It’s mostly just because it’s 2018 and not 1936. Nobody cares about divorce in 2018, and even if the Queen is one of the few who does, she’s already consented to the marriage of her son and heir to a divorced woman, so that cat is long out of the bag.
Yes, when your sister, your eldest son, your second son, and your daughter have all got divorced, I don’t think you can be sniffy about divorce any more.
As Baron Greenback points out, Major acted as an adviser to William and Harry. So he was always going to be an exception to the no-politicians rule.
His seating clearly wasn’t accidental. The way the choir was arranged meant that there were two seats on their own in the front pews at the ends furthest from the altar. So those were especially prominent positions and yet detached from those at the other end. Presumably the officials doing the seating plan calculated that those had to be given to persons who were very important but who could be kept a bit separate. The Majors fitted that requirement perfectly. As did Earl and Countess Spencer, who were in the equivalent seats on the other side.
As a Knight of the Garter, Major does have his own special seat in the Chapel, but that will be in the back row, where the hoi polloi, such as the Clooneys, Serena Williams and the minor royals, had been relegated.
It seemed a shocking betrayal, watching her estranged family betray her for dollars from the tabloid press, but we don’t get to choose the tribe we’re given. Plus, I’m pretty sure she was expecting them to show their true stripes, so no real shock.
Much more heartbreaking to watch her bestie and cast mates betray the host’s privacy, overriding a ‘No Social Media!’ dictate. Not the really big stars of course, just the little stars who need constant ‘Look At Me!’ attention. Ugh! I doubt she anticipated that the friends and associates would disappoint, and was a bit blindsided to see it. And not for dollars, but for Facebook likes. Might as well have invited a damn Kardashian!
I find their behaviour truly, and inexplicably proudly, boorish and entitled. Nice friends.
I read a story about that damn bottom shelf sister of hers who showed up at a hospital and claimed she was injured in a car wreck because the papparazzi were chasing her and cut them off to “get a clear shot”. Turned out she faked the whole thing! My eyes rolled so hard I was looking at my tonsils. Bitch actually thinks she is some Diana-worthy photog bait. And she lives in Ocala, FL. Because of course she does!
I have seen comments that Meghan is Fergie 2.0. but I don’t think so. Fergie was her own worst enemy, and her family was actually quite decent. I think Meghan is the opposite.
Anyone know why Meghan didn’t have to recite Harry’s full name (Henry Charles Albert David)? I wanted to see if she’d get it right, like Kate did, or flub it like Diana or Sarah.
That sounds similar to something I would say, although I would make that comparison only in that, like Sarah, Meghan married a “second son” (and, most likely, they will both be known as “His Majesty’s sister-in-law” at some point).
What I want to know is, what was Sam’s (BD and Boopsie’s daughter in Doonesbury) reaction to the wedding? She managed to get to London for Prince William’s wedding in an attempt to catch Harry’s eye, but ended up being put in a section of the crowd set aside for all of the other American women who were there because they also were convinced they would marry Harry.
It was Harry and Meghan’s choice to just use the names they commonly go by. They were offered a number of options for their vows. They were going for a less formal approach to their ceremony, and the names were probably part of that. Also, less chance of a flub.
The Archbishop of Canterbury did use their full names at the beginning of the ceremony: “In the presence of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we have come together to witness the marriage of Henry Charles Albert David and Rachel Meghan, to pray for God’s blessing on them, to share their joy and to celebrate their love…”
I’m pretty sure the Archbishop was the only one to use the full formal names, and that was right at the beginning. It was a pretty informal ceremony, to be honest. Edit: for a Royal wedding anyway
I doubt “divorced American” would be the first words to spring to his mind if he saw Meghan. They certainly wouldn’t be the first words Wallis thought of.
That sounds about right.
William & Kate used the most elaborate & formal wedding possible from the Book of Common Prayer; Harry & Meghan used a more modern service from Common Worship.
the poor adorable little girl. am I not a real princess?? and are you recording me? no (crash).
Well it looks like there’s going to be a little lord or lady in April. Which is a little weird because the baby could end up sharing a birthday with me. Or with Adolf Hitler.
Wow, they wasted no time!
So is the betting on? Which sex? Which day? What weight?
Or how about name? Will they go with one of the boring old traditional names or go modern? Little Lord Dweezil or Lady Montana?
Here are the current betting odds on the name. The favorite for a boy is Alexander (2-1), and the favorite for a girl is Alice (5-2).
AIUI, the baby will be a Princess or a Prince.
They could also end up sharing a birthday w/ their cousin Louis.
I’d like to see David or John brought back, but perhaps it’s time for another Victoria, or Mary?
I’m in for Boudicca, or at least Berengaria.
Turns out alphaboi’s right and I’m wrong; HRH issued Letters Patent so Will and Kate’s kids were titled, but unless she also does that for Harry and Meghan’s kids, their first son would be an Earl, subsequent sons a Lord and any daughters a Lady Mountbatten-Windsor.
Don’t give a girl the first name Diana. If used make it one of the middle names.
I’d go for Matilda. But there hasn’t been a queen with that name in over nine hundred years.
Princess Charlotte’s full name is Charlotte Elizabeth Diana. Matilda would be fantastic!