Harry & Meghan change their surname

[Gottseidank]

… from Mountbatten-Windsor to ‘Sussex’.
Apparently it’s to strengthen their brand.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harry-meghan-sussex-archie-lilibet-children-name-royal-title-cnvf7d9jf

I see more differences than similarities.

The older brother in Harry’s case has had no trouble producing heirs.

@Gottseidank interesting that it can be read from two perspectives as I see similarities.

What are they?

@Serenster That's very interesting. Just goes to show the whole course of history can turn on a sixpence. Fortunately here William has 3 children so Harry won't become King!

I agree - very interesting story and goes to show how things can change. Luckily W&K have three heirs and if Prince Phillip is anything to go by, both Charles and William will live long.

@Gottseidank
Albert and his older brother Badouin were the children of the wildly popular and darling of the press Queen Astrid (Diana) of Belgium, who died tragically in a car accident at a young age.
Harry & William’s Mum was Diana who was at times the darling of the public and tragically died in a car accident at a young age

Badouin was the responsible and serious older brother who married a serious and deeply religious young woman (Fabiola).
William & Catherine are considered by some to be responsible and committed to duty.

his father, who had become deeply unpopular in Belgium partly due to the unpopularity of his mistress, later his second wife, abdicated.

KC married QC who was his mistress and unpopular.

Meanwhile younger brother Albert was forging his own path, falling in love with a stunning Italian aristocratic beauty Paola, and they got married and lived a life of luxury in Europe’s holiday spots,
Harry married Meghan, who is beautiful, and they live in California

Need I go on?

Well you can’t really go on, can you, because their stories diverge pretty startlingly from there?

And Meghan may be considered beautiful, but she’s a commoner and a divorcee - not an aristocrat like Paola.

Yes but it is a bit funny when we are being told "you can't unhear it" when people are remembering things they didn't hear. It's more like you can't unimagine it.

There won't be one unified view will there. Some people will be offended some won't. My DH is disabled and he isn't sensitive about it and will say things that I'm pretty sure would upset other disabled people. He's allowed to say them but I'd think it was very inappropriate if I said them.

That's not true for those millions of people who heard the tape, remember accurately what it said and now can't unhear that accurate version. The cheating was laid bare as was KC's ridiculous and infantile way of talking to his mistress, even though he was no spring chicken. The main take was the obvious longevity of the cheating which is now being veiled as something impossible to have avoided, because of 'love'. Neither KC's or Camilla's fault or weakness - a much loftier thing than the grubby affair that it actually was (and far sillier, judging by the infamous phone call).

Exactly this. It's been spun as if 'love' makes it all acceptable and we should all be happy that Camilla is Queen.
She's also only Queen because Diana is dead, I very much doubt if she was still alive that Queen Elizabeth would have allowed them to marry, and I doubt the palace would have been able to do such a successful PR job on her if Diana were still alive. (To make it clear, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, Diana's death was an accident which might have been avoided if she'd worn a seatbelt).

She's also only Queen because Diana is dead

I disagree. Diana's death and the reaction of the British public actually delayed the possibility of Charles and Camilla marrying. There have also been reports that Charles and Diana were getting along fairly well at the time of her death, which would likely have made it easier for Charles and Camilla to marry, and eventually for the public to accept Camilla as Queen.

Diana and Charles were spectacularly unsuited to each other, and they were both essentially in an arranged marriage. It was very sad, of course, and I think there is likely blame on both sides.

KC's ridiculous and infantile way of talking to his mistress, even though he was no spring chicken.

I didn’t realise that only young people are allowed have sexual side and enjoy sex and chatting to their lovers.…

Queen Elizabeth had to give permission for him to marry. She didn't attend his wedding to Camilla when his former spouse was dead, so it would be highly unlikely she would have allowed him to marry when he had a living former spouse, especially when he would be the head of the CofE as King. The church's attitude towards divorce was different at that time too.
Nowadays people seem to have forgotten how much Camilla was loathed at the time. It would have been even harder to rehabilitate her image if Diana was still alive.

I think had Diana lived it would have been easier to rehab Camilla because of the way the media was starting to turn on Diana.

The press stories were starting to portray her negatively with her holidays and “frolicking” with men like Dodi Fayed. If they’d continued down that line it wouldn’t have been impossible to clean up Camilla’s image.

If anything imo Diana’s death made it harder because they were competing against a ghost that had been sainted by many.

Also the Queen already had a divorced and remarried daughter whose ex was (and is) very much alive.

And the Queen did attend the church blessing.

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh attended Anne’s second wedding (as well as her first, obviously!), not just a blessing of it. Anne’s second marriage took place in the Church of Scotland, which had different rules to the Church of England.

I thought the reason the late Queen didn’t attend C&Cs wedding is because she was head of CofE at the time and wasn’t there rules of a divorced man marrying in church or I could be totally wrong. I’m happy to be corrected

Camilla still had a living spouse, but Charles didn't - so Charles was a free to marry again (according to CofE 'rules' at the time) but Camilla wasn't.

Is that the reason? I thought only the Catholic Church had that rule but I’m also non religious so I don’t know the rules either

I think the CofE has changed, and it is up to the vicar at that church to decide - but I am not sure. tbh it was probably happening on a case by case basis anyway, but C&C's wedding was high profile so couldn't slip under the radar

But at the time it was because Camilla had a living spouse so was not free to remarry in the CofE.

Both Charles and Camilla were entitled to marry again, as both were divorced. The complicating factor was the fact that it was trickier to be married in the Church of England.

The Matrimonial Causes Act stated that no member of the clergy should feel compelled to solemnise the marriage of “any person whose former marriage has been dissolved and whose former spouse is still living".

So, after Diana’s death, Charles was entitled to be remarried in a church. Camilla’s former spouse however was still alive. Hence they were married in a Registry office ceremony, and then had a blessing in Church (which has always been fine).

Here's the current guidance, for anyone contemplating either remarriage or getting ordained... MARRIAGE IN CHURCH AFTER DIVORCE (churchofengland.org)

So is it because the late Queen was the head of the church that she didn’t like a registry office wedding for Charles but was happy to attend the blessing?

The guidance is from 2002 and still in place. Reasons for NOT allowing remarriage in church include:

(d) Would the effects of the proposed marriage on individuals, the wider community and the Church be such as to undermine the credibility of the Church’s witness to marriage?  Would the new marriage be likely to be a cause of hostile public comment or scandal?

and possibly:
(e) Would permitting the new marriage be tantamount to consecrating an old infidelity?  While it would be unreasonable to expect that the couple should not even have known each other during the former marriage(s), was the relationship between the applicants – so far as you can tell from the information made available to you - a direct cause of the breakdown of the former marriage?

e) would need to be explored in detail by the priest and they would need to come to a decision about the point at which Camilla's marriage had broken down and whether her relationship with Charles was a direct cause.

I suspect (d) was such an over-riding factor that (e) wasn't particularly relevant.

Then, if the priest does not feel able to marry the couple in Church: