During the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s interview with Oprah, they described the lead-up to their 2018 wedding and how they knew, even then, that their wedding was going to be a huge global event. Harry and Meghan described how they wanted to just do a private wedding service just for them before the actual wedding, so they asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to come by and they said their vows and felt like they got their private moment. What was a sweet story about Harry & Meghan wanting a different memory in which they shared their vows before the actual wedding has become one of the centerpieces of an unhinged series of articles in the British media. The British media believes if they can somehow fact-check this story and prove that Meghan and Harry were “lying” about “getting married before the wedding,” then somehow H&M can both be written off as liars. It’s insane. And it keeps getting crazier:
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s marriage certificate contradicts the Duchess of Sussex’s claim that they secretly tied the knot in their backyard days before their lavish public exchange of vows, according to a report. During her bombshell TV interview with Oprah Winfrey, Markle said she and Harry had actually gotten hitched three days before their highly publicized ceremony in 2018. But the document The Sun obtained from the General Registrar’s Office confirms that the nuptials did take place on May 19 that year at Windsor Castle.
The news outlet also reported that the official who drew up the license for the couple’s wedding dismissed Markle’s claim.
“I’m sorry, but Meghan is obviously confused and clearly misinformed. They did not marry three days earlier in front of the Archbishop of Canterbury,” Stephen Borton, former chief clerk at the Faculty Office, told The Sun. “What I suspect they did was exchange some simple vows they had perhaps written themselves, and which is fashionable, and said that in front of the Archbishop — or, and more likely, it was a simple rehearsal,” Borton added.
During the sit-down with Oprah, Markle said: “You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that. The vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.” She said she and Harry called the Archbishop, the Most Rev. Justin Welby, and asked him to marry them privately at their home in Nottingham Cottage. “Just the three of us,” the prince chimed in.
Borton threw cold water on their claim. “They couldn’t have got married in the grounds of Nottingham Cottage as it is not an authorized venue and there were not enough witnesses present. You cannot be married with just three people. It’s not a valid ceremony,” he told The Sun. “Any certificate she may have of her vows on the wall is not an official wedding certificate,” he continued. “The wedding itself took place at St. George’s Chapel under the conditions stipulated by the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, which have been recently amended. In order for them to be married a special license was drawn up and the wording from Her Majesty the Queen authorizing the wedding and the official venue was recorded.”
No, really, the British media keeps doing this. At no point did Meghan and Harry claim that the backyard wedding was their super-duper official and legal wedding. Within the context of the larger story they were telling, they were describing how much attention their wedding was getting and they just wanted to do something for themselves. God help us all. “I can’t believe Meghan would LIE about having an official legal wedding, you guys, she was probably lying about how racist we are too!”
With all of this unhinged attention to the “pre-wedding” vow exchange story, the Sussexes’ spokesperson has now confirmed: “The couple exchanged personal vows a few days before their official/legal wedding on May 19.”
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.
I can appreciate all that but I think she/he actually said they got married before that. Whether they specified it was legal or not, wasn’t the issue because saying married kind of implies that it legal. However, I get the whole sentiment and they didn’t think it was going to be so scrutinized like it is now and being called liars. I think it was the wrong word- married does imply legal. No other way to style it as private ceremony.
The obsession- that’s always the case with British tabloids.
Well as we’ve seen from royal divorces in recent decades, having a legal wedding doesn’t guarantee anything. It’s what’s in the heart that makes a marriage last and prosper. Vows from the heart mean more really than signing a legal document.
Exactly. The one on the 19th was the “legal” one for the world. What they did was have a “wedding” in their backyard that was for THEM. No cameras, no other “eyes”, but them, their love, their vows for each other. That’s probably the wedding date they consider their “real” anniversary: something private and just for them.
Considering the hell she was put through by her sperm donor and the press, I can’t blame them for wanting something “normal and personal” just for themselves, w/out anyone/anything intruding on it.
You know there is a rarely quoted bible verse that says we will have to give an account before God for every IDLE word we speak. So if some heavenly stenographer is keeping track of IDLE words, certainly serious intimate vows are kept on file as well. Whether it was in a church with witnesses and papers to prove it or not, in the eyes of God they were married in that intimate ceremony. And there are receipts in Heaven for those words.
I don’t know. I immediately understood it to be an exchange of vows because she said it was just the three of them and that their personal vows were framed inside their home. Automatically, to me, that meant that it wasn’t the legal ceremony and likely included a personal blessing by the archbishop. I never thought much of it and find the whole did they marry questioning quite silly. To them that was the personal, spiritual blessing of their union, who are people to tell them differently?
@myra. Exactly i got it the first time too. She explained exactly what she meant with “married” and tbh: isn’t that the most important part of a wedding anyway. Your vows to each other? The rest of it is basically just legal paper work.
I watched it too and I am probably one of the few who thought this was a noteworthy moment since well to be married before the actual ceremony for the world was new information. Of course I get all the reasoning behind it. But I never understood it as private not legal marriage. I honestly thought that it was legal, sentimental and private, just them event. Like I said the word marriage threw me off.
But to hear it wasn’t actually legal that got a “shrug” of the shoulders not an obsession like we are seeing now. Cause in either direction it makes sense if they decided to have it legal or private ceremony.
That’s exactly what I got from it too. That was their “real” wedding. Just them, exchanging their vows. The other was the legal pomp and circumstance.
I was also thrown by the ‘married’ part. I look it as legally married because it sounded like that was what was implied, especially having the archbishop there. Of course after some thought, it seemed pretty obvious that they weren’t actually married at that point but it was a misleading choice of words and I do think it needed clarification.
I got that too Myra. It would that the tabloids are either dumb or playing dumb to stir up controversy when there was none.
I think the moment she said it was just the three of them, the legality of the marriage was pretty self explanatory. At that point, I understood it was an exchange of vows and a private blessing. In her eyes and that of her husband, even in the eyes of her god, that is her real marriage. They made a commitment to each other three days before they signed a piece of paper. All other aspects are just ceremonial.
Myra, I agree with you. Once I heard them say it was just the three of them, I assumed that it wasn’t “legal” it was for them only. In the US you must have two witnesses and I assume that you do in the UK, too.
Yeah well, Americans don’t have archaic marriage laws derived from the Middle Ages so we aren’t as uptight about venues and the “official” nature of a marriage. Understandable, then, that Meghan would have seen her backyard ceremony as entirely valid.
Funnily enough, the legalities of marriage was actually pretty chaotic in the Middle Ages. You could get married by simply exchanging vows. You didn’t even need a witness, a priest or a church. Naturally, it caused problems when young people claimed that they had already exchanged vows with a person other than the spouse that their parents had arranged for them – there are historical examples of this. Even a promise of betrothal was seen as valid – that was actually the way that Richard III got his nephews disinherited before they eventually were “disappeared”. He claimed that his late brother’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalid because Edward IV had secretly made a betrothal vow (with a witness) to another woman years before. This might actually have been the truth because Edward was exactly the kind of asshole who would do this to get under the skirts of an otherwise chaste woman.
So, in the Middle Ages Harry and Meghan’s private marriage vows would have been legally valid.
@ ArtHistorian haha, well whatever the case, the entire institution is obsolete in contemporary times so all of this concern over “what’s officially recognized by the Church of England” is even more archaic. In the US, you can get married anywhere. On a trash heap, should you prefer, as long as the person marrying you has a license that they purchased on the Internet. So I would say Americans are rather less concerned with the formalities of official recognition. If the Archbishop of Whatever Whomever can perform a wedding in the Church, he can certainly perform it in a backyard by American standards. We do not conflate legal recognition with religious recognition.
ArtHistorian, I read (in a medieval romance novel) this was called handfasting.
GrnieWnie: If you are a Catholic in the US, you must be married within a Catholic church, or the Church won’t recognize it.
@betsyh right, the Catholic Church won’t. But the state will. Which is my point (nobody cares about what the Catholic Church recognizes except conservative Catholics who want that church wedding. My best friend is Catholic and got married in Vegas). We don’t combine legal recognition from the state with recognition from the church. You can certainly have the former without any involvement from the latter, which is irrelevant to anything and everyone outside of a religious sense. No need for a certain venue to be certified as “official” or “legal” for a wedding ceremony. You can have that ish on the beach if you want. It’s not about WHERE you get married; it’s about WHO marries you – that person needs a license to make the marriage legal.
Meanwhile, Brits are all “backyards *don’t* count, only inside the church does!” Who cares. Same dude married them both times, I believe. Same difference, in the US. The American state makes no distinction in venue. Not surprising that Meghan doesn’t really, either.
Seems clear to me that Meghan didn’t handle paperwork – that was probably all handled by the institution itself. Then the institution looks down their nose at her for not knowing close details of the paperwork…thereby missing the larger context, which is that the details don’t matter (and so many other things do). “She doesn’t know our royal British ways.” So? Those ways are extinct. Grow up.
@betsyh
I watched a couple of documentaries on this subject and these private exchanges of vows were legal marriages during the Middle Ages. Even betrothal vows or handfastings were legally binding in the sense. Totally chaotic and you can understand why the church and state later had to get some kind of uniformity of practice in terms of legality.
@betsyh you don’t need to be married within a Catholic Church just by a priest for it to be recognized by the church in the US. I was married outside a church by a priest 29 years ago. Went through the whole prewedding process with the priest including the pre-Cana. Maybe certain diocese have different standards?
1. The first vow exchange lacked the requisite number of witnesses?
IDK about Harry, but MM seems like an organized person that in addition to planning a wedding, would brush up on local law re: a legal marriage. She could be trolling the press at this point, and probably had some witnesses like her mom and whoever drove the arch bishop to their house.
2. The Arch Bishop of Canterbury can only preside over a marriage at an “authorized venue”?
So, he just took time out of his day and agreed to drive to stand in the dirt to be part of this pretend wedding at the request of 2 lunatics?
As for Meghan, any married American knows that obtaining a license to marry is required for the state in which one resides is required for the state to recognize it as legal; one can go on to exchange vows at City Hall when the license is issued or exchange vows in front of some “justice of the peace” lunatic you found on the internet. The wedding date is the day the vows are exchanged in front of two witnesses – again, at City Hall or in a church or in your backyard – it is the exchange of vows that counts see L. Presley and M. Jackson’s touching city hall ceremony, witnessed by 2 city hall employees.
@ Courtney B – it doesn’t matter which diocese you’re in, you must be married in a Catholic church for it to be recognized as a valid Sacramental marriage. You can get legally married anywhere and have a church ceremony where a Priest blesses you, but that’s all it is, just a blessing and not considered a valid Catholic marriage.
I can understand her feeling and her wedding with the 2 of them in front of the archbishop charaterized as “getting married” is valid to me – not legal but valid. This was their way of getting married. My husband and I had a big wedding with so many people invited that we didnt know – invited by both our parents. It was a a big family affair – so we went to vegas and did it on our own unofficially, which was what we would have done if we weren’t obligated to do the huge wedding. It was just simple and the two of us.
It is entirely likely that they had a very small private ceremony before the publicity event at St. George’s and that the “official” palace document was dated on 18 May for historical records.
My sister and b-i-l did this- married at the county courthouse then had a lovely backyard ceremony and event reception about three months later. Different strokes for different folks.
It’s pedantic. They’re obsessive and they have nothing to focus on, so they nitpick.
I will just paraphrase Jay’s comment further below and say that if my man and I exchange vows in front of the freaking Archbishop of Canterbury in our backyard, then yes I feel more than comfortable saying I considered myself married at that point.
In Germany the legal part of the wedding and the ceremony are usally seperated since a civil marriage in front of an civil servant at a recognized office has to happen bevor you can get married in church (a church wedding is not legally binding) or any other ceremony.
And almost everybody I know refers to the church wedding or other ceremony wiht family and friends as “the wedding” and not the legal signing of papers in an office.
I think it is up to the couple to decide which are the importand emotional binding vows and not up to the press to nitpick about the legal signing of papers.
she actually explained it as reciting vows in their yard in front to the Archbishop of Canterbury – I took it that the archbishop didn’t sign whatever paperwork was necessary until the big event. Here in the US you get the license in advance and then the officiant signs off after the ceremony so you can file it, not sure how it works in the UK
When my (now ex) husband and I got married it was with a small group of family and a pastor performed the ceremony. He ended up forgetting the marriage certificate that day, so we had to sign at our large reception 2 days later. We still considered ourselves married before signing the certificate as the legal process was not what signified the marriage to us. (We did list the date of our wedding when we signed the certificate, and that’s also the date we celebrated our anniversary) I don’t see why people are making such a big deal about when they were legally married, it’s really not all that hard to understand.
I’ve often said that my husband and I were basically married long before the legal part. And we didn’t even have any kind of exchange of vows before the legal part, let alone overseen by someone like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Considering the fact that the entire institution of the Church of England was made up so some long dead a$$hole king could get a divorce and remarry a woman he eventually had murdered all in an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to have a son, everyone should shut the hell up about the sanctity of anything that gets that particular institution’s official approval.
Any reason to label her a liar. Nearly every sane person knew what she meant, but go off, BM! You gotta her.
Yes, and I haven’t seen this kind of “interest” in fact check with Pedo Andrew.
How weird.
This is the only reason why they keep repeating this story. “If she lied here, than surely she lied everywhere else as well, including suicidal tendencies and racism.”, as if that made any sense. But it’s all they’ve got to attack her.
They don’t care about the wedding itself or the vows or tABoC.
That’s why I wrote under the other article that I wish Oprah had a clip of Meghan explaining the whole thing back then. Than they couldn’t use it against her anymore (it would become Oprah’s editor’s “fault”).
Totally. They used the “We are not racists” story for a while before it began to wane now they are going on about this. They will continue to pick apart every single detail of that interview and generate tons of clicks and money from it over their “outrage”. They make so much money off of M&H and honestly that interview gave them so much they can work with because they are the best at twisting things into their own narrative and creating a false uproar over nothing. They don’t want to directly say they don’t believe she was suicidal but they saw what happened to piers so they are taking this route. My gosh, if only they were so fervent about their beloved prince Andrew. It’s insane that nobody gives a shit about what he’s done and his terrible interview but let’s pretend we are offended by two people having a personal vow exchange three days before their legal wedding. These people are hopeless, they are rats and will do anything to survive.
That probably wouldn’t matter, they’ll just move the goalposts to find something else. There is no end for RR other than to bash them.
Exactly! Anyone coming at this with good faith would AT MOST think “Married? Huh. Unfortunate word choice for an exchange of vows.”
I was thinking that this is an unforced error on Meghan’s part but now I just think it’s a cautionary tale about the lengths the RF and BM will go to to tear her down so they can protect themselves from dealing with the more important issues raised in the interview.
My husband and I got “married” a week before our wedding and while it was so special for us, everyone knew that it wasn’t “legal” but romantic and meaningful. IMHO, the harder the British press push this “lying theme” the more stupid they look.
My LH and I did the same. Just the 3 of us. Afterward the reverend said in the eyes of the Lord we were married we and that we should approach actual big wedding without any nervousness. It was nice to have that even though it wasn’t legal. We treasured that moment.
Yeah I didn’t think their 3 days before wedding was the legal one. When she first said it, I figured she meant that they shared their vows 3 days before and considered themselves married “in spirit” but the legal wedding was still the day it happened.
Every sane person immigrant understood what she meant and she specified it too so idk what the BM is whining about
They deliberately twist things to use this as another stick to beat her with. They do know what she meant, they just don’t care.
They are trying to cause outrage and they just look really stupid. The only ones that care are the haters. Normal people knew what she meant.
Kate leaning away from Meghan in the wedding pic says all.
@P, I thought I was the only one who always noticed that. She also leaned away for the christening pictures as well.
And as the same force smile in both pictures.
I just notice Kate leaning away from Doria like that! She was really acting like she was gonna catch some cooties! Honey, Doria (& Meghan) is a much purer soul than you will ever be!!😒
Not a royalist or Kate fan but as a photographer, she has a sizable child on her lap who is shifting her weight which would cause most to shift in that direction. Anything else would be uncomfortable IMO. I don’t think it has anything to do with Doris or Meghan. Given in almost most photos she is sitting straight up.
