Wills and Harry rift blown out of proportion

Yes and the whole back to work 4 days after her husband died and every saying how marvellous. We dont want that as an example how to behave. This is not a criticism of the queen (perhaps that was her way of coping) but rather of the system. We dont really want people to use that as model of how to be. You see I think there may have been some truth in Harrys trapped comment.

Oh, good point Galaxy. DH and I were just discussing how if the Queen were to say, I've had enough, I'd like a few years of retirement now thank you, that nobody would think the worse of her for that. She's been in post for 70-odd years and I think she deserves a retirement; anyone would. Then Charles could get going and she'd be there to advise him, and see him settled in post before she goes.

But we are stuck in this terrible situation where tradition rules everything, and "duty" is the number one priority.

What goes around comes around. We find patches for gaps and weaknesses in the system, in the future people think them over-restrictive so one by one they are removed. The old loopholes are thought not to let in too many thieves and conmen, so they don't seem needed any more. Gradually the old gaps reopen, the old weaknesses are found and exploited, until there is pressure to tighten up and the circle starts again.

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I think its linked to the topic actually, it's about tradition and how we rarely ask, why is this done that way, does it work? A lot of statements made about the qualities of the RF are said in a way as if we all believe these are good things. I dont think we do, or more likely we havent given it any thought. Is it a good thing for example that the royals work till they are in their 90's it's not something I would want for myself or anyone I loved.

Smileless2012

I don't think that the fallout caused by that 'interview' has been exaggerated by the media but I do think it's been intensified, especially by Gayle King on America's CBS, where even the private 'phone conversation between William and Harry was talked about as being unproductive.

Of course H needs to talk to his father, brother, grandmother and s.i.l. but will any of them feel comfortable being open and honest with him, when they don't know if what's said will be broad cast on CBS by M's friend Gayle King?

I don't understand how anyone can regard an 'interview', broadcast world wide with its endless criticism of H's family, unsubstantiated claims and lies as a "fall out".

With time there may be forgiveness but it wont be forgotten. Trust once lost especially on such a massive scale, can take a life time to re build and it's not just their trust in H that has to be re built but trust in M too.

I agree absolutely. Loss of trust can destroy relationships altogether. How can Charles and William ever trust Harry again, never mind Meghan? I was utterly shocked watching that interview, I can't imagine how hurt they must have felt. It was a co-ordinated attack and a complete betrayal of the family.

Well now that we're completely off topic....

Until 1940 in Scotland you could have an "irregular marriage". No formal witnesses required, you just stood there with some random person from the community and said, yes, we'd like to be considered as married now. No vows, no prayers, nothing. All legal. That's why Gretna became a centre for "quickie" marriages for people from England. You could always find the blacksmith in any town, there was nothing special about him.

Anyway, back to the topic....

Do you honestly think the majority of bigamy cases are prevented by a dramatic scene in a church.

I would do it prior to standing in a church via the legal system/police. There is no way I would let me son or daughter stand in a church under those circumstances. As I have said utterly inefficient, and cruel to be honest.

Also, a marriage is a public contract - it is undertaken in the presence of others, and administered by a registered practitioner, who asks at some point "Does anyone know any reason why these two people should not be joined together?" and when there is no response, continues with the ceremony. If those with that knowledge are outside, unable to pass on the information, the ceremony is continuing under false conditions.

This is the real reason why traditionally marriages were conducted at the church gate, before or after the service - where it was reasonable to believe that the whole village would be gathered together, and any information about the marital status of the participants, or their consanguinity and so on, would be soon forthcoming.

If one of the couple is underage (an heiress, say) and has been persuaded into a romantic secret marriage by a "fortune hunter" (they are still around and operating, of both sexes) and the doors are locked, the parents or guardians can't get in to raise an objection.

If parents have colluded to organise a marriage against the wishes of their child, a locked door could stop[ them making a run for it.

If someone wants to gain a passport, they could do so by marrying a national of that country. Again, if the doors are locked, no-one can stand up and denounce them.

If it is proved that they were excluded, the marriage will be declared null and void.

How would you prevent bigamy, co-ercion, fraud, or other illegality, or insert a simple way of declaring the marriage illegal? If you have a better method, I am sure it would be welcomed.

There has to be a better way than that to endure bigamy doesnt occur. It's completely inefficient and I imagine happens very very rarely. I hated the fact the public could come to my wedding, if I had wanted them there I would have invited them.
Indeed journalists come in all shades, those who want to.control them are much more dangerous.

Not just talking about problems but accusing the family of being racist, the Queen is head of the Commonwealth

Family fall outs are one thing but talking about your problems on a tv show which was going to be shown world wide is a very different ball game.

Alegrias " and anyone who disagrees with that is either a "Republican" or a "Meghan supporter"" You missed out "ardent Royalist". Disagreeing with media bias can get you labelled in either direction.

Not killed for the words they write, but they should, without having to be forced to by that kind of fear, be aware of the consequences of writing stuff with no basis in truth.

There are plenty of cases where honest journalists were killed in the process of evaluating their artcles by researching where their subjects didn't want them to poke. We were in Dublin when Orla Guerin was shot through the window of her can by a motor-cyclist, for digging too deeply into the link between Irish terrorism and profitable organised crime.

Journalists come in all shades.

I think that the direction that the thread has taken actually relates to your OP ExD. The idea of a feud has been sown by the tabloids, and it has developed a life of its own, so much so that people think they have unassailable knowledge of the motivations and emotions of the key players, and anyone who disagrees with that is either a "Republican" or a "Meghan supporter" .

With a public so easily led by a self-serving, powerful press, no wonder we ended up with Brexit and a Johnson government.

Galaxy

Actually now I think of it those requirements are ridiculous. Like a bygone age.

It's to allow any objections to the marriage as in the scene from Jane Eyre when Mr Rochester is attempting bigamy. And without witnesses where would we be?

Galaxy Do you think that no-one these days would try to enter into a marriage with an existing wife and six children already living in the next town - or even the same town. There was a case a few years ago in the local papers of someone marrying his third wife, with TWO other families already. This was in a country where the aggrieved wife could turn up and demand that it be stopped. Without the open door, she would have no possibility of that.

I hope I am not there for the revolution then. I think there have been other places where journalists have been killed for the words they write, wouldnt want to live there either.

Thank you Lucca, this thread has gone totally off-topic.

I don't think that the fallout caused by that 'interview' has been exaggerated by the media but I do think it's been intensified, especially by Gayle King on America's CBS, where even the private 'phone conversation between William and Harry was talked about as being unproductive.

Of course H needs to talk to his father, brother, grandmother and s.i.l. but will any of them feel comfortable being open and honest with him, when they don't know if what's said will be broad cast on CBS by M's friend Gayle King?

I don't understand how anyone can regard an 'interview', broadcast world wide with its endless criticism of H's family, unsubstantiated claims and lies as a "fall out".

With time there may be forgiveness but it wont be forgotten. Trust once lost especially on such a massive scale, can take a life time to re build and it's not just their trust in H that has to be re built but trust in M too.

Whatever the tabloids write about absolutely anything, I take it with a giant pinch of salt. The tabloids have one aim in life / to make money. They don’t care who they hurt. What they are really ‘good’ at is writing a totally made up story which they realise is totally wrong the next day. Their reaction is to say that the parties involved have changed their mind or whatever. I’m on my hobby horse now! When the revolution comes, the Daily Mail and their shipmates will be first against the wall.

Following the rather dubious comment from the ubiquitous 'friends of Meghan' that she would not be attending the funeral because she did not want to be the centre of attention, there has been silence.
For that, much thanks.

Katie59, there was no registrar, no witnesses and their garden was private property.

Actually now I think of it those requirements are ridiculous. Like a bygone age.