Monday - will you watch....and why?

Amelia247, I apologise for assuming that you were in the USA simply because you said you had watched the whole interview.

No I don’t think we could sue them. I wonder are you in America Amelia? The law regarding marriage is very different there.

Marriage in England is a legal undertaking that brings with it many legal responsibilities and so, like other legal undertakings is a serious business. That is why there are certain phrases and commitments that have to be witnessed publicly and why it cannot be abused. It is illegal for a couple to marry twice unless they have been divorced.

It would be a very serious matter if it is true.

An offhand mention that millions of people were duped into thinking they were watching a wedding that a couple were happy for them to be witness to? As I said before, people can choose to continue to be conned if they like...

Perhaps if they'd wanted a private exchange of vows they could have done it after the legal ceremony. Lots of people have a blessing, it's self indulgent but it doesn't dupe other people.

Oh I see you’re not.

LauraNorder - We are lucky to live in an age where most people can move around and live freely around the world. I’m lucky to have lived on four different continents in my life and consider myself a Brit by birth but a global citizen by choice. Apology accepted.

Agree AGA, the whole sorry saga may drive me back to the Argy.

PeasBlossom- I am in America. Although I was lucky to have last been in London for a family wedding just before the pandemic. Funnily enough, if my cousin (the groom) had told me they’d already done a private ceremony (legal or otherwise) prior to my arrival I wouldn’t care one whit. I’d toast and celebrate their union just the same. And turning on the telly is a lot less work than a plane ride

PeasBlossom - I’ve realized two things. 1) I am dominating the conversation on this thread which is a clear sign I should take my leave after this comment. 2) I didn’t actually didn’t actually respond to your full comment above...

Marriage is a legal undertaking in every western country as far as I know. It is no different in the US than in the UK. I’ve lived as a married woman in both countries and filled out many a piece of paperwork to prove it.

My understanding was that they made private vows in front of the archbishop but it was not a legal wedding. A few days later they had their televised legal wedding with all of the necessary witnesses to boot.

I can’t imagine they were able to have the first ceremony presided over by the archbishop who has performed a number of weddings without his expert counsel beforehand. I highly doubt this man of god would participate in any illegal acts. I certainly don’t think M&H would think to lie about the Archbishop’s presence at the private ceremony either.

So did she say “you know, three days before our wedding, we got married”? as reported. Or is it inaccurate reporting?

I haven’t seen it.

Perhaps she views the private ceremony as her wedding and the public one as a performance. Nothing to do with the legal situation, more to do with personal feelings.
I do know someone who had 2 ceremonies I civil and 1 church. All that happened was that after the church ceremony there was no signing the register because they were already married. The families never knew.

I've not seen the full interview, just a clip.
But what was she doing crouching on the floor of a chicken shed (without gloves?) while pregnant. Yuck!

I think that’s exactly what she said or pretty close. However, I didn’t think she expected people to read so closely into her use of the word “marry”. Perhaps if she’d said “three days before our legal marriage in front of the world, Harry and I had a private vow exchange in front of the Archbishop”.

But as I said, it really wasn’t part of the formal sit-down interview (where Oprah was asking follow-up questions and requesting clarifications and details). It was mentioned during the more casual day where they were just walking around their back garden.

Now I’m really going to take my leave

Oh yes, loads of people pop into the registry office and then have a religious ceremony. It’s very common around our way.

It’s the use of the term “married” that’s caused the problem because it’s a legal term.

It’s the use of the term “married” that’s caused the problem because it’s a legal term.
I don't think it is or you couldn't say things like "He was married to the job".

I can remember a friend of mine who does not have an ounce of racism in her make-up. speculating about the skin colour of her much welcomed grandchild-to-be because her daughter in law was an African.

She loves that child without any reservation, as I imagine her African grandparents do although she does not look exactly like any of their children - she is mixed race, she is beautiful and she is very much loved by all of her extended family.

Well at least a couple of things have been cleared up now. They weren't married 3 days before the wedding and Archie hasn't been denied his right to HRH as that can't happen until Charles is King.

Can Archie be a HRH , he hasn’t a title , HRH. Mr. X ? no

varian
I’m sure your account of grandparents loving their grandchild is replicated throughout the world, whether the child is mixed race or not. And I’m sure Archie’s grandparents and great grandparents love him unconditionally, just like all other grandparents, but how sad that they are unlikely to ever see him again in the flesh, whilst he is a child. I hope I’m wrong though and they do manage to see him.

trisher
Married is a legal term, as is shown by the issuing of a Marriage Certificate upon the marriage of two people.
He’s married to the job is just an expression, that’s all.

Prince Edward and Sophie Wessex’s children are not known as Prince or Princess, although they are entitled to be called such as the grandchildren of the monarch. Archie is the great grandchild of the monarch, and so not entitled to be styled Prince until Prince Charles becomes King.
Complaining about this is an indication of what is important to Meghan and Harry.

I, most definitely, will NOT be wasting my time watching this.

I will repeat the comment I made to a man who was so upset the morning that Diana died - Told him I did not know anyone with that name - he was bewildered, and told me he meant Princess Diana - told him that I thought of her and all members of that family as often as they thought of me and mine.

Id I want to watch a fantasy soap - then I will make do with Corrie and Neighbours!!!

Amelia247, I apologised for assuming that you were in the USA because you said you’d watched the whole thing.
You accepted my apology and then said you were in fact in the USA so I withdraw said apology.

Still on the subject of titles.

Archie could have been Earl of Dumbarton I believe, through one of Harry’s subsidiary titles, but H&M didn’t seem to want that.
Sounds like it had to be Prince or nothing.

It appears that Thomas Markle will be interviewed on GMB tomorrow........