Anyone up? Harry & Meghan Royal Wedding Watch thread

[erin1715]

I've heard multiple news outlets remark that Meghan has been quoted as saying she wants babies right away. And even during their sit-down interview after the engagement Harry said they definitely plan on children.

I also think it's funny how it's referred to as a "blind date". Maybe it was blind for him but certainly not her. I don't believe for a second she had never seen or heard of Prince Harry. Heck there are photos of her as a young teen in front of Buckingham Palace.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

I've heard multiple news outlets remark that Meghan has been quoted as saying she wants babies right away. And even during their sit-down interview after the engagement Harry said they definitely plan on children.

I also think it's funny how it's referred to as a "blind date". Maybe it was blind for him but certainly not her. I don't believe for a second she had never seen or heard of Prince Harry. Heck there are photos of her as a young teen in front of Buckingham Palace.

I thought I read she knew the person's first name was Harry, but did their mutual friend say he was PRINCE Harry?

 

[erin1715]

I thought I read she knew the person's first name was Harry, but did they're mutual friend say he was PRINCE Harry?

Oh maybe that's what happened.

 

[Julie's Haircut]

Wow. Some of you are a tough crowd!

Yeah, who knew Meghan's bitter half-sister had so many different screen names here?

Meow.

 

[moon]

Well, I do think it takes a lot of sacrifice to be part of the Royal Family. Even her own wedding was taken over by them and that's how the rest of her life will be. While a lot of women may be willing to make that sacrifice for the perks that come along with it, you can't deny that certain freedoms and anonymity are stripped away.

That said, I also agree she would not have been set up on that blind date if it were Harry the Plumber. I don't doubt they have true love, but I'm sure the appeal of a "Prince" was an initial draw. Kate Middleton's story is a little different since she went to school with William and met him on her own, and I believe her own family is pretty well off. Her lifestyle and background was closer in relation to that of William than Meghan's was in relation to Harry. Harry and Meghan's upbringings are so different that they can't possibly relate on that level. Not that they necessarily need to, but just saying.

On a related note, I didn't realize Meghan was 36. Have they said whether they are planning on having children? Might not be as important to the Royals since Harry isn't the heir, but just curious now.

I've read that Kate went to that school because William was there. I think that may be true of at least half the women who were attending that school at that time. AFAIK, she never pursued a career, and worked in her parents business, which if IRIC was some kind of web business. I believe they were more upper-middle class than wealthy, and they certainly didn't belong to the royals social circle. Kate's whole life seemed to revolve around being Will's girlfriend and waiting for him to propose.

I think she's in lover with him, but I find strange that people think that William being a price was not a factor for Kate and she'd be happy and would have waited so long if he was a plumer. Did she ever go out with a plummer?

 

[NotUrsula]

Kate Middleton did NOT meet Prince William at university; she was introduced to him by a high school classmate, Emilia d'Erlanger, who was a childhood friend of the princes. She actually had an university place at another school, and re-entered placement to get into St. Andrews.

Meghan Markle is a consummate social climber. She's had ambitions to social prominence since childhood, and is well-known for ditching people who are "holding her back." She devoured royal biographies as a child, and idolized Princess Diana. However, in addition to her non-U background, Markle has something that Diana did not: brains. She tried to join the Foreign Service but couldn't pass the exam, so she fell back on acting and used her Dad's connections to get roles. (Her father was a TV lighting director.)

 

[cabanafrau]

Kate Middleton did NOT meet Prince William at university; she was introduced to him by a high school classmate, Emilia d'Erlanger, who was a childhood friend of the princes. She actually had an university place at another school, and re-entered placement to get into St. Andrews.

Meghan Markle is a consummate social climber. She's had ambitions to social prominence since childhood, and is well-known for ditching people who are "holding her back." She devoured royal biographies as a child, and idolized Princess Diana. However, in addition to her non-U background, Markle has something that Diana did not: brains. She tried to join the Foreign Service but couldn't pass the exam, so she fell back on acting and used her Dad's connections to get roles. (Her father was a TV lighting director.)

Can you explain non-U background?

