After Prince Harry brought his girlfriend, Meghan Markle to his close friend’s wedding in Jamaica, rumours have been swirling about another Royal wedding in the near future.
A friend of the couple even spoke to the Mirror, saying: “This the first time that she and Harry have socialised so openly as a couple and is a significant step up in their relationship.
“Make no mistake, he is heads over heels about her. This one could go all the way.”
However, even if Harry wanted to pop the question to Miss Markle, would he be allowed to marry her?
In the past, royalty has been forbidden to marry divorcées. The Queen’s own sister, Princess Margaret was in love with her father’s equerry, Group Captain Peter Townsend and even though The Queen wanted the world for her sister she could not allow it. Instead, Princess Margaret was told she must follow “the Church’s teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble” or renounce her place in line to the throne.
More famously was Queen Elizabeth’s uncle, the then King Edward VIII who was only king for less than a year when he abdicated in favour of marrying the twice American divorcée Wallis Simpson.
Perhaps The Queen remembered the pain that it caused her sister to give up her first love, but in 2005 she allowed her son and heir, Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles, a divorcée like himself.
Another speculation surrounding the possible marriage is the faith of Miss Markle. She was raised as a Roman Catholic, even attending a Catholic school. Luckily the new succession laws no longer forbid the marriage of Roman Catholics and Prince Harry would not lose his succession rights.
The Royal Family may be a traditional one in many senses but even they are changing with the times. Prince Harry would still have to gain approval from his Grandmother but things are looking in his favour.
This’s a non-issue as his father was allowed to marry the woman who helped break up his marriage. She’d be Pr Harry’s morganic wife, a spouse with no title unless his father bestows a courtesy title on her so she has her own royal style and income.
I think the term is morganatic. It would be HM The Queen who bestowed a title not Prince Charles.
Yes, it was late, I was tired and left an incomplete, incorrectly worded answer. Thank you.
Help me out here, please. Did you go back and change the spelling of “morganatic”? Because it’s the exact same spelling as Howard’s. The title, should one be conferred, would be conferred by the reigning monarch.
Yes I did as I had misspelled it originally and yes, the reigning monarch is the only person who can ok a royal marriage to any person, royal or non-royal or divorcee` in order for Pr Harry to remain in the line of succession. If he marries without permission he loses his place in the lineup and his wife & their family won’t be welcome at Court or at any Royal events but he won’t be broke as he and his brother both recieved about 12.5 million from their late mothers estate.
You are confusing feelings with law. His father’s remarriage has no bearing on his (Prince Harry’s) ability to marry a divorcee.
Nope, I don’t care who he marries as long as he’s happy. It’s a select group of the House of Lords that ok’s who marries whom if the Queen has no objections. That’s why each new spouse get a groovy personalized & framable declaration that they’re welcomed to the fold, along with a well defined list of what they do and don’t get as titles, legacies, income, inheritances etc. If potential spouses disagree with the terms of the marriage contract it’s worked on until there’s either agreements or a lifelong friendship on the books.
Don’t forget that Prince Michael married a divorcée as his wife was married before. (At the time because Princess Michael was also a Catholic Prince Michael lost his place in the line of succession. I believe it has been restored.). And the Spanish King Felipe also married a divorced and Catholic woman.
HRH The Prince Michael of Kent has been restored to the succession due to the changes in the law. As for HCM The King of Spain, the Queen Consort’s first marriage was purely civil (it was not blessed by a Catholic priest, thus “did not count”) and she had no issue from the first marriage. As such, she did not have to go through the annulment process and was allowed a Catholic marriage.
Actually Prince Micheal has not been restored to the succession. The changes to the Act were going forward from the date it became law and not retroactively. And since Prince Micheal was married before the Act came into place, he is still not eligible for Succession. It is just like when they changed the Act of Succession. The Duke of York and Earl of Wessex still rank above The Princess Royal even though she is the second oldest.
So his father who is the next King can marry a divorcee, but Harry, his son, who will never be King, cannot. Is That what you’re saying? This article never even mentions his old man, Chucky, (one of the great modern day losers). What a stupid moronic article, and a beat up.
The entire article concludes differently from the shorter synopsis being remarked on.
There is no morganatic marriage in British law. A morganatic marriage was proposed for King Edward VIII to prevent Mrs. Simpson from becoming Queen, but the argument from Cabinet was that there is no morganatic marriage in the UK, and the King’s wife must needs be the Queen, and Mrs. Simpson is unacceptable as Queen.
Stanley Baldwin worked hard on that one, sold it in Cabinet and then to the Commonwealth PMs. Those in poorer nations really dependent on UK assistance found Baldwin’s reasoning compelling. The richer nations’ PMs not so much
Denial of the style HRH for Edward’s wife was engineered by the Queen consort who was angry at Edwards actions which put GVI on the throne. Plus Mrs Simpson was caught by QEQM mocking her, another no-no which worked against Edwards wishes. If Edward and Wallis would’ve waited another month, just like Pr Margaret later in history – they could’ve had their spouses in morganatic marriages, like Camilla with a courtesy from her husband and an HRH as well. But they didn’t, they were bullied and threatened by the Queen & her courtiers and they gave up. QEII witnessed all this and made the right choices in moving forward to allow harmony to prevail over politics.
Clearly Queen Elizabeth played a major role in convincing King George to deny Simpson HRH. But there was much more to it. By the time of his abdication Edward VII had lost all support in high circles. His mother was furious. Prince Michael was near nervous breakdown. David had lost Churchill’s support. Baldwin was angry over the Prince’s remarks in Wales which he took as criticism of his government. He also protested the King’s trafficking with Hitler’s government which Baldwin considered a major constitutional breach. Simpson was despised. George’s denial of HRH met with little opposition except from a few legal scholars who questioned the decision on academic legal grounds. Princess’ Margaret’s problems were generated by the Bishop of York’s loud objections to divorce. She could’ve married Townsend were she to renounce her title. That was never going to happen. Margaret was not housewife material. As likely as not she’d never seen a washing machine up close not did she want to. Automatic doors in a supermarket would’ve terrified her. Three of the current Monarch’s children have been divorced. The Church of England is the most liberal Church on Earth. Her Majesty is hardly strict despite her own 70 year marriage. And she was kind to uncle Edward and Wallace before they died and in a most poignant and charitable way. Also after. She attended both funerals.They lie aside each other in a royal graveyard
Right
Wallis Simpson was a shocker. She was having an affair with the German Ambassador when she started dating Edward. The Government did the right thing by throwing them out. Wallis was an ambitious opportunist who nearly brought down the moanrchy.
Camilla’s marriage to Charles is not morganatic. She is his wife in the eyes of the Church of England and as such is entitled to and does use the style HRH as courtesy of her husband. If they were to have children, their children would have a place in the succession. Her children by her first husband have no such place and are not considered Royalty, but are considered to be part of the Royal Family – the Queen determines who is and is not part of the Royal Family, typically extends to cousins, aunts and uncles beyond the immediate family
The Queen had to ok everything and wrapped up Charles’ 2nd marriage in such a way that from his wifes courtesy styles until her death everything granted her dies with her. End of story.
What about her being African American wouldn’t that cause a problem?
No because she is not an African American. She is Canadian.
She might be Canadian but her mother is Black.
And she’s not Canadian she was born in California.
Which is REALLY a foreign country
Yes that’s probably true. But it’s not Canada
Let’s imagine that how their relationship works out is really between them as a couple and not relatives who aren’t even sleeping on the same continent as them or people whose opinions don’t matter a whit to the monarch or her family because it’s for them to decide how far their relationship goes not someone who has to point out what they themselves have already worked out.
She’s American, not Canadian.
And what is wrong with marrying a woman with African ancestry?
It really pisses off black women
I can’t se the Royal Family accepting a black woman into their fold, especially with a title.
I don’t think she would go for it, feel sorry for her it’s not her fault.
Not a dam thing just wonder what the Queen would say. Smarties pants….
When harry marries he will probably be given a Dukedom and the are speculating it might be Duke of Sussex as the title is available. They also say that his wife, regardless if Meghan or not, will be titled Duchess of Sussex.
Harry will be the Duke of Sussexy!
I can’t see the reason why Prince Harry can’t marry Megan Markle. Times have changed since King Edward VIII. Prince Micheