriage date despite the paper saying the ceremony 3 days later is the legal date.

What does it effing matter what day they feel they were truly joined together on?  Why the outrage over this? Should she have kept it to herself? Yeah, but I suspect she just doesn't care anymore.  If they want to say they were joined as man and wife three days earlier let them.  *Everyone* knows the legal part was done 3 days later.

Sheesh.  They didn't lie.  They just didn't explain themselves.  It isn't a misunderstanding or misleading or illegal to say 'we said private vows x number of days before the whole world watched our ceremony and that is the day we FEEL that we were joined as husband and wife'.  How does that affect total strangers? It doesn't. How is that illegal? It isn't.  They did what they had to do by law but nothing in the law says they have to claim that day as their anniversary.

I think we can discuss this without the insults.

That wasn't what she said, she said she was married on a day before the Windsor ceremony. Which is not true.

All I am stating is the law on UK marriage. That's the fact. What she thought had happened is wrong. Again, facts only. Her opinion doesn't count. Everything else is something either someone didn't understand or they just plain got wrong or they said it with malice. We don't know and I did explain that in my other posts.

And I have no issue with her as a person, what I do have issue with is someone who enters into a marriage to a royal family (or in fact any family) and then within an indecently short time cannot cope with whatever pressures they encounter there and should have been prepared for and try to get out doing immense damage to their own and that family's standing in the process, all the while insisting they have a right to privacy while trumpeting their story to the highest bidder. Its obscene.

I have absolutely zero respect for Harrry as well. He did everything wrong too.

[Iniquitous]

I think we can discuss this without the insults.

That wasn't what she said, she said she was married on a day before the Windsor ceremony. Which is not true.

All I am stating is the law on UK marriage. That's the fact. What she thought had happened is wrong. Again, facts only. Her opinion doesn't count. Everything else is something either someone didn't understand or they just plain got wrong or they said it with malice. We don't know and I did explain that in my other posts.

And I have no issue with her as a person, what I do have issue with is someone who enters into a marriage to a royal family (or in fact any family) and then within an indecently short time cannot cope with whatever pressures they encounter there and should have been prepared for and try to get out doing immense damage to their own and that family's standing in the process, all the while insisting they have a right to privacy while trumpeting their story to the highest bidder. Its obscene.

I have absolutely zero respect for Harrry as well. He did everything wrong too.

Again. You completely ignore what you refuse to acknowledge. What date they want to claim as the day they were joined together is their choice. Legally -meaning on paper and for all legal purposes- it is the day the world seen them have the ceremony but they CAN choose any day they want to declare they were joined together as husband and wife. Just as I could say I was married on June 18th when I was handfasted even though the legal part was not done till June 21st before the Justice of the Peace.

You do not have the right to tell someone what they feel is right or wrong nor does it affect you when they celebrate their joining together. Getting bent out of shape about it is ridiculous since you have nothing to do with it.

Second. I don't think Meghan was prepared for the press. I think the institution did leave her hanging in the wind. I think she completely misjudged what she was getting into. There is NO doubt the institution protected Kate and not Meghan. There is NO doubt the media slammed Meghan for the same things they praised Kate for. There is NO doubt Kate has been groomed by the royal family and Meghan wasn't.

Was Meghan naive about what she was getting into? Yeah. But you can't tell me you would be hunky dory fine in that same situation. Isolation, the media tearing you apart, your family betraying you at every turn, alleged racist concerns over your child? Yeah, I'd run for the nearest exit too - as would most people.

[Fox Lokison]

Was Meghan naive about what she was getting into? Yeah. But you can't tell me you would be hunky dory fine in that same situation. Isolation, the media tearing you apart, your family betraying you at every turn, alleged racist concerns over your child? Yeah, I'd run for the nearest exit too - as would most people.

I think it's easy for outsiders to comment on this situation, but you've hit the nail right on the head, Ini. We weren't in her shoes. It's easy for people who aren't her to put their expectations on the woman, but not nearly as easy to sit where she sat and live through what she lived through. The absolute weight of her position is unbelievable. Look at how any public figure who screws up or gets in a scandal is treated - tens or hundreds of thousands, even millions of people all tearing at them with millions of different opinions, blasted across every newspaper, news station, tabloid rag, etc. The effects of that are devastating, and it's abhorrent to expect anyone to endure. The eyes of how many people were on her? Nitpicking the slightest error to the bone and attributing it to her being a bad or malicious person? Frankly, I'd jump in the Thames.