Nitpick: third husband.
In any case, this is a valid point. The fact that Harry is fifth in line to the throne - and about to become sixth - makes any perceived “suitability” of his intended less of an issue.
Isn’t he already sixth? Let’s say Elizabeth, Charles, William, George, and Charlotte all suddenly die in the next couple months but Kate survives. Would Harry be a temporary regent until the fetus is born, and at birth the infant would be monarch with a regent having temporary power?
Anyway, is Margaret rolling in her grave right now, saying “NOW it’s okay?”
I liked the headline some company posted on Twitter: “Successful actress Meghan Markle to wed former soldier”
This question was asked of legal experts in the 1930s or 1940s, when there was a king with two daughters and a possibly-fertile wife, and their best guess was that Princess Elizabeth would instantly become queen, but would lose the crown at the moment the baby was born. (This solution was actually provided for in written law during the reign of William IV.)
So, if it was done that way (IIRC they weren’t confident that there was any definite answer), Harry would be king for a few months, then the baby would be the monarch and Harry would be the regent on behalf of the baby for 18 years.
If it was a boy, I should have said (which doesn’t matter for babies born after 2011).
But that would only apply if Elizabeth gained a baby brother, I presume. Otherwise a baby sister would fall behind Margaret. Which I guess is why Princess Elizabeth was the heir presumptive rather than the heir apparent.
How does one “stay in the closet” about something that’s public knowledge? Is Elton John in the closet about being able to play piano because he doesn’t play it all the time? Is Letizia in the closet about being from Asturias because she isn’t followed constantly by a band of bagpipe players? To me, being followed by one would seem more of a curse than an affirmation of identity, but I’m not from Asturias…
Yes, although the question of an heiress presumptive with a sister was also the subject of legal consultations. (There was some worry, not very serious but still enough to seek opinions about, regarding whether Elizabeth really did come before Margaret, or if they had an equal claim.)
I have no idea what the Queen really thinks of all this, But suppose for the sake of argument that she was not comfortable with her grandson marrying a mixed-race woman. Do you think she would dare to say anything publicly, knowing what a howl would be raised by the rabble?
IOW, what makes you think she’s embracing it, as opposed to just biting her tongue?
Also, I had no idea Markle had any black heritage until I read her Wikipedia page, and I suspect that’s true for most people. If you want a real test of of whether the monarchy truly embraces change, have one of the boys bring home a truly dark-skinned woman. Someone like, say, Alek Wek.
Or a man, for that matter.
I’ve got to admit, I was momentarily confused when they introduced her character’s father on Suits and he was a black man. First 2 options in my head were adopted?..step-dad? before I thought oh, she’s part black.
I couldn’t help thinking the same thing, considering that I finished rewatching Season 1 of The Crown last week. Season 2 drops, I believe, next week.
I’d like to think that this “openness” regarding the Royal Family in relationships is because of what happened with Margaret. It’s almost as Elizabeth had to wait for that generation of MPs to die off before having an actual voice in modifying/changing the rules…or getting rid of them altogether.
I wonder if the engagement has anything to do with Prince Phillip’s recent announcement that he was retiring from public life. Considering the old fart’s antediluvian views, I wouldn’t be surprised if he were sent to Coventry to avoid embarrassing the Firm.
This is exactly how I feel. How is this going to change the monarchy? It isn’t.
Now that is an irrelevant statement. Who cares? <scratches head>
Either the kids are cute or they are not. If they are cute, we’ll all go “ahhhhhhhhh,” if not, we simply point out that the royal family really must be reptilian shape-shifting visitors from another planet.
No, it’s true, it’s on YouTube.
Aceplace did not bring race into this. It was already there. You may not have noticed, but I guarantee you that this woman knew growing up. She even apparently identifies as bi-racial. The information is available to the public, so there is no way the public won’t notice, either.
This sort of “colorblind” thinking actually leads to more racism. If you don’t notice race, then you can’t see if there is discrimination. Sure, that’s what we thought was good in the 1990s, but that’s why it’s good to remain current on these issues.
You might as well say it was unimportant that Barack Obama was the first Black president. When an institution that is historically held by only white people gets some diversity, it is an important thing.
Just because you are uncomfortable discussing race doesn’t mean it isn’t there, and that it doesn’t need to be discussed.
And, man, it’s hard to say what I think needs to be said without risking hijacking the thread.
Yet apparently some people still cling to one-drop and identify her as African-American.
This is the problem with racial labels. Meghan has 7 successful years as an actress on a successful show, yet the media refers to her by referencing her race. Who really cares?
There is a 20 minute interview with Meghan and her Prince on CNN. They appear to be deeply in love and worthy of each other’s company. If you have any questions, spend the 20 minutes watching it. They will make a great couple.
My phone alerts started buzzing that the wedding will be at Windsor Castle in May. Does that mean it will be a smaller affair than the cathedral weddings?
Check the details of Prince Edward’s wedding. Looks like that will be the template.