To wonder why Harry doesn't drop his titles now he's free of The Firm

[CateTown]

He and Meghan wanted the freedom to earn their own money and good luck to them there. He's confirmed two new roles and his new employers are introducing him as "Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex".

For his self respect, why doesn't he ask to be called Harry Wales or Harry Mountbatten Windsor. Then he'd know he's being hired for his skills rather than being used for his royal connections.

Meaningful words and exchange of vows are just that. Marriage, on the other hand, means: the legally or formally recognised union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).

Just to help clarify, the below is from the interview transcript where they both lie:

Meghan: Right? Like this kind of stuff. It’s so, it’s so basic, but it’s really fulfilling. Just getting back down to basics. I was thinking about it — even at our wedding, you know, three days before our wedding, we got married . . . 

Oprah: Ah!

Meghan: No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us’. So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that was the piece that . . . 

Harry: Just the three of us.

Oprah: Really?

Harry: Just the three of us.

Meghan: Just the three of us.

I am just giving my view ... to me it was a private moment not in front the world and as she says 'but we want our union between us'. It meant something to them obviously.
Of course saying it was a 'marriage' was wrong because it has created all this ire.

Why did they say it all , that's the question. If it was a private moment between them, they don't need to announce it to the world. They knew it would cause a lot of reaction, that's why they said it. It was disrespectful on so many levels and actually quite rude.

Rousette that's an interesting question, which I've had to think about.

I think all aristocracy/royal rules are complicated but it is especially so in the UK because Buckingham Palace over-complicates things by not making clear statements over the future of the monarchy and trying to leave doors open to change direction in the future. For example the Queen could have issued a letters patent back in 1999 saying that any future male-line grandchildren would never be entitled to HRH and that would have been the end of the matter - no debate - but they seem to have wanted to leave the door open for them to start using the titles in the future if needed, even though this was always incredibly unlikely.

They also don't act until they are forced to - the status of Charles' grandchildren should have been regularised long before William and Kate got married, let alone Harry, to avoid the decision being linked with individual family members, but they didn't bother issuing any letters patent for William's children until Kate was actually pregnant.

I think there is something wrong about our royalty model/the way it is run. The Danish RF have a more lavish model than ours in some ways (all grandchildren of the monarch with royal titles/numerous televised tiara events with extended members of the RF etc) but they don't have the publicity issues that the Brits have.

@Roussette

I am just giving my view ... to me it was a private moment not in front the world and as she says 'but we want our union between us'. It meant something to them obviously. Of course saying it was a 'marriage' was wrong because it has created all this ire.

No. Saying it was a marriage was wrong because it was a lie. Remember, we talked about this?

I have decided that I shall give my DC titles.

Henceforth eldest will be known as his Supreme chrysanthemum, the sandal of Green.
Middle child can be the Labradoress of Wales after her great granny.
Youngest will accede to the title of Pyjama leg of Narnia.

None of which implies any talent or abilities, but they'll be a shoe in for a pointless but well paid job, no?

It isn’t ire.

For two people who are not stupid they don’t half mis-speak a lot. 🤷‍♀️

I get that a private exchange of vows would be a lovely thing. I’d want that of my wedding was put out there for the nation.

But to have the Archbishop there was unnecessary. Why do you need someone to witness private vows?

Did they actually think his presence would make it official?

It just seems a bit of a nonsense.

Impatiens
Yes, Mum
Please. I am just putting across a view and how I feel about what they said, that's all . Please don't use the 'D' word, I'm a bit fed up with it 😂

Thank you Katherine. A great explanation. I think our RF want the flexibility to be able to change when it suits them. Maybe not realising how complicated it makes it and how it can cause confusion.

I was only meaning ... don't feel you have to answer. I meant nothing by it. I was just rambling

Sorry; I probably sounded on the impatient side too

No probs

@PurpleWh1teGreen

I have decided that I shall give my DC titles.

Henceforth eldest will be known as his Supreme chrysanthemum, the sandal of Green.
Middle child can be the Labradoress of Wales after her great granny.
Youngest will accede to the title of Pyjama leg of Narnia.

None of which implies any talent or abilities, but they'll be a shoe in for a pointless but well paid job, no?

As one quote that says “let Meghan make millions off of a pointless title” let’s her do that

Just remember, your Queen didn’t have any skills either other than born and Raised as Royal and being prepared to be Queen one day

@SheldonesqueIsUnwell

It isn’t ire.

For two people who are not stupid they don’t half mis-speak a lot. 🤷‍♀️

I get that a private exchange of vows would be a lovely thing. I’d want that of my wedding was put out there for the nation.

But to have the Archbishop there was unnecessary. Why do you need someone to witness private vows?

