Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A British prince of the blood to marry a mixed race divorcee from a Catholic school?

A generation ago this would have been a controversial, even an unthinkable match. Now it looks like a great move, and popular with a lot of the public.

He is a combat proven, ex-Hooray Henry with a record in charitable works. She is a well-educated, well-spoken UN representative for women and a successful actress.

One can only hope for a special bank holiday for the wedding. Goodness knows the UK could use a dose of jubilation.

Aye. They seem happy, try managed to convince the queen it was genuine to let them marry.

(due to line, position etx. I belive Harry still had to ask the Queen for permission)

At end of day, it's no business but there's, and the public get a day off. The economy gets a boost from visits, sales, and spending.

Thr news papers get to do a huge dress reveal.
And some good old-fashioned British art of formal dramatic celebrations

I think the availability of "appropriate" potential future kings and queens probably helped this as well.

Harry is 5th (soon 6th) in line, so a King married to a divorced Catholic is not going to be a very likely event. And while the sovereign can't be Catholic, I think a recent change allowed the spouse to be Catholic without affecting the eligibility to the throne.

I think I saw an Onion article about it titled "Good news for people who like to pay for weddings they aren't invited to".

Yes, I think I saw the same article. I think I thought it was excellent comedy.

So does this mean the long broken houses of American and Britannia may soon be reunited under an ambitious new Monarchial Presidency

Make America Great Britain Again?

This whole thing is very weird, because on the one hand he is marrying a mixed race divorcee, and no-one minds at all. On the other hand people are still treating a royal wedding as a meaningful thing. It's modern and a ridiculous anachronism all at the same time.

 d-usa wrote:
Make America Great Britain Again?

Very good.

Mixed race... that woman in Spain would be considered "white"... sometimes I really like the fact that Spain is so genetically mixed, we don't have that kind of stupidty here (Not calling stupid you Kill-krazy, just the ideas behind that) barring some donkey-caves.

And no, in Spain people doesn't has "brown" skin like in south and central america.

If they love eachother, more power to them. It's nice to have a little new blood in the royal family. Other than Kate, how long has it been since a royal married a non-relative?


Also, I heard the King can't be Catholic before, but it still amazes me whenever I hear it. I thought you Brits would have gotten rid of that archaic rule by now.


Just a quick question to all you Brits. Have any of you ever seen the 1980's comedy "King Ralph"? Funny from an American perspective, but is it funny from yours?

The film is familiar enough that we can, for example, pick up references made in Family Guy et al .


One must confess to not really having watched it for many a year but it was fuuny enough for a -- video -- rental back in the day IIRC.

Mainly due to John Goodman one would suggest.

I heard the King can't be Catholic before

The monarch mind is also the titular head of the CoE.

 reds8n wrote:
The film is familiar enough that we can, for example, pick up references made in Family Guy et al .


One must confess to not really having watched it for many a year but it was fuuny enough for a -- video -- rental back in the day IIRC.

Mainly due to John Goodman one would suggest.

I heard the King can't be Catholic before

The monarch mind is also the titular head of the CoE.

They can marry a Catholic. That one has been repealed.

The King/Queen I Don, t think has choice. As head of the COE they are somewhat obliged to be at least seen to be of the faith as it is there job.

It's unlikely that a successor to the throne would be a Roman Catholic since they are all brought up from babies in the Church of England.

This isnt the first time this has happened. There was another royal who married an American sometime around WWII or after. Can't remember and too lazy to look it up.

I've read online comments about it. I don't follow the royals and had no idea who Meghan was before they started dating. I don't understand the appreciation the British have to the royal family either, nor why anyone would get upset this marriage is happening. I think its between Harry and Meghan and everyone else should take a hike.

Its not like the royal family has any power either, so who the hell cares what they do?!?!

The fact that people care what they do gives them power.

In my view it's partly racists who are anti-Meghan. To me, she is helping bring the royal family into the 21st century and also adds a useful dose of genetic diversity.

I speak as the father of a mixed-race daughter.

Well Harry has always been a bit of a rebel, so it doesn't surprise me he has chosen a controversial wife as well.
Why he didn't marry Cressider Bonas I'll never understand though, she is far hotter than this new bird!

There was another royal who married an American sometime around WWII or after. Can't remember and too lazy to look it up.

You are thinking of King Edward VIII, and he was obliged to abdicate the throne to do so. Prince Harry is quite far down the line of succession now, so I doubt that situation will arise here.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I speak as the father of a mixed-race daughter.

This might seem like PC or SJW talk, but as a father of mixed-race daughters I am thinking that it will be nice to have some prominent mixed-race royals.

 Kroem wrote:
Well Harry has always been a bit of a rebel, so it doesn't surprise me he has chosen a controversial wife as well.

I am also convinced James Hewitt is his father too, not Charles.

Oh those crazy Royals!

KTG17 wrote:


Oh those crazy Royals!

