Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Meghan and Harry to Wed at Windsor

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

It was a busy day for royal watchers as Kate the Great made a stop at the Foundling Museum, and the Palace released a bunch of data on the upcoming royal wedding! 


Here are the highlights:

  • The couple will wed in May of 2018 (this suggests that Kate is probably due in early April).
  • The wedding will take place at St. George's Chapel, Windsor. You will recall that Prince Charles had his marriage blessed at St. George's Chapel after he married Camilla in a civil ceremony, and Autumn and Peter Phillips married at St. George's Chapel. That was a wedding Kate attended, and the occasion she first met the Queen! 
  • Harry and Meghan are keen to involve the public, and I am hearing the wedding will be televised. I don't know that that has been confirmed yet.
  • Official engagement photos have not been taken.  
  • Meghan and Harry will undertake their first official engagement together on Friday in Nottingham. 
  • Meghan will break ties with all current charities and join Harry, William, and Kate at their Royal Foundation. (Smart move, even if disappointing to her current charities)
  • Meghan will become a British citizen.
  • She will be baptized and confirmed in the Church of England before her marriage. 
  • The dog she had to leave in America will not be joining her in the UK.
  • Harry and Meghan were spotted arriving at Buckingham Palace today. The couple waved enthusiastically to the crowds as they were chauffeured in. I suspect this was tea with the Queen to chat about wedding plans. 
  • Harry was spotted later in the day at the gym. :) 
  • Meghan will also be traveling for a few months to spend time with friends before her wedding. 
Royal reporter Emily Andrews shared the actual press statement she got from Harry's office at KP, and you can read it below for yourself. Big thanks for that, Emily! [the above bullets were sourced throughout the day from Emily Andrews, Rebecca English, Richard Palmer, and Niraj Tanna]




N.B. I am running on a truncated schedule here, because Harry and Meghan's very happy news coincides with a few weeks of very important deadlines on my end. But, I will keep you up to speed, even if I am a little less wordy than usual, and we will be back to regular programming in a jiffy. Following all this engagement news is making me nostalgic for William and Kate's engagement. I think everyone knows that I follow Kate for more than just the fashion, and I know the hubbub of this new engagement has stirred up our quiet little corner of royal watching. A little stirring can be a good thing, and I am excited to share more of my thoughts about Meghan and Kate over the holiday season. I do want to clarify, though. I will cover Harry and Meghan's engagement and wedding, because I am following every detail and excited for it all, and I know the overwhelming majority of you are following it, and it is a huge part of Kate's focus these days, too. But, this will not be a joint blog moving forward. More on that later. But, I hope we all enjoy this season of excitement together in a spirit of goodwill. 

Ok kids. Onward! 

 P.S. Best photo of the day. I just love this Princess. 





94 comments:

  1. Great summary! Take Care and Best of Luck juggling all of your commitments!
    Take it easy as your health and studies come first!
    Blessings!

    ReplyDelete
  2. May will be here before we know it! My guess was Windsor and I see it being similar to Edward and Sophie's wedding which included a carriage ride beyond castle walls.

    And if Harry hasn't met Meghan's father, I do wonder if he will give the bride away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a really tacky comment. It's not a family rift, RoyalFan.🙄I read somewhere that he is in poor health. Clearly, the statement from her parents included her Dad and Meghan was known to post screenshots of his cute text messages to her. I have seen them.

      Diana's father was barely able to walk her down the aisle because of a stroke. She talked about how she had to practically drag him along. So, if Meghan's Father can't, it's not a family rift. Let's all hope he can make it.

      Delete
    2. With all due respect 1.02, I think it's rather tacky to dismiss a reasonable question as being a tacky comment (with an eyeroll no less) instead of simply offering the additional information that you may have.

      I was aware of the joint statement, thank you, however, I still find it odd that Harry has not met her father in the year-and-a-half that they have been dating. As Robin suggested, surely a meeting could have been arranged someway, somehow. And if there is a health issue that has stood in the way, i am surprised that Meghan didn't touch upon it given all of the other information that she was happy and willing to share. Even if they "met" via Skype, I think Meghan would have said so, no?

      Again, I think these are reasonable questions.

      Delete
    3. Mary from ManchesterNovember 29, 2017 at 8:57 AM

      I agree RoyalFan, the Anon 1:02 is off way off the mark. You have a good question. I was wondering the same thing and I'm sure we're not alone. We've not seen him make an appearance, but there is the statement.

      Delete
    4. Thank you, Mary.

      In time, I'm sure we will have more answers.

      Delete
    5. I thought Harry asked her dad's permission? Regardless even if there is a family rift why drag it out and make it public? It really doesn't matter in the long run.

      Delete
    6. royalfan- I'm not really taking the bait on this one, but I realise you couldn't let such an inappropriate response go. However, did my computer eat part of your comment? I am trying to understand the emotional response to it. Who brought up rift? Not you.
      I think Jane is knocking herself out to produce these posts and I am now committing myself to try to make editing these comments a little easier for her by declining invitations to useless, divisive bickering. Sometimes a dozen positive remarks cannot erase the discord caused by one acrimonious one but we can refuse to validate and spread it. anon1
      PS I enjoy a spirited discussion that concentrates on ideas, not name-calling and personal attacks. That is always my goal.

      Delete
    7. Anon1, nothing was eaten up. Only the yogurt I enjoyed for lunch. ☺

      And I totally agree about Jane knocking herself out here. With all that she has on her plate, I give her a lot of credit indeed.

      Delete
    8. But in the interview Meghan said they (Harry and her dad) spoke a couple of times but they haven't met yet. Or did I get something wrong here?

      Delete
    9. Her not talking about someone else's health issues if there is any, is perfectly understandable, I think. It is none of our business.

      Delete
    10. I think I saw on Twitter that at least one reporter said her dad currently lives in Mexico. You can ask for permission to marry a daughter without having to do it in person. We will find out in less than 6 months who walks her down the aisle and who attends their wedding :-)
      ~ A

      Delete
    11. Asking for permission to marry a daughter??? Where do you live??? and wearing a Burka???

      Delete
  3. Thanks for all you do with this blog and social media--it's my favorite and I love that it's always up to date, always great commentary, and overall a nice way to soak in all things Duchess. I'm glad to learn that this will ultimately not be a joint Kate/Meghan blog. It's an exciting time and she's new to the bunch, so I'm just as interested in anyone else. But so relieved this blog will remain all things kate!

    Good luck with your studies!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can I just say: this is an absolutely beautiful and pregnancy-perfect dress? Its tailoring and fit is flattering to a growing tummy; she looks like the beautiful, elegant, mom-for-the-third-time-to-be woman that she is! Yay, HRH! Silvia

    ReplyDelete
  5. Like royalfan, my guess was Windsor too. I also see it being much like Edward and Sophie's wedding. If it is completely like theirs we will see everything that happens outside but not the actual ceremony. I have more thoughts on this aspect of it but will just say that this will be a lovely setting for them.

    I also wondered why, after a year and a half (or whatever the actual time frame is), Harry has not met Meghan's dad. I know he lives in Mexico and has financial difficulties but I think I would have sprung for a plane ticket so he could have met him in Canada. Seems very odd. I would assume he would give her away but maybe not. She has a half brother but he is not of stellar character so he doesn't seem a likely candidate. Maybe nobody will give her away and that's part of the non-traditional wedding that has been mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robin-I certainly wouldn't call Windsor Chapel non-traditional either, but maybe that was one of those click-bait things. Was it in a KP statement?
      I think it is possible that Meghan's Mom might give her away or escort her. That would be out of the ordinary and certainly would be a poignant gesture reflecting what we have learned about Meghan so far. I know it would bring tears to my eyes. anon1

      Delete
    2. Funny, elsewhere, I just mentioned that Meghan's mom should give her away, with the rest of the bunch left at home.

      Delete
    3. Robin, the Wessex ceremony was shown here in the UK...We watched the entire thing, I wonder if perhaps it just wasn’t aired overseas?

      Delete
    4. Oops. I forgot to respond to that, Robin, but I recall watching the wedding. Surely, it was not in snippets but the actual wedding. Lol. Long day here!

      Delete
    5. I just read that, royalfan! I think it was close to the same time,too, by the time-mark. Over the years of Kate commenting, our comments sometimes have intersected.
      I usually hit FBTB first and sometimes last. There are four I read, at least intermittently but this one gets to put up with my comments these days.

      Delete
    6. Royalfan I speculated that Meghan may want both her parents to walk her down the aisle - that is becoming more popular. We will soon find out :-)

      As for why Harry hasn’t met her dad....life can be complicated. You can still have a relationship with family while accepting them for who they are and what they are capable of giving you. Based on the family’s complicated, perhaps at times embarrassing, dynamics on Meghan’s dad’s side of the family, there is probably A LOT we aren’t aware of. I’m totally speculating here but if things are *odd* maybe the relationship Meghan does have with him is one where she accepts his limitations and loves any connection they have. It seems like her mom was instrumental in keeping him involved in Meghan’s life, whereas he has other children who seem to have had a less stable upbringing.
      ~ A

      Delete
    7. Georgia Rose and royalfan, given that here on the West Coast all Royal Weddings take place in the middle the night, maybe I fell asleep during the Wessex wedding! I watched every minute of Diana & Charles, Andrew & Fergie, and William & Kate but I have absolutely no memory of Edward and Sophie's wedding other than going to and entering into the chapel and then them leaving. I thought they looked happy and in love but thought her dress a little too big for her and her necklace was the first (and so far last) time I've ever seen pearls or a cross look so clunky. I wonder if it's on YouTube. Until just now I thought I had perfect televised royal wedding attendance. Dang!

      Delete
    8. Robin, "...perfect televised royal wedding attendance..."

      LOLOL!! Well, if you have the time, here's a makeup assignment.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNbSOQZG2Fk

      Delete
    9. ~A, it's quite possible. We shall see.... :-)

      And I think your take on it is very reasonable.

      Delete
    10. Robin apparently the chunky/clunky pearl cross and matching earrings were a wedding gift from, and designed by, Edward......
      ~ A

      Delete
  6. Thank you for the amazing photo of Catherine at the end of your post! She is just lovely.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I read that one of the dogs would be allowed in the UK and the other would be with friends, so obviously there are reasons out of Meghan's control for leaving him in America. She must be so sad, even if there is a lot of excitement going on right now.

    I am curious to see how Meghan handles her first official engagement on Friday. It seems she's taking on her royal responsilities rather quickly, but I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. Fashion-wise I'm interested to see if she is sticking with her personal style or taking a page from Kate's book.



    ReplyDelete
  8. Love your blog! Glad it will still focus on Kate but I am keen to hear all of your observations on the engagement and the happy couple and all the wedding lead up

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kate’s ability to squat like that, especially in heels and pregnant, is always mind blowing for me!! :-)
    ~ A

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lovely photos---lovely dress.
    Catherine is out again this morning , doing a spot of gardening.
    I really think she is at her best when she wears casual (and well used) clothes.
    Thanks Jane for covering the engagement etc, but am glad this will not become a joint blog, as I am afraid that would then become a comparison between the two women, which could become difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Jane for taking time to update the blog during your busy end of semester time!
    I loved Kate’s look yesterday and was happy to hear her comments about the engagement.
    I suspect Meghan can learn a few things from Kate, even though she(Meghan) is clearly media savvy and comfortable with cameras and attention.
    I haven’t loved the comparisons between the engagement interviews being published in various places; Meghan is 7 years older than Kate was and a professional in front of the camera. I enjoyed her relaxed manner and I am excited for the upcoming run to the wedding but I am hoping the press doesn’t pit Kate and Meghan against each other. I suspect they will.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good luck with your studies, Jane! I'm glad to hear this won't be a joint blog, but one thing I love about it is that you sometimes bring in other members of the BRF and the Middletons. Your content about all of them is rich and appropriate, and perfectly complements the more in depth coverage of our favorite duchess! Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  13. As always I so appreciate your take on all things Royal! I’m excited to see your coverage of the engagement and wedding and so happy this will be a Kate centered blog. I admire Kate so much and this is my favorite blog!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mary from ManchesterNovember 29, 2017 at 9:00 AM

    I was wondering about Meghan having to get baptized. That's not the norm actually in the Church of England is someone is already baptized in another Christian faith. Also she's being called a Protestant but what does that even mean? There are several iterations of that in the U.S., Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Baptist. It seems to me the inconsistencies with these stories are starting to add up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Starting to add up to what?!

      Delete
    2. I had the same question. Isn't it by baptism that you become a Christian? How is it possible to be protestant and 36 and not baptized?

      Delete
    3. Mary from ManchesterNovember 29, 2017 at 10:45 AM

      Anonymous 9:52, in the Church of England you get baptized at birth and then you reconfirm your commitment with Confirmation at around age 12. The Daily Mail is saying the Queen insisted on the baptism and confirmation into C of E. The usual is that you show a baptismal certificate and then you simply do a C of E confirmation. That's what Peter Phililp's bride, Autumn did. She was a Catholic and had a confirmation, but not another baptism, so I guess she had a certificate from her parish but Meghan does not.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. -she may be choosing to become a member or it may be required. Kate was Anglican and attended church in her parish with her family (and William) before her marriage but apparently had to actually become a member of the Church of England. Unlike in the US, there is a State religion and royals represent it. I believe there is a difference between the Anglican Church and the official Church of England.. Jean, or someone in the UK or otherwise personally knowledgeable of the subject===please correct me, if needed.

      I think the point was Meghan is not Catholic, a bit of fake news/speculation that has been spread around the internet. Writers would take one fact -she attended a Catholic school, and extrapolate and speculate- that she was therefore Catholic. From there it becomes a "well-known fact." It seemed to me a good portion of that interview was directed toward dispelling rumors. Something Harry has seemed willing to do in various remarks on other subjects. It must have been frustrating for them to have to hear of so much misinformation and be unable to respond directly to it because of protocol or other restrictions. Or maybe they just had a good chuckle over how ridiculous it all was. I hope the latter. At any rate, gossip and rumor have been a part of being a royal that all must deal with. I kind of wish there could be a monthly press conference or statement where some of these rumors could be addressed. That would likely be a Pandora's box sort of event, I suspect.
      There must be a half-way point between refusing to comment on personal matters and allowing rumor to progress to "well-known fact." anon1

      Delete
    6. My father's family is Catholic and my mother's family is Protestant, Presbyterian denomination.

      I hear Protestant and Catholic being used all the time. Some people refer to themselves just as Protestant, meaning Christian and not Catholic.

      This is much ado about nothing.

      Delete
    7. Mary's got it right. Just read the Queen is insisting on the baptism, and probably Justin Welby since he'll likely be the one marrying them. You need to show proof of Christian baptism and some connection to your church. The baptism is reaffirmed in the Sacrament of Confirmation in the CofE. All the boxes on all the Sacraments need to be ticked, especially for the royals.

      Delete
    8. Just because she is being labeled a Protestant (ie a non specific Christian like Anonymous 1 pm said) doesn't mean that she is an active church goer or has received any sacraments. I know lots of people that identify as Christian but never have received a sacrament, including baptism.

      I'm shocked that Autumn Philips, as a Catholic, was allowed to just get confirmed in the CofE and not do something more formal of a conversion especially since they married before persons in the line of succession were allowed to marry Catholics.

      Delete
    9. I read that Meghan had a Jewish wedding with her first husband, so perhaps the RF want it known she's not Jewish and that's why they're saying Protestant without using a denomination? There's a zillion Catholic churches on the planet but I can't recall as I've ever seen a church that just said, "Protestant Church."

      Delete
    10. She had a Jewish first wedding because her first husband was Jewish. I think that’s an indicator that she isn’t religious. Many non religious people who identify as Christian just say they are Protestant to make it clear they aren’t Catholic. I’m sure she doesn’t currently belong to a church or a sect of Christianity.

      Delete
    11. Hmm. . .well in that case if she really had a Jewish wedding with a Rabbi, I'm afraid she would have had to convert to Judaism. Even the most reformed Rabbi won't marry a non-Jew to a Jew. Can't be done. Maybe they had a civil ceremony and a Jewish celebration for the reception? If she converted, that would explain a lot about the Queen insisting Markle get baptized and confirmed in the CofE.

      Delete
    12. It never been stated that she was Jewish so my guess is that she didn't convert and had a cultural Jewish wedding OR they found a very liberal rabbi to do the ceremony...you really can find anything these days. I've seen this done with friends.

      Delete
    13. I'm not sure about her Jewish first wedding but I believe the difference is probably doctrinal. The biggest doctrinal difference between most protestant churches and the Catholic church is whether or not they believe in the Holy Trinity - that three personages are one God. The three Holy Trinity churches here in the US are Catholic, Episcopal, and Lutheran. If baptized in any one of these three you can change faiths to one of the other two without re-baptism. Any other Christian churches don't qualify. Going with those differences, or if Meghan converted to Judaism, would seem to make baptism necessary for her to be married in the Church of England. I believe HM considers Windsor Chapel to be her home parish so she, as Defender of the Faith, may also have stronger feelings about making sure everything is squared away.

      Delete
    14. Actually the big difference between Catholicism and Protestant faiths is believing in the transcriburation and also in how confession works.

      That said via Cannon Law most Christian baptisms would be valid. See this lengthy but good article http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2010/03/11/do-converts-have-to-be-rebaptized/

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    16. Anon 10:34pm wrote: [] most of the protestant religions believe in the holy trinity, the Baptists, Methodists, etc. Just because the Catholics would have someone be re baptised doesn't mean that protestants dont believe in the trinity.

      Delete
    17. Yes, Anon 10:34, I agree. Belief in the Trinity is central to all Christian denominations. Catholics, however, accept all Christian baptism.

      Delete
    18. Mary from ManchesterDecember 1, 2017 at 11:03 AM

      Agree with Jane. The Catholic Church believes in being baptized once. So long as it is a Christian faith and you have proof of your baptism, the Catholic church is fine, then it's a question of the other sacraments. The Church of England is the same. But both require some proof. Otherwise, you get dipped again.

      No surprise they have the same policy as the Church of England was first the Catholic Church. It was Henry VIII who broke away because he wanted the divorce.

      Ironic that the Anglican Church was founded on a divorce.

      Delete
    19. You all have forgotten the Virgin
      María....who conceived without a man.... and she is very important for the Catholics...

      Delete
    20. You have forgotten the Orthodox church...also Christian..

      Delete
    21. Another quibble...if you attend a Catholic school you must have been baptized in the Catholic faith...if not you couldn't attend it..
      So ... wether she attended a Catholic church she must have been Catholic....at one point..

      Delete
    22. Anon 6:24, well that's not the case. Catholic schools might have quotas they need to fill, but non-Catholics can attend Catholic schools and often do. So, if Meghan attended a Catholic school, it does not mean she was necessarily baptized Catholic.

      Delete
    23. In which Country, Jane?? Catholics schools are not totally private... they belong to the state and are half-private... paid by the state...so in Europe that's not possible...

      Delete
    24. Also in a Catholic school you must do "The first communion"at 10 years old, attend mass one week and study Catholic religion as a subject...so...

      Delete
    25. What's not possible? First you said that anyone at a Catholic school must be baptized and then when I said there might be quotas they need to be filled you said that Catholic schools belong partially to the state. Here is the deal, Catholic schools might be entirely private, which some are both in the United States and in Europe, or they might be partially state-funded, as some are both in Europe and in the United States, but wherever they are, I have never heard of a mandate that all students be baptized Catholic, and certainly there is no mandate that all receive Communion at age 10, since it is only appropriate for practicing Catholics to do so. There may be mandates for religion classes and Mass attendance with the student body, etc, but sitting through Mass with your peers and studying religion does not (necessarily) a Catholic make. :)

      Delete
    26. Jane, I am Spanish living in Spain, here it's not possible at all..
      Here no quotes, they are completely full... Baptism and first communion are mandatory...and religion is an important subject..

      I suspect Italy, Portugal and South Germany it is the same...

      Delete
    27. In Spain you can choose a laic school also... where religion is not the main thing and they are public...free... but not a Catholic religious one... and yes they are half-paid by the state..
      Have you seen the Princess Leonor and her sister first communion??

      Delete
    28. That's interesting. I didn't know that about Spain. But, addressing Europe, it is not the case in France or England, and it certainly isn't the case in the United States, where Meghan went to school.

      Delete
    29. England is not a Catholic country and France is laic, where not even Good Friday is a holiday...
      Old Catholic countries.... perhaps...I wonder about Ireland...

      Delete
    30. To the 8:08 comment, that's amazing that the state pays (even half) for a school that mandates a certain religion. I have not seen Princess Leonor's first communion, but the Spanish royal family is Catholic, so that wouldn't surprise me. It also wouldn't have made me think partially state-sponsored schools mandate the practice of religion, though. Very interesting. I'll be studying more international law in the spring, and look forward to digging around in this, but for present purposes, as I noted above, all sorts of British Catholic schools accept non-Catholics, French schools as well, and in the United States, non-Catholics attend private Catholic school regularly.

      Delete
    31. Ha!! The Catholic religion has ruled more than the King....
      Probably in non Catholic states...

      Delete
    32. Finally, I wonder why a non Catholic one might attend a Catholic school... named like that..

      Delete
  15. Yay, St. George's at Windsor is my faaaaavorite. Can't wait to see it all come together.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I was following along the "highlights" just fine until I came to the last one. What exactly does "traveling a few months" indicate? I hadn't read that yet. Are we being prepped for a reduced or absent Meghan presence until a couple months before the wedding? Was this first engagement so soon because later she will be elsewhere visiting friends...for a few months? Very strange statement How is she to establish residency for citizenship if she is traveling to visit friends, who are mostly in Canada and America, I would assume. Not to mention...WEDDING PLANS. Getting to know the UK etc.
    If you get any more information about this I would appreciate your sharing it.anon1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought the same exact thing when I was reading highlights, 2:11. Honestly, I don't *really* care, but the way the information is doled out is what makes me stop to consider it. If I were to just make a general assumption it sounds like she is taking a couple of months to decompress or just be before making the big move/the marriage/etc, kind of like mentally preparing? Or living a last couple of months of normalcy/anonymity? I don't know, and certainly don't care, I just think it's such a pretentious thing to have to mention.

      Delete
    2. With six months to go, it does seem odd to say that she will be traveling for a few months. Not the best scenario given what was a long-distance courtship.

      Delete
    3. Mary from ManchesterNovember 29, 2017 at 7:32 PM

      That's a fair point, RoyalFan. It might be that it seems like a pressure cooker to be in the royal family. I keep thinking about Diana and how she said that once she realized her marriage was gone, she suddenly felt trapped and there was no way out. And I think going into a one-way street like the RF would give any bride pause. And Meghan has been the ruler of her fate all this time. Now she will have to fit in to this institution. I can how she'll need the time to adjust. Maybe that's what made Sarah Ferguson blow a gasket. She didn't have that time.

      Delete
    4. Tax lawyer here chiming in. Meghan is a US citizen who has been living in Canada, has recently relocated to the UK and will begin the process of obtaining British citizenship. She also will likely (for privacy and tax reasons) be giving up her US citizenship. There might be very practical, if unromantic, reasons for her to be physically present in different locations over the next 6 months.

      Delete
    5. Also from the British citizenship point of view, Meghan will apply as the spouse of a British citizen which means it is the time spent in the UK during the three years after her marriage that will be the qualifying period. The royal family were very clear that Meghan would comply with the current immigration rules. (Just got my British citizenship and I am married to a British citizen so I'm familiar with the rules).

      Delete
    6. 8.53, thanks for the input. I had not considered that.

      Delete
    7. I agree that there are probably a lot of practical reasons for Meghan to be traveling around. Basically tying up loose ends that she wasn't able to while she was still filming and before the engagement was announced. I'm sure that was said so there wouldn't be crazy speculation when paps saw her here there and everywhere.

      Delete
    8. Unless she drops out of sight altogether-which she has done and I think that was more likely the point of that statement. We may not see her. Visiting friends instead of touring the UK with Harry? It would have sounded better just to say tying up loose ends.

      Delete
    9. She will be seen outside the U.K. so they had to say something to nip nasty headlines in the us. "Tying up loose ends" migh be demure PR but taxing authorities watch tv too - I am sure the statement was worded purposely.

      Delete
  17. Mary from ManchesterNovember 29, 2017 at 3:44 PM

    If they marry in May I hope they marry on Friday the 4th. There's a bank holiday on Monday the 7th. Would make a lovely 4 day weekend and we'd get to see the wedding in the UK. But maybe they wouldn't schedule so close to the Cambridge baby's arrival.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope they marry the 11th (my birthday) or after, so I can attend my obligation on the 5th and 6th and still be at their wedding (I’m assuming I’ll get an invitation. Right?).

      Delete
  18. Mary from ManchesterNovember 30, 2017 at 10:50 AM

    Just read this update from Vanity Fair, et al. Apparently, Meghan is going the slow route to citizenship instead of by the Magic Wand of Theresa May. Since becoming an British citizen can take up to 5 years, apparently Meghan will not be allowed to hold a royal title until then, or so says VF:

    https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/11/prince-harry-meghan-markle-wedding-date-location-details

    I hope the Magic Wand of the Queen gives her a dispensation on that pesky rule and gives her a title anyway. Upon her marriage, in my view only, she should be an HRH and have her full title, Duchess of Sussex. Not really sure if that's the official title since this is coming from VF and the others. I didn't get it from the Queen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I like VF, I find this hard to believe. Phillip was granted citizenship ahead of his marriage to the a Queen. I don’t think Meghan will marry Harry and then wait years for her titles. That stretches beyond reasoning. Nor do I think Harry would stand for it based simply on equality with the RF.

      I don’t think in this instance, VF knows what they are talking about.

      Delete
    2. Mary from ManchesterNovember 30, 2017 at 3:26 PM

      She should be given her citizenship straight away. What an embarrassment for Britain. Perhaps this is a politically correct move given all the migrants? She will have diplomatic immunity anyway, I don't see the issue here at all. This story seems to be in several outlets. I hope they've got the wrong end of the stick on this.

      Delete
    3. The BRF doesn't control the rules about citizenship and I'm not sure how having a new member of the BRF follow existing law is an embarrassment. She is not a diplomat and so will not have diplomatic immunity. There are significant legal and tax matters involved with obtaining or relinquishing citizenship (major tax implications for someone relinquishing US citizenship). Getting outraged without having all the relevant information is a waste of energy.

      Delete
    4. I will bet anyone that MM gets her titles straightaway.

      Delete
    5. Titles and citizenship are distinct. I think it's true that Meghan could accept a UK title while still a US citizen because she isn't in public office.

      Delete
  19. I think MM should be given her citizenship right away also. I'm sure the Queen as head of state can swing it for her. Mary is right. It is an embarrassment for the Britain. And yes, the BRF do have diplomatic immunity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 7:39 - if you believe the Queen can override the government at whim (and for personal reasons) without causing some serious issues you don't understand how a constitutional monarchy functions. And no the BRF does not have diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity is for persons who are present in another county as an agent of their home country - it is derived from the sovereign immunity of the home country. The BRF are not diplomats - they are sovereigns in their own right.

      Delete
    2. Mary from ManchesterNovember 30, 2017 at 9:16 PM

      Sorry meant to say Sovereign Immunity which is really the same thing as diplomatic and it does extend to her family. Yes, good point 7:39, HM is the head of state.

      Delete
    3. Sovereign immunity and diplomatic immunity are not the same thing and it does not extend to Meghan's family.

      Delete
    4. Mary from ManchesterNovember 30, 2017 at 11:03 PM

      According to the Daily Mail, the British Government can speed through the British citizenship on the request of the Queen. And whether or not Meghan is a citizen at the time of her wedding, she will automatically receive her titles, HRH Duchess of Sussex and HRH Princess Henry of Wales because the Queen can give a title to anybody she pleases. That puts paid to that.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5122989/Fears-actress-Meghan-wait-UK-citizen.html

      Delete
    5. The Daily Mail says a lot of thing Mary from Manchester.

      Delete
    6. Mary from ManchesterDecember 1, 2017 at 11:11 AM

      10:12, I wasn't speaking of Meghan's family, I was speaking of the Queen's sovereignty which extends to HER family. When Meghan marries Harry, she will be part of the Queen's family.

      Someone mentioned she is marrying a British citizen. That doesn't always make it faster. It can be a long tortured road especially for those from America. Don't know why. Loads of stories of problems with it. You see them every now and then in the Daily Mail. I don't expect Meghan will have any problems.

      Loved the comment from the tax lawyer. November 29 @ 8:53, All good points. Thanks for that great comment. Never would have thought of that.

      Delete

The rules for commenting are simple: be polite. Please be respectful of the BRF/Middletons, even in criticism; please be respectful of your fellow readers, even in disagreement. Vulgarity will disqualify a comment.

Debate is welcome, direct and personal insults are not. Topics we tend to avoid here: "does Kate work enough?" and "Is Kate too skinny?" Everything is subject to approval.

I (Jane Barr) moderate all comments. If a comment is live, I approved it. If you find something offensive, or think my approval was an error, please email me at princesskateblog(at)gmail.com.

At times, an acceptable comment just goes missing. If you felt your comment should have been approved, but did not show up within five hours, again, pop an email to the above address.

Happy chatting!