Netflix has delayed start of Meghans show

[Viviennemary]

Just seen on Sky News. Breaking News headlines. Delayed because of the wild fires didn't say if this was technical difficulties or it would be a bit crass to launch a frothy type lifestyle show with all the devastation. Anyway it might be shelved for good with any luck.

I think I read somewhere that William suggested Gloucester cathedral and H was most offended. They wanted the spectacle not a low key affair.

He is though. 🤷‍♀️

They absolutely wanted the big wedding with full RF line up and a host of Hollywood celebrities. They could have gone small or even outside the U.K. if they wanted (just one of the many perks of being the 'spare'). They both wanted a big wedding that would rival William and Catherine because the 'extra sausage' stings to this day!

I think it is in Spare where Harry details the conversation with William . Harry wanted WA or St Paul’s and was angry that William said it wouldn’t be allowed .
No one batted an eyelid when Zara was married in Scotland ( Anne too) so he had lots of options .
Didn’t Harry once say he would like to get married barefoot in Africa and bring up his children there ?

@Ohpleeeease a widower is a man whose wife died when they were still married. Charles was not a widower.
Think for a moment how ridiculous this line of thought is - so many divorces in the UK and people remarried. If their ex dies they are then a widow or widower. If my ex died I would not be a widow but his second wife would be.

In the eyes of the CofE he would have been

It’s in the context of Catholic or high church CoE re remarriage.

🙄

I didn't know the C of E regards ex spouses as widows/widowers. I'd be pretty upset if my ex claimed that status. I'd definitely haunt the crap out of him if he did.

The cynic in me thinks that her father no longer fitted into her Royal life.

And then her fil didn't fit.

If you are estranged from one parent, then maybe they are the problem, but to be estranged from two...

And her best friend....

Plus not forgetting the celebs that turned up to the wedding and didn't know the couple.

It's not so much that he was a widower in social terms. It's that he no longer had a wife still living, which matters in the RC church and to some extent in the CofE (who remarry divorcees with living ex-spouse at their discretion, but have no bar to a second married for someone whose former spouse has died, whether the death was after divorce or not)

(H&M) absolutely wanted the big wedding with full RF line up and a host of Hollywood celebrities

Of course they did, otherwise they could have chosen what Anne did (rather cleverly I thought) and get remarried by the Church of Scotland to avoid the CofE's supposed rules

For that matter so could Charles, though probably his future role as head of the CofE - what a hollow joke - may have complicated things

However a more modest wedding wouldn't have generated so many bankable images and opportunities to schmooze contacts, so here we are

I think it is disingenuous to think that St George’s chapel is somehow “lesser” if that was what Harry thought and just goes to show how ignorant he is of his own family and their history. There are many monarchs who are buried there and it was obviously a very important place to her late majesty. It was quite an honour to be married there. I would imagine that the main reason that the larger London cathedrals were used for other weddings was because of the number of people that needed to be accommodated due to the relative importance of the person getting married. The odious Andrew was, at the time of his marriage, second in line to the throne. By the time Harry got married, William already had three potential heirs. So in terms of who needed to be invited from a political point of view, he was a fairly long way down the list.

Regardless of all this, I think St George’s was a lovely place for their wedding and it seems rude and ungrateful to somehow see it as an inferior setting. It’s in the middle of an actual castle fgs 😆

Nope. The royal family’s wants only take precedence if you believe some people are more important by dint of birth. A wedding is a ceremony to begin a marriage of equals; women no longer promise to obey – Meghan didn’t. The archbishop proclaimed them husband and wife, equals – not man and wife, implying a subservient relationship.

That covers the vows and the ceremony, not all the trappings of the wedding! The wedding became a public spectacle at the choice of H and MM, soaking up millions in public funds. The monarch is accountable to the public, so of course they are going to have a greater say, although there’s no evidence that there was any interference - Harry even got to keep his beard whilst wearing the uniform of a rank he didn’t earn.

By marrying Harry, Meghan had to accept the royal family’s funding because there would be no way for her to afford what was needed.

None of what they had was “needed”. It was very much wanted and chosen by them.

The BBC gave them an engagement interview, demonstrating the public interest.

The interview created public interest, the public would have been fine without one. No-one complained that Beatrice and Edo didn’t give one.

The wedding had 27.7 million peak viewing in the UK, 29 million in the US. It was covered worldwide on multiple channels. That spectacle all came from the groom’s side, and the groom’s side had the wealth to fund it.

And did. People watched it because it was televised. Zara and Mike Tindall’s wasn’t, nobody minded or felt they had missed out. And it hasn’t done their popularity any harm.

And before anyone says “well, they could have said no and had a private wedding”, look at the outcry when she refused to do the hospital steps postpartum posing with Archie – she’s still fighting off allegations of surrogacy, baby kidnap, moon bumps and god knows what else simply because she maintained her privacy for 48 hours.

I don’t remember any outcry. People were exasperated by the drama they created around the labour and then the birth. (The allegations of surrogacy etc are nothing to do with her “48 hours of privacy”, it’s just loons on the internet, nobody here takes those seriously).

They could have done as Eugenie and Beatrice have done, released a photo some days after with details of the birth. It’s conventional to present royal babies but by no means obligatory.

Harry would always have been a problem but things have been made so much worse by his choice of wife. Unfortunately they will remain a problem, unless neutralised. William might have the stomach for it, knowing that what he leaves undone his son will have to pick up.