Did they actually think his presence would make it official?

It just seems a bit of a nonsense.

Luckily Harry will now be able to work on and rectify misinformation!

As one quote that says “let Meghan make millions off of a pointless title” let’s her do that

I’m sure she will do that but she will need many millions for her lifestyle. I hope she can and does fully support herself. Same goes for Harry.

Just remember, your Queen didn’t have any skills either other than born and Raised as Royal and being prepared to be Queen one day

On that basis, nobody has any skills either other than being born and being prepared for their future (that’s why we have education systems). It’s just some people have the intelligence and skills to make a success of their future and others don’t. Without a doubt the queen would have ruled regardless but to a far less degree and quite possibly not head the Commonwealth etc.

Just remember, your Queen didn’t have any skills either other than born and Raised as Royal and being prepared to be Queen one day

What the only Royal who knows how to change a spark plug?

Regardless of how educated the HMQ is she is honest. She's never done an interview where she's tried to mislead people.
Clearly she knows how to surround herself with wise people and listens to the advice given.
The comments about wedding 3 days before surely they knew it wasn't a wedding. Meg saying the race concern was while she was pregnant, Harry saying it was early in their relationship.

What I meant to say, lying not getting your facts straight is deceitful.

The Queen has never tried to deceive.

But to have the Archbishop there was unnecessary. Why do you need someone to witness private vows?

They probably thought that the American audience would think it must be legit if the arch bishop of Canterbury was there. In reality, it put him in a bad position of allegedly performing an illegal wedding without witnesses, but who cares about that. What's important is they got to speak "their" truth

If they had referred to it as "We exchanged private vows before God in our garden" or "We were married spiritually in our garden" it would have been more accurate.

I'm in the US (and am happy to be corrected) and as far as I knew for a marriage to be legal in the UK it has to be inside an 'approved building or space', so I admit I wondered about the legality of this garden wedding.

The last I heard the Archbishop has said he will not comment on 'private marriages'. I guess I can see his point but I wonder if he was actually even there. Or was there for another purpose and got roped in as a 'witness'. I don't believe he actually conducted a marriage ceremony (spiritual or otherwise), at any rate.

To their credit they were fairly quick off the mark to backtrack and call it ‘pish’ even if it was in a more eloquent manner.

I reckon the abishop said he’d tan their arses with his crosier if they didnt back up sharpish.

It all just seems to be misunderstandings all round and I don’t know why he didn’t just clear I up by saying it wasn’t a marriage.

The Archbishop possibly viewed it as a rehearsal, blessing, private prayer with a couple about to make a huge commitment.

Did Meghan not also have to become a member of the CoE? (Sorry, if that's the wrong word, is invested the right word?)

Could he have done the private blessing while he was there? I certainly don't think he would in anyway have classed it a wedding nor would he have done the 'I now announce you Man and Wife' bit, I don't think he'd have done the kiss either.

The aBishop may well have viewed it that way.

The other two did not. until pulled up on it 🥴

@AcrossthePond55
I believe England you need to be in an approved building.

Scotland has a different view. You can basically be married anywhere the minister or celebrant is willing to do it. Which stems from viewing The Church as a body of people rather than a building. You do still need witnesses etc.
60 plus years ago it was very common for weddings to be carried out in peoples houses or community halls (cheaper than paying for a church wedding).

It all just seems to be misunderstandings all round and I don’t know why he didn’t just clear I up by saying it wasn’t a marriage.

I think it was sensible of him to keep well away from the whole mess.

The Danish RF have a more lavish model than ours in some ways (all grandchildren of the monarch with royal titles/numerous televised tiara events with extended members of the RF etc) but they don't have the publicity issues that the Brits have.

I have also wondered about that. I think it's a combination of a) The British press does seem to be particularly feral and shameless, especially in its treatment of outsiders who marry in, and b) The Scandi royals in general just seem to be made of superior material (compared to their British counterparts) in terms of brains and marital fidelity. The British royal family have mostly been a substandard bunch for centuries.

@MrsTulipTattsyrup

Did you say the same about Diana, Princess of Wales, after she was divorced and left the royal family? Do you feel that Edward VII should have rescinded his title of Duke of Windsor after his abdication?

But neither of those people dropped out because they didn't want to be senior royals any more. Neither of them bleated on about wanting to be independent. That's the difference/

I thought they were no longer using HRH. 'Prince Harry' is actually a nickname, he is HRH Prince Henry.

Sometimes these things stick, when Lady Diana Spencer married she became 'HRH Diana, Princess of Wales' she was never officially called 'Princess Diana'.

Camilla became HRH Camilla, Princess of Wales when she married Charles, as well as Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, and Countess of Chester.

I think they tend to use titles almost as 'stage names'