Yeah, whenever she’s holding a baby/child she doesn’t lean away from anyone else, though.
Her forced smile-grimace says it all. She always looked uncomfortable in the wedding and christening photos.
Actually in her own child’s christening pics she is leaning towards her daughter Charlotte and away from William because she is holding her infant son. One can argue she has a problem with William (and she might) but it could just be how she is and how she photographs – awkward and uncomfortable. No need to make a mountain out of a hill.
She is sitting straight in way more photos than she is leaning away. I’m just saying…
The forced grimace was obvious though. Kate can do large grins during engagements because she wants nice photos. She didn’t care enough to make an effort at her brother in law’s wedding. Even the Queen and Philip, who aren’t known as smilers, made an effort for this photo.
I mentioned this here about a year or so ago and got jumped for it, told that I was reading too much into it, nice to see that I’m not the only one who noticed this and felt uneasy about it.
That woman received a lot of benefit of doubts, something many were not willing to accord to Meghan. Meghan also got a lot of abuse about optics which again Kate didn’t receive.
Where are the stories about W&K and their pain at not knowing or seeing their nephew? Where are the heartwarming tales of the friendship between the married-in’s, a la Diana and Fergie?
We don’t need to analyze K’s body language in photos: she does not like Harry’s wife and she has no intention of playing the “aunt” role to his son. This doesn’t make her a bad person or a villain; it simply makes her a person who does not like her SIL and has no interest in expanding her family duties to include Harry’s kids.
@Ellee: I actually think it *does* make her a bad person to decide that she will not be “playing the aunt role” (it’s not a role; she IS his aunt) or “expanding her family duties to include Harry’s kids,” especially since Harry was always so kind to her.
She doesn’t have to like Meghan or go out of her way to socialize with her one-on-one, but Archie is an innocent baby and imo she and William both look incredibly sh!tty for making it very clear that they couldn’t care less about Archie and barely acknowledge his existence. They were even rude about it in their comments the day he was BORN; they couldn’t even *pretend* to be excited? You know, just to seem like decent people.
I think it’s really gross, to be honest. And made worse by the fact that her whole “thing” is that she’s supposedly so passionate about the welfare and mental health of young children, yet she essentially exiled her own nephew? Who will, someday, be reading all about how his ONLY aunt and uncle acted around his birth and when he was an infant, and seeing the same photos we are now, where they can barely hide their disdain at even having to attend his parents’ wedding or his christening? How or why is anyone supposed to take a single thing she says about the early years seriously?
The photos from the polo match showed us her disgusting behavior. She knew cameras were on here and she STILL couldn’t bring herself to pay any attention to Archie? She loves babies so much that she stops to play with strangers’ babies on the street, but she wouldn’t hold her own nephew?
I wouldn’t say she’s a “villain,” the word you used, because I feel like that’s a ridiculous word that should be reserved to discuss characters in fairy tales and not real and complex human beings, but it definitely makes her an enormous, juvenile, selfish asshole if you ask me. She should be able to put aside her feelings about Archie’s parents; she’s still his aunt and he’s the Cambridge kids’ cousin. They shouldn’t be deprived of a relationship with him because of their parents’ petty BS.
It is baffling to me that you seem to think it’s totally cool that she and William decided to treat a baby this way, but to each his own.
@Lorelei 100% agree. Does Kate have to be a second mother to Archie? No. Does she have to be BFFs with Meghan? No. Should she have made an effort and acted like she liked the son of her husband’s brother? Yes. And failure to even MAKE THAT EFFORT is part of what makes her a bad person.
Yes, I’ve just seen that. Perhaps she realised that if she got too close it’d be obvious she was wearing white, not “cream”.
I thought it was clear what she meant – that the wedding was becoming something so big, and getting so much global attention – and they wanted the moment where they said their vows to be just them. I imagine too, with everything going on with her father, she wanted a quiet moment with Harry to affirm their love.
It clearly wasnt a legal wedding, but its also clearly the moment that meant the most to them. The RRs losing their shit over this sound completely ridiculous.
@Becks it was clear to us what she meant because we’re sane and not unhinged, going through every one of her words with a fine-tooth comb searching for something, anything, that we can twist into “Meghan’s a liar!”
It was clear to any reasonable person. It was a sweet moment that she shared and something that’s relatable to a lot of people. I thought the main point of that was to show that it wasn’t like Meghan was this diva demanding a huge wedding and marrying Harry for the cameras, she was happier with their casual ceremony with just the 2 of them.
It’s such a nonstory I can’t even get mad at the tabloids, like i just refuse to acknowledge that any reasonable person would truly give a sh*t about the technical legality of a stranger’s marriage date. The only people who are latching onto this are the lost causes anyway who hate Meghan *shrug*
I mean, honestly, everything is unhinged when it comes to the British tabloids efforts to be racist and stir up hatred toward Meghan/the Sussexes.
You can just fill in the blank and have a new story everyday: “The British tabloids’ obsession with the Sussexes’ _________ is unhinged”
The press think they did something with the marriage certificate but the Sussexes posted BTS pic of their signing wedding register on Sussex royal last year so it’s clear that 19 May was their proper wedding date.
Could they have been more specific with language in the Oprah interview? Yes but it was clear from saying it was just them & the Archbishop that it couldn’t have been a formal legal marriage ceremony & it was just a symbolic thing. And given the stank behaviour of their relatives on the wedding day I can see why that informal thing means a lot to them.
@abritguest there is a reason that both H&M told this story about the ceremony.
I feel like this was a story that the press was holding back on-maybe to characterize their marriage as illegitimate? This is the press that calls the POW’s son illegitimate. Why not invalidate the marriage of the illegitimate non-heir? H&M got out ahead of our age they are PISSED.(it is a theory 😉)
Ugh… They need their crazy clicks. If you’re having a private ceremony with a priest it is considered giving your word to God, no? Cause a priest is a vessel and spokesman for the big guy. So I don’t see a problem. Also, I would have actually phrased it the same if it was me.
The press and Meghan-haters are just being annoyingly obtuse. Nobody thinks they signed their marriage license that day. They exchanged their private vows and consider THAT day to be the day they got married. They probably celebrate it as their anniversary. Maybe it’s a US thing? We got married on a Saturday and filed our license on a Monday…we certainly don’t consider Monday to be our anniversary just because the legally binding part was taken care of on that day.
Annoyingly obtuse is the perfect description. I am embarrassed to admit I spent way more time than I should have this past weekend arguing with Meghan haters. They’re so off their rockers and have no idea how crazy they sound. It’s like anything they hear about her doesn’t even have to make sense, as long as they have any little reason to justify hating her.
@Kay ITA although the word I kept using in my head instead of obtuse was “disingenuous.” But obtuse works just as well. They all know that most of what they squawk about isn’t true and is being twisted, but they have zero integrity, so they keep doing it anyway.
We all know if W&K had said this, the *very same people* would be going on about how sweet and romantic it was, and they know it too. They’re given the narrative from the top down and they need to run with it if they want a paycheck, regardless of how ridiculous the claims are.
I’d be mortified to have to behave like this in my “professional” life and sign my name to stories I knew were warped at best and outright lies at worst.
Wow, they are really trying something here, eh? I think most people would describe an exchange of vows in front of the Archbishop of Canterbury as getting married, and not worry about the technicalities.
Also, lol to this “source” turning up their nose at the very possibility that H and M wrote their own vows as “fashionable”😂. Like, it’s practically 20th century!
Wish these reporters brought this level of scrutiny to fact-checking a certain still-HRH’s alibi and shady business dealings.
This is so dumb and it happens all the time. My husband and I got legally married at city hall about 10 days before our wedding, but we celebrate the wedding as our anniversary, not the official ceremony. It doesn’t matter. What she is saying is that their personal marriage happened 3 days before the pomp and circumstance version.
a lot of people get married ahead legally (foreign citizens) or have their little exchange of personal vows more privately or actually meet for a practice, theirs seems to be a mix of last two, I think it was very private thing to do- no one needed to know. This is evidence that yes if we reveal the super private stuff- it was her right but I do not see the point since such a private thing is not meant to be shared from the get-go- well people who dislike us will use it as a superb opportunity for a take down words twisted and all. That private part could have remained so and H&M would have prevented it being discussed in public, they know the players…
They really shouldn’t have bothered to clarify. Haters gonna hate hate hate. They really should. Not. Have. The tabloids got what they wanted – a response. I thought Meghan and Harry were way cannier than that.
Anyone with half a brain cell gathered they meant a private exchange of vows that they later hung in their room. The BM are so bored with W & K they cant leave them alone.
This. Like this should be a non-story but they are trying to paint them as liars for clicks. The media is really unhinged about them.
The second she said it I knew she meant a private exchange of vows, which she considered their real wedding. That the tabloids twisted it into something more is bizarre. They want to be able to say she’s a liar and thus discount the suicidal thoughts and William asking about the baby’s skin colour. But we know the tabloid reporters knew the first story was true and William outed his racism in the most obviously way in the last few days.
the RR are not Grey’s Anatomy fans but I see H&M are: they had a post it wedding!
I’ll be honest, as soon as she said that I knew the British press was going to drag it out. They British press is very predictable so I knew this was going to be used but I’m surprised they haven’t pushed the whole “we wasted money on you” narrative a lot. I guess being able to make people doubt Meghan’s truthfulness was a bigger prize.
Well, If that got traction they could then start in with a call for H&M to repay the tax payers for the costs of the wedding. H&M paid for the Frogmore Cottage costs to remove that particular beating stick from the public arsenal but they wouldn’t be able to do the same for the wedding so it’s a gift that gives either way – financial ruin or tabloid stories into perpetuity.
What I got from the interview was hat they exchanged their vows in private. Maybe it’s not something that is done in Britain, but why are the rr digging into this instead of guessing which RF member is a racist though we do know who it is.
Because of Meghan’s citizenship, wouldn’t they have had to have some kind of ceremony before the church service?
And didn’t Chuck and Camilla have a civil service before their church wedding too?
And the Lamebridges?
As I recall, Charles and Camilla had a civil wedding and a Church blessing because it was deemed that they couldn’t get a church wedding since they were both divorced and Charles is the future head of the Anglican Church. The whole thing was rather complicated and I can’t remember the details but that was the crux.
The Anglican Church only exists because a king wanted to divorce his wife to marry someone else whom he then murdered. The whole anti-divorce stuff in the Church of England is such hypocritical bs.
The fuss with Will and Kate was because they lived together before marriage and some of the bishops were accepting that as okay. Some of them disagreed because of William going to be head of the church one day. Charles and Camilla had a civil service and then a dedication service at the church.
William and Kate really did not ‘formally’ live together. They spent weekends, she was living with her parents and before the Engagement they spent time together at his home. There was no issue with Sophie and Edward living together and there was no problem. They did set up housekeeping at a royal residence and it was more “formal” arrangement than Kate and Will’s.
There was an announcement several months (nine?) before their engagement that she was moving to Wales with him. Whether or not it happened, and how little she was there? It was still made clear, possibly by Carole, that Kate was going to be living with William in Wales.
I remember some “hedging” about the living together. It seemed that it was weekends only and supposedly she was “working” at Party Pieces living with her parents there. It was a time relatively close to when William “popped the question” that the “living together” stories were floated.
whether or not Diana lost the HRH she would be considered the divorced wife of the Prince of Wales. The divorce went through and she and Charles marriage was Over in Summer 1996. After a “respectable” amount of time, Charles went public with Camilla and plans for their first major appearance together was set for Fall 1997. Diana passed on causing the plans to be postponed. Charles even authorized a documentary about Camilla to “introduce her” to the public. Presumably as his future wife.
I tend to think it was another Middleton shot across William’s bow, as Becks1 would write. Don’t think you’re off the hook because you’re in Wales, we’re making it public that Kate is ‘living with you’ and still very much in your life. There was talk of him dating a teacher in Wales during that time, someone who didn’t want the royal life. The ‘fine, I’ll finally marry you’ engagement happened that November, possibly after yet another woman refused him.
Charles and Camilla were legally allowed to marry in the CoE, as divorced persons have been allowed to do that since 2002. Technically Charles was considered a widower at the time; Camilla was the divorcee with a living ex-spouse. They chose not to marry in a Church, but to have the massive (800 people) blessing service right after.
I disagree. Charles was not a widower although the story was floated and soon disappeared. The CHurch relaxed the rules for Charles . If he were a widower, then he would have not given Diana a large settlement upon divorce and Diana would still have been HRH the Princess of Wales. DIana and Charles married in the CHurch she got the title HRH The Princess of Wales. If the Church did not consider the marriage “dissolved” it would have been a no brainer for her funeral, she would have gotten A Royal Funeral and kept the HRH. I think Charles had to tread carefully with the wedding he had to make sure there would be no obstacles to his being King with this wedding. Although there was debate among some that it was “legal” to marry in the registry office and some even said C and C’s marriage was not legal. I never saw Charles as a widower especially since he was having a very public courtship of Camilla Parker Bowles and Diana was dating other people. The CHurch would not have allowed Charles to “court” Camilla if he still had been married to Diana. I don’t buy that he was a widower, when the story was “floated” there was some disagreement. Charles DID get the wedding without claiming to be a widower since the CHurch relaxed the rules. I saw no stories of his being Diana’s “widower” since then.Diana died a divorced person not a wife. Her being a wife when she died would have things a lot differenct for Charles trying to “court” Camilla.
Charles and Diana DIVORCED. They were divorced PRIOR to her death, hence, he was a DIVORCÉE when he got married to Cam.
Widow/Widower are people who are MARRIED at the time of a spouse’s death.
As far as we know, Charles is not a woman, therefore he’d never be a divorcée.
The Church didn’t relax rules for Charles. Any divorced person has been allowed to marry in the Church of England since 2002, with the permission of their local pastor (the one performing the ceremony).
And yet there are those who consider him a widower, while Camilla was the divorcée with a living ex-spouse. With Church law, there was nothing to stop Charles from remarrying at anytime before 2002, because his ex-spouse was not living. So in the eyes of many in the Church, and Church law prior to 2002, he was considered a widower. Camilla’s living ex-spouse was a sticking point; Charles’s former wife wasn’t.
LOL. The Church doesn’t get to decide who is ‘allowed to court’ and who isn’t. It was a former Archbishop of Canterbury who was publicly calling for Charles and Camilla to marry. It is a church founded because a randy king wanted to dump his wife and marry his mistress. Then proceeded to kill a few more wives along the way. No ethical leg to stand on there. CoE is losing membership rapidly, they are not a driving force in UK society. The Church does not control or direct UK society now, nor will it in the future.
For the millionth time. Diana willingly gave up the HRH in exchange for more cash from Charles, her lawyer admitted it. Fergie did not lose her HRH in her divorce, Diana wasn’t going to lose hers. Diana immediately regretted the choice, so ran to the tabloids and lied that the royals had taken it from her. In response, the Queen issued new Letters Patent that anyone who divorces out of the family loses their HRH. Fergie lost hers as a result of Diana’s actions, not because of her divorce months earlier.
@notasugarhere is correct in her terminology. Charles was considered a widower in status by the CHURCH as his ex was deceased. If the rules hadn’t been changed already regarding divorced persons remarrying, it would’ve removed that prohibition. As it is, the rules had been changed anyway otherwise he and Camilla would’ve been prohibited because her ex was still living. Anne remarried in 1992 and, despite Tim Laurence never having married they needed to wed in Scotland because of her divorce. This wasn’t anyone considering he was one in actuality.
They were not allowed to marry in church which is why they had a civil wedding earlier in the day. The church ceremony was a blessing on the marriage. It was officially a service of Prayer and Reconciliation during which they made prayers of penitence and received absolution and a blessing on their marriage.
Although the CofE will marry divorcees in church it depends on the circumstances of the divorce. If the previous marriage/s had ended before the couple started their relationship then they could marry in church. In this case their adultery together had been responsible for both divorces and the church will not allow a marriage ceremony in these cases.
Divorced people have been allowed to marry in CoE since 2002, whether or not their ex-spouse is living and no matter what other relationships happened. It is up to the individual church pastor to decide, not some higher-up body. Charles and Camilla were legally allowed to marry in the Church, they chose not to.
They’re being wilfully obtuse. Anything to paint Meghan as a terrible person.
My husband and I sort of did the reverse of the Sussexes. We were legally married a couple of days before our wedding to get the paperwork out the way, but we consider our actual wedding to be the one where we shared our vows in a ceremony with our loved ones around us.
Ugh – I’m at the point where I sort of wish CB wouldn’t cover anything the British “media” spews, just so that they get less clicks.
As long as everyone wants to read their drivel (regardless of the side they’re on), they will continue.
I suppose your response is to just ignore them and surely they will go away.
CB and Kaiser present an alternate narrative that sees through the bullshit the press pumps out. I would say this site is one of the main reasons why there’s a side supportive of the Sussexes at all. Throughout these four years, Kaiser and the commenters here have been engaged in royal gossip, but also a larger discussion about racism and sexism in the British tabloid press.
So I would say there’s been immense value in the coverage this site has been providing.
@LaraW” – I’ve been reading Celebitchy since Brangelina first got together…a lot longer than 4 years.
I’m well aware of the insight as well as the voice it brings to those of us who wish to “out” the bullshit. I’m one of them.
I was merely speculating on how nice it would be to minimize the clout that the British Press has. Please don’t read any more into my comment than that.
@LAWRA Well said, thanks!
By CB summarizing what the tabloid hacks are doing, we can comment on the stories here without giving clicks to the tabloids.
@notasugarhere – You’re 100% correct of course. My true frustration isn’t really with CB whatsoever. I guess I was just musing and misdirecting my feelings about the British “press”.
Racist stuck up jackasses thy name is British media. God these people, anyone with half a brain knew they meant a personal vow exchange between the two of them. And yes you are absolutely correct Kaiser, they want to prove if that was a lie then so is racism and bullying and Kate making her cry, f to the u to the racist section of the British
My best friend and her husband have been married for over twenty years. They had a very nice church wedding with an awesome reception. One week before the ceremony, they had a hand fasting ceremony. Was it legally binding? No. But they consider that their “real” wedding. The other was controlled almost exclusively by her mother lol
I didn’t see your comment until after I wrote mine about handfasting.
I only know about handfasting because of Outlander LOL! I saw season 4 recently and saw Richard and Brianna “handfasted” and I was like wtf is that is that made up? Glad to hear there is historical basis for it!
The BM acts as if this statement disqualifies everything they said in the interview. No it doesn’t. The RRs know their credibility had taken an international hit and it’s trying to get it back.
Next thing you know they’ll be pulling up the marriage certificate and finding ways to declare various clerking issues make it invalid in the eyes of the royal rota because of some obscure technicality from the vaunted days before the Normans invaded.
My take from the interview’s ‘married’ comment wasn’t that it was legal but like a handfasting ceremony in which it was the day each accepted the other as their spouse. Handfasting has been practiced in England for centuries. Pretty sure the British tabloids knew exactly what she meant by the married comment. But, yes, if they can try to debunk that one thing, then all the other things should be questioned. Which is laughable since these tabloids own headlines over the last 4 years support and give evidence to pretty much all the other things/comments.
I mean, Princess Diana said Prince Charles’ name wrong on her wedding day. In the scheme of things, that’s a bigger deal than saying personal vows three days before the actual wedding date.
https://graziadaily.co.uk/celebrity/news/princess-diana-wrong-name-wedding-vows/
I definitely think that their vow ceremony with the archbishop is the moment that they feel their loved was sealed and is a symbol of their commitment to one another, and there is nothing wrong with that. I do understand why the Vicar (not the tabloids who took information and twisted it to align with their dubious narrative) had to clarify that it wasn’t legal, especially after getting so many requests he had to turn down for outdoor lockdown weddings. But there’s a reason the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office had declined to comment. This is a non story. In the end, like everything else, it’s much ado about nothing.
Meghan and Harry never wanted that big wedding, Charles and the royal family mandated that they have it. The wedding in Windsor was PR for the Royal Family and revenue for the BBC and the local council. So I can understand them wanting a small ceremony for themselves. I’m glad they got to do it, especially given that family threw them under the bus.
They wanted something that would be just for them, of course. Lol that the rr are so hard up for stories, spins, and angles.
The tabloids understood perfectly it was a private ceremony as did most people and they are not unhinged. They are combing thru her interview looking for any nuggets they can say is an inconsistency to impeach her with the literal truth. Its all so sad and counterproductive. The Royals would be so much better off doing their business in quiet, reaching out to Harry and Meghan and calling a truce. Whether its an interracial family or interfaith one what family hasn’t had issues like this?
There are two types of weddings/marriages being discussed: religious and legal/civil. One involves the church and one involves the government. That’s it.
Meghan explained that they had what they consider their real wedding 3 days prior. It was overseen by a church official with the power to marry them in God’s eyes. They then had a second wedding which was both religious and legal.
This article is splitting hairs on the definition of what constitutes a wedding. If you reduce the wedding to the legal aspect, then their televised church wedding was insignificant because all that mattered was the document signing. The rest was religious, which the article is claiming is invalid.
For religious people, the religious component, being wed before god, is more special than the legal documents.
Grace Kelly actually had two wedding ceremonies with Prince Rainier. One in the registry office (she wore a plain suit) and the one in the CHurch.
It depends on the laws of the country. Some countries only count a civil ceremony as legal; any religious ceremony doesn’t count legally. In Monaco, only a civil ceremony counts as legal.
Willem-Alexander and Maxima also had a civil ceremony prior to their Church wedding, because Dutch law only recognizes a civil ceremony as legal.
I think anyone who’s not a Meghan hater understood what they meant. Obviously they went through that big official wedding ceremony for a reason, no? Imo, their little private ceremony idea was romantic. The Piers Morgans of the world see otherwise and it says more about them then it does about Meghan and Harry.
I suspect they wanted a “wedding” where they could laugh, cry, be sappy, super duper kiss, and all the other things they couldn’t do on the giant production day with the world watching. She was pretty clear that it was three people in their backyard. Of course she knew it wasn’t legal, and she wasn’t trying to hide that fact.
Oh, for goodness’ sake! They really will look for any excuse to pick her apart, twist and misconstrue.
My husband and I were legally married in the US, and had what we consider our real wedding in the UK four months later. Our UK ceremony was held at a pub, so wouldn’t have been considered ‘legal’ in the UK, as it wasn’t in a church or in a town hall, but its the one that matters to us. This isn’t really that difficult to comprehend.
The clarification was actually issued immediately the next day. I saw it in some of news reports even the tabloids would include it at the end of course after they had already gaslighted of course. On a podcast one royal reporter even admitted he had two weddings and he considered the non legal one the real wedding. This is not an uncommon thing in the U.K. because a lot of people don’t like all the rules they have to follow so they will have another ceremony that is the way they want it. They are attacking things Harry and Meghan did not explicitly say as a means of trying to discredit them. It’s like them saying the Royal family is not racist when the Sussexes did not say that. The majority of people clearly understand this.
I wonder at how willing the rota is to be seen as literal fools. No wonder the monarchy is in a death spiral . The reputation of GB has gone to trash.
Wow, these rats keep proving how relevant Harry and Meghan still are are despite their protestations to the contrary. They can’t keep their names out of their mouths!
This makes me sad. Many people and cultures believe personal vows to be of higher importance than a legally binding agreement and/or ceremony.
The RF are the ones with their dang pants on fire w the lies, Andrew lovers.
Let these people love! Poor Baldy incandescent w jealousy so rota gotta get on board attacking Our Duchess. H8 it.
This is all too out of control. Meghan said we were already married, and I guess….in the “legal” sense for the BM that meant a binding, recorded legal agreement recognized by “British’ law because a private ceremony in which you feel is your actual ceremony makes no sense? Wow….wow.
I could bring up common law “marriage”, partnerships, interfaith marriages, but………my head would hurt and this post would be too long.
Everything the British tabloids write about the Sussexes is unhinged, not just this. The private vow exchange just seemed like a cute, hippy dippy commitment ceremony, but if it was just the Archbishop, was obviously just symbolic. We all saw the legal official ceremony with the document signing, so why this fuss? Of all the things in that interview, this is what they’re obsessed with.
This story that Meghan and Harry could not have gone through a marriage ceremony in their private garden – as claimed by the Daily Mail etc., infuriates me [I feel as constipated with rage as William frequently is reputed to be!!] During preparations for our own marriage we were advised by the religious celebrant that it is THE COUPLE – husband and wife – who marry one other. The celebrant/priest is there to give the church’s blessing to their union. He is NOT there to MARRY the couple. For this reason the couple speak their vows to one another. The priest does not say the vows on their behalf. Nor does he say ‘I now marry this couple’. Because he doesn’t marry them. He merely confirms that their marriage vows are valid by declaring ‘I now pronounce you husband and wife’, and then gives them the church’s blessing on their union. The couple exchanging their vows is the real marriage. The signing of the marriage certificate is the formal legal document which records the event. It is not THE MARRIAGE. Nor is there any law I know of which says the marriage certificate must be filled out within a particular period of time after the vows have been exchanged by the couple. As for the venue, I understand public and private gardens, ships, private homes have all been considered acceptable places to marry. Of course Meghan and Harry went through the formal, public wedding service at St George’s Chapel, Windsor, officiated over by Dr Welby, and which included their signing of official documents, but the real wedding was – in the eyes of the church – the private and heartfelt one enjoyed by Harry and Meghan three days earlier.
My personal thoughts on this subject-This was a personal ceremony or rehearsal so that they could speak from their hearts without millions of people staring at them-This personal vow ceremony or rehearsal meant more to them personally than standing in a church full of important people and millions watching on television-This was a deep personal connection they shared privately and felt like they were truly married but not legally as far as British law goes for royals-I pray that God keep and protect the Sussex family always-Shout out to Prince Harry on his new job-This type of work fits him perfectly-Everyone knows that Meghan and Harry like rolling up their sleeves to make change instead of lip service or cutting ribbons all day. Noone deserves top props than this couple-They have been shitted on by the Brits and their press for over 4 years. Its time for them to shine and thrive the way they want.
This is such a bizarre non story. Idk how things are in the UK but in the states it is extremely common for couples to do a private ceremony before their public one especially if their big day involves a lot of people. Some are legal; some are not but given the fact that they posted a sideshow om Sussexroyal a couple of years ago showing Harry filling out the marriage paperwork on the 19th and there wss only one observer at the more intimate vow exchange its was obvious that it was not legal.