I'd rather marry at St George's , it's lovely and far more private. It is obvious though that Harry wanted spectacle and public applause, why else have the ridiculous carriage ride to nowhere after the ceremony?

carriage ride to nowhere 😂😂

I see it differently.

I think the Queen very much wanted them to be a success, both as a couple and as working royals. And she was trying to set the conditions for long-term success - which included continuing acting (which did happen, as that Disney voiceover was before they stepped down, and there could have been more of that kind) and a period of adjustment and learning - remember how she appreciated her time as Naval wife including in Malta with the pressure right off? And how W&C had a version of this too (Anglesey).

Plus it's reported that she made several suggestions for people who would help Meghan find her feet in royal circles because unlike others, she might have needed this (Philip was European royalty, Diana was aristocratic and her family was in royal circles, Catherine had been a girlfriend for much, much longer and had been learning behind the scenes IYSWIM. Even Sarah was from a family of royal adjacent courtier types, and Sophie had been a longstanding and cohabiting girlfriend).

Also, ER II supported Meghan in the early days of "hitting the ground running" - high profile patronages (National Theatre) and much earlier public engagement with just the two of them

William might have the stomach for it, knowing that what he leaves undone his son will have to pick up.

I think this so true- Kate having cancer will have highlighted this issue.

The odious Andrew was, at the time of his marriage, second in line to the throne.

No, William and Harry had both been born by then, he was 4th.

Andrew was the son of the monarch though, whereas Harry was a grandson, so obviously further down the pecking order. None of the other grandchildren had a big showy tv wedding. Except William of course, but then he is constitutionally and politically significant - we have an interest in knowing for sure that he's properly married etc.

There was absolutely no need for Harry and Meghan to have the wedding they did, and if they hadn't, they might have set the tone for a more private life along the lines of the Yorks, the Phillipses and the Tindalls, without the burden of expectation that the Waleses have to put up with.

I think most people understood her cutting off her father and siblings, they were toxic. However excluding her mothers side of the family is baffling, they have all been very discreet and her lying the RF were behind her excluding the niece she was supposedly on good terms with, was another one of her big lies.

I do think she never wanted her obese father walking her down the aisle, having the future King of England walk her part of the way, was another one of her power play moves and generated plenty of attention and plenty of images for posterity.. Same with deciding to present her first born in the grand surroundings of St. Georges hall in Windsor Castle.

@smilesy Regardless of all this, I think St George’s was a lovely place for their wedding and it seems rude and ungrateful to somehow see it as an inferior setting. It’s in the middle of an actual castle fgs 😆

I agree with you - were it me , which clearly it was not , I would much prefer St George's chapel. The backdrop of the castle, the Long Mile etc just idyllic . I also like the fact it is on a much more human scale than Westminster Abbey or St Pauls , ( relatively speaking ) and if you don't need the numbers , then personally I think much much nicer. But then ( whispers) I preferred Meghan's wedding dress to Catherine's - don't tell anyone 😊. That said Catherine I suspect did have to have a dress which would fit the scale of the Abbey. Just a personal opinion .Dresses with lace sleeves just make me itch looking at them but that says more about me than it does for those dresses. I thought C's was appropriate and pretty timeless.

No, William and Harry had both been born by then, he was 4th.

Andrew was the son of the monarch though, whereas Harry was a grandson, so obviously further down the pecking order.

It was also a different generation.

There was a lot more public interest in the royals then, and pomp and ceremony were considered more important. It is nearly 40 years ago after all. Things had already changed even by the time the Queen's youngest son married 13 years later. His wedding was a relatively modest affair in St. George's rather than in the Abbey, as might have been expected a decade earlier.

Windsor was the perfect venue for the wedding of a grandson of the monarch who, though popular and high profile, had no realistic chance of ever being king.

Harry stands out among the grandchildren as the (other) son of the heir – that line of the family (particularly with Diana as their mother) always drew more attention than the other branches. Once they did the childhood march behind her coffin, his fate was set as far as fame was concerned – obviously fame doesn’t trump protocol but the royals are known to bow to public pressure (returning to Buckingham palace from Balmoral after Diana), and at the time of his wedding (before we knew his real self), the public had a lot of affection for Harry.

Plus he was also a working royal and quite senior, always part of a trio with Will and Kate; it made sense at the time that he would have a splashy wedding as the Firm was creating the Fab Four and the intention was that they’d all work, and work together, to take on more engagements to reduce pressure on the olds. Of course that’s not what’s transpired, but the splashy wedding wasn’t just a sop to Harry, no one spends £32m to stop a tantrum.

I might be remembering incorrectly (recollections may vary!) but I thought Eugenie’s wedding was televised. Beatrice’s can’t be compared because it was a pandemic wedding.

But then ( whispers) I preferred Meghan's wedding dress to Catherine's - don't tell anyone 😊. That said Catherine I suspect did have to have a dress which would fit the scale of the Abbey. Just a personal opinion .Dresses with lace sleeves just make me itch looking at them but that says more about me than it does for those dresses. I thought C's was appropriate and pretty timeless.

I didn't really like either dress.

Meghan's was the right idea, as clean, unfussy styles suit her best. However, the fit was appalling for a supposed couture gown, and with such a simple style there was nothing to distract the eye.

The skirt on Kate's dress was beautiful but I didn't like the bullet boobs and the deep V in the top. I thought it was an inferior version of Grace Kelly's iconic gown.

I had no idea England had its own king.