Idea for a sitcom!

 d-usa wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I speak as the father of a mixed-race daughter.

This might seem like PC or SJW talk, but as a father of mixed-race daughters I am thinking that it will be nice to have some prominent mixed-race royals.

This might seem like Bolshevik or Montesquieuist talk, but as a republican living under a Monarchy, I'm thinking that it would be nice to have less prominent royals

 LordofHats wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


Oh those crazy Royals!

Idea for a sitcom!

And granddaddy Prince Philip filling the role as Kramer.

 sebster wrote:
It's modern and a ridiculous anachronism all at the same time.
.

Welcome to Britain. Make sure to leave a fiver in the museum box next to the door on the way out.

Look, more people who get to be married on the publics dime and get $$$$ off peoples hard work while people in their country live of scraps.
How have you brits not done away with this archaic system yet?

Because we all like the Queen and her corgis, and our Royal Family is reasonably inoffensive and good fun for the most part (odd Nazi costume aside). They fulfill a crucial constitutional role, don't really cost that much, sell things to tourists, and give us someone with a bit of gravitas to open department stores.

I'm going to guess that between the income from the Crown Estates and from Tourism, the UK probably spends less on the entire Royal Family than the US spends on all the past and present first families.

 jhe90 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
The film is familiar enough that we can, for example, pick up references made in Family Guy et al .


One must confess to not really having watched it for many a year but it was fuuny enough for a -- video -- rental back in the day IIRC.

Mainly due to John Goodman one would suggest.

I heard the King can't be Catholic before

The monarch mind is also the titular head of the CoE.

They can marry a Catholic. That one has been repealed.

The King/Queen I Don, t think has choice. As head of the COE they are somewhat obliged to be at least seen to be of the faith as it is there job.

They don’t have to be CofE or head of the church. Queen Mary was Catholic. The law was created to prevent children being brought up as Catholic, which until recently would be expected. There is nothing stopping the monarch being of any faith, but Elizabeth the first didn’t want another Catholic, or any of the future line marrying any of the Catholic monarchs of Europe and bringing that papisum back to England.

Its also a choice. Personally I'm not a fan of the birth lottery, in my country there are also a few more scandals that make you roll your eyes. The British family seems a bit tame besides the ones Ketara mentions. But most people still like it enough to keep it, not to mention the hassle of replacing the entire system with something new. As d-usa mentions, the cost might not be worth it to replace them.

Barring a major scandal that puts the positions of royal families in jeopardy, there likely won't be any financial reason or popular majority for getting rid of Europe's royal families.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm going to guess that between the income from the Crown Estates and from Tourism, the UK probably spends less on the entire Royal Family than the US spends on all the past and present first families.

Much much less, and much less than any of the heads of state of the major European republics. They also give stability to our government. Not changing head of state every few years does have some big pluses.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
The film is familiar enough that we can, for example, pick up references made in Family Guy et al .


One must confess to not really having watched it for many a year but it was fuuny enough for a -- video -- rental back in the day IIRC.

Mainly due to John Goodman one would suggest.

I heard the King can't be Catholic before

The monarch mind is also the titular head of the CoE.

They can marry a Catholic. That one has been repealed.

The King/Queen I Don, t think has choice. As head of the COE they are somewhat obliged to be at least seen to be of the faith as it is there job.

They don’t have to be CofE or head of the church. Queen Mary was Catholic. The law was created to prevent children being brought up as Catholic, which until recently would be expected. There is nothing stopping the monarch being of any faith, but Elizabeth the first didn’t want another Catholic, or any of the future line marrying any of the Catholic monarchs of Europe and bringing that papisum back to England.

Queen Mary was a Tudor Queen, much as historical presence it's certainly a older example.

Any modern monarch since Henry the 8th has been head of church. The role is basically part and parcel by now of the role of head of the UK State, monarch of United Kingdom and Head of COE.

I doubt that's going to change. They been in that position for centuries.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its also a choice. Personally I'm not a fan of the birth lottery, in my country there are also a few more scandals that make you roll your eyes. The British family seems a bit tame besides the ones Ketara mentions. But most people still like it enough to keep it, not to mention the hassle of replacing the entire system with something new. As d-usa mentions, the cost might not be worth it to replace them.

Barring a major scandal that puts the positions of royal families in jeopardy, there likely won't be any financial reason or popular majority for getting rid of Europe's royal families.

Is not about cost, is about equality. How can we have a democracy based on the idea that everyone is an equal, when theres a special group of people that isn't equal to the rest? I know, I know, we can have democracies with royal families, and are much more equal and free for their citizens than compared with many, many republics from Africa, or Southamerica, etc... but that is a red herring.

The economic part of this discussion is a non-issue. Is like the cost of death penalty or not death penalty. At the end of the day is so small it doesn't even matter. Is about principles.

But maybe I'm biased because the Spanish Royal family has been put there by a dictator and has a ton, a TON of cases of corruption under his obese belt.