IDK how you can know so many intimate details about Meghan so well? As far as in comparison to Diana, I suspect it should be factored in that from all appearances Diana had little to nothing in the form of parental encouragement, so very likely no one to help out with homework, no one to say, it's okay if math isn't second nature to you, look how well you do in X subject. It's kind of sad if you look at her with that in mind, realizing she went into her marriage very young, still carrying a schoolgirl crush on her husband and huge hopes for their future and building a marriage and family, only to have the rug cruelly pulled out from beneath her as if she was merely an inconsequential means to securing the future of the monarchy and should take it in stride.

 

[mummabear]

My point is that Meghan was no Cinderella being rescued. I think she was living a full, exciting life even before she met Harry

Of that I agree.

Kate and she'd be happy and would have waited so long if he was a plume

I doubt she would have had to wait as long to marry him if he was a plumber

 

[luvsJack]

Kate Middleton did NOT meet Prince William at university; she was introduced to him by a high school classmate, Emilia d'Erlanger, who was a childhood friend of the princes. She actually had an university place at another school, and re-entered placement to get into St. Andrews.

Meghan Markle is a consummate social climber. She's had ambitions to social prominence since childhood, and is well-known for ditching people who are "holding her back." She devoured royal biographies as a child, and idolized Princess Diana. However, in addition to her non-U background, Markle has something that Diana did not: brains. She tried to join the Foreign Service but couldn't pass the exam, so she fell back on acting and used her Dad's connections to get roles. (Her father was a TV lighting director.)

The bolded is hardly unusual. But only one young lady gets to marry Diana's youngest son. Doesn't make her bad or unable to be in love with the man.

 

[Imzadi]

The pictures of them at a friend's wedding last year, didn't seem lovey dovey to me.

A year ago they weren't engaged. They actually had to NOT show that they were really all that much of an "item" to try to not draw the paparazzi to keep hounding Meghan so much.

Same with Will and Kate before they were officially an item. At some events they were actually shown to NOT be sitting next to each other, even though it was clear that they were at the same event together.

TMZ shows couples entering events at different times, to act like they aren't together when everyone knows they are. I think the latest one was Katy Perry & Orlando Bloom. They were on & off again so often, that they would come & leave events separately even when their relationship was "on."

I can't imagine what people must think of DH and I. The looks we give one another on a daily basis...

99% of the time I am looking at him in what appears to be a loving manner. What outsiders don't know is that I'm usually thinking, "Well bless his heart."

I KNEW you guys were faking things!!! From your overly obvious screenname, to posts where you've talked about him. Way, way to FAKE! Gotcha!

What? You and your husband don't show true passion to each other in public places to show everyone how in love you are? Well then I'm going to have to assume you're not in love.

What kind of true passion should Meghan show Harry in public? Geez

They should have been all over each other so that the Queen & the Firm should have been hauling the two of them in for royal smack downs and threatening to possibly disallow their relationship as they can't control themselves in public and are creating a royal scandal and being an embarrassment to the Crown.

 

[NotUrsula]

U / non-U = upper-class

Diana was, to put it kindly, not the sharpest tool in the shed. She failed her GCSE exams twice, in every subject, and had to leave school at 16 as a consequence. Her best subject was Deportment.

The details of Markle''s fascination with the Windsors are well-known, she impressed people with her encyclopedic knowledge of the family and their activities. She studied for the role, and I'm quite positive that she got involved in international charity activities as much to meet influential people in tbose circles as she did to be helpful. She succeeded because, unlike Wallis Simpson, she prepared, and she set her sights on the attainable (a younger son with 4, now 5, heirs ahead of him.) Does it make her driven & calculating? Yep. Does it make her evil or fake? Probably not. She never would have managed it 10 years ago, but that was then & this is now, and the Queen respects people who take the Family Firm seriously and are prepared to approach the job with the proper perspective. A handsome & easygoing husband is a nice bonus.

 

[cabanafrau]

U / non-U = upper-class

Diana was, to put it kindly, not the sharpest tool in the shed. She failed her GCSE exams twice, in every subject, and had to leave school at 16 as a consequence. Her best subject was Deportment.

The details of Markle''s fascination with the Windsors are well-known, she impressed people with her encyclopedic knowledge of the family and their activities. She studied for the role, and I'm quite positive that she got involved in international charity activities as much to meet influential people in tbose circles as she did to be helpful. She succeeded because, unlike Wallis Simpson, she prepared, and she set her sights on the attainable (a younger son with 4, now 5, heirs ahead of him.) Does it make her driven & calculating? Yep. Does it make her evil or fake? Probably not. She never would have managed it 10 years ago, but that was then & this is now, and the Queen respects people who take the Family Firm seriously and are prepared to approach the job with the proper perspective. A handsome & easygoing husband is a nice bonus.

The royal family certainly didn't seem concerned with Diana's lack of academic achievement when they selected her. Given the Queen's own lack of formal educational achievements it wasn't really considered a barrier for royal duty.

For all the blather there's been about the bride in the lead up to this wedding, I've never heard about her purported encyclopedic knowledge of the family. I do agree that this union was both possible because Harry is now most decidedly very spare AND provided the royal family opportunities they clearly intend to use to their advantage. Hopefully at the end of the day it includes a happily married couple who feel their mate brings out the best in themselves, otherwise there's likely misery ahead. Maybe this time either the parties involved or those who care for them have given thought to the objects of marriage that even the non-U aspire to.

 

[disykat]

Some people here seem to think Meghan Markle is a REALLY good actress and has duped poor Prince Harry into believing she loves him. I don't buy it.

 

[Allison]

I'm quite positive that she got involved in international charity activities as much to meet influential people in tbose circles as she did to be helpful.

The things you are certain about relating to a person you have no personal knowledge of are quite interesting.

 

[lisaviolet]

Well I'm very late to the game but some random thoughts ---

*Gorgeous ceremony

*Liked both dresses but agree about the fit on the wedding dress (I knew it would be on the less adorned side because she was said to be a fan of Carolyn Bessette Kennedy's wedding dress)

*Really loved how she looked like herself re: no overly done makeup

*Hair - To me there is a difference between messy hair and a messy hairstyle by choice. The latter I think is a gorgeous choice on a woman, and Meghan often chooses it. So I do think there was something behind the scenes/last minute change, as a few have wondered on here, that caused the stringy strand out of place look. But oh well. And when one has gorgeous hair as Meghan and Catherine both do, I would have preferred seeing it partly down.

*thought her veil was gorgeous. And apparently it has the flowers of all the Commonwealth countries (plus one for California and a choice to represent the Royals). It has scared me a bit that I don't have clue what flower represents Canada. No clue that we even had one.

*Loved how nervous Harry seemed and his expression when seeing her. A man truly in love.

*Enjoyed Reverend Curry - was at times perplexed and at times humoured by the guests' reaction

*If Curry is about crazy over the top American ways, or whatever a previous poster stated on here, I will take him! Amen.

*Found out today that he has no connection with either Harry nor Meghan - so it must have been quite the shock to get the request.

*The choir was incredible. As was Meghan and Harry's choice in music. I was surprised, but pleasantly. I did not know the complete background of This Little Light Of Mine, such a lovely choice going out of the church.
*Loved the colour of the Rolls.

*@ronandannette, I taped many channels, because the difference in coverage intrigues me on many big events, but CTV was incredibly done (besides the etalk girls and I love Lainey). They had so many historical tie-ins. Really informative. Jann Arden was co-hosting with Lisa LaFlamme. I was "oh no" but the two of them did a great job, with the addition of a British colleague. I watched a bit of CBS, NBC, and PBS, NBC's coverage was horrid in my opinion, and I often watch Today. CBS was truly interesting for me because Gayle King was wonderfully curious about everything, so questions got answered that I was sitting there thinking. And Gayle cracked me up when commenting about how the Queen didn't even look at her grandsons on the way by to her seat.

The CBC had a great historical look at the buildings with a later show with Peter Mansbridge. Well done.

*Good on Harry's exes for being there. I couldn't do it. Considering both relationships apparently ended not because of lack of love- or compatibility in their ways - but because they couldn't imagine the limelight of being a Royal. I think I would be filled with way too much emotion. No thank you.

*Thought Amal's dress was a showstopper, as was one of the Spencer girls. But then again I couldn't decide if that was because she is a such a beautiful girl, or it really was the dress.

*Thought one of the Mulroney twins stole the show. His reaction as the music started, while entering the church, was hysterical. Pure joy. Not photobombing, just pure excitement. Totally made up for how irritating I find his mother.

*The most beautiful part of our coverage up here was that at one point CTV played Diana's words/wishes for her sons' lives in tandem with the festivities. It was exquisitely beautiful and absolutely heartbreaking to hear. I welled up but was happy that those boys seem to be everything that she had wished, not knowing how instrumental her conscious decisions would become.

*I have questioned myself for being catty, but I agree with many of the comments about Meghan. For me, it's a visceral reaction to her and having her here in Toronto has often brought more coverage. That does not mean she does not love him, nor does that mean she hasn't accomplished a lot in her life. And she has had many lovely choices behind the scenes, without fanfare. But there is just something something to her, for me.

Yeah, who knew Meghan's bitter half-sister had so many different screen names here?

Meow.

Meow!!!!

_________________________

But then again many have come on here and said their husbands have made the same or first comments about Meghan seeming phony. Knowing nothing of her.

I was with their love story until that engagement interview. Great choice - older, confident, can handle the attention, their charity work - he obviously loves her. But that sit down in general and the line "I really didn't know much (anything about?) him" was the nail in the coffin for my thoughts.

So massive meow , but I've learned to trust my intuition/thoughts.

 

[disykat]

I would say I know very little about the Royal family, but have read lots of things about them over the years and watched a lot of media coverage about Harry since he was a newborn and would still say I know very little about him. ??? I also consider myself to know very little about Meghan Markel despite following all the media.

 

[lisaviolet]

I would say I know very little about the Royal family, but have read lots of things about them over the years and watched a lot of media coverage about Harry since he was a newborn and would still say I know very little about him. ???

Understand.

But for me it's not the words as much as something something in tandem while speaking them, that she gives off. Like I said, I hope I am 100% wrong.

Sometimes I have wondered if she simply goes into acting mode when she's under pressure. Who knows.

 

[cabanafrau]

Understand.

But for me it's not the words as much as something something in tandem while speaking them, that she gives off. Like I said, I hope I am 100% wrong.

Sometimes I have wondered if she simply goes into acting mode when she's under pressure. Who knows.

If she's not a seamless actress in your eyes and she does deploy her acting skills to present herself publicly you may very well be sensing a lack of genuine self. Ordinarily when we feel like people aren't being genuine it's considered negative or for negative purposes. In this case it may merely be a coping strategy -- or it may be that underneath it all she's not a great person. I have no idea.

I don't know if he's all that great either, or any of them for that matter. For many people William and Harry get a pass because of the tragic loss of their mother. Who can ever forget the image of those boys walking behind that coffin? For all I know the entire lot of them could be monsters with really great public faces and PR.

 

[Kitty 34]

Wow, has this thread about a magical wedding taken a big turn recently!!!!

 

[ronandannette]

*thought her veil was gorgeous. And apparently it has the flowers of all the Commonwealth countries (plus one for California and a choice to represent the Royals). It has scared me a bit that I don't have clue what flower represents Canada. No clue that even we had one.

*@ronandannette, I taped many channels, because the difference in coverage intrigues me on many big events, but CTV was incredibly done (besides the etalk girls and I love Lainey). They had so many historical tie-ins. Really informative. Jann Arden was co-hosting with Lisa LaFlamme. I was "oh no" but the two of them did a great job, with the addition of a British colleague. I watched a bit of CBS, NBC, and PBS, NBC's coverage was horrid in my opinion, and I often watch Today. CBS was truly interesting for me because Gayle King was wonderfully curious about everything, so questions got answered that I was sitting there thinking. And Gayle cracked me up when commenting about how the Queen didn't even look at her grandsons on the way by to her seat.

The CBC had a great historical look at the buildings with a later show with Peter Mansbridge. Well done.

Hi Lisa - welcome. Better late than never! Rest easy about the flower thing - it was a trick question. Canada's floral emblem in the maple leaf, just like you'd expect it to be.

I wish I'd recorded CTV - I like Jann Arden very much; we have similar senses of humour and while she can get racuous, I imagine she would have kept a level of decorum. Global had Dawna Freisen, ET's Cheryl Hickey and some buffoon from Big Brother Canada that pretty much made a mockery of lots of it with his "whee - look at what an edgy, funny gay man I am" schtick. Cheryl Hickey bought right in and Dawna Freisen completely lost control of it in parts.

I don't know how far back through the thread you went but I was firmly on Team Anti-dress. Way too understated; so much so I think it was a miscalculation and I found the swathes of veil dragging around to be absurd, as well as her arriving with it over her face. (Yes, as we've already established I'm a grumpy old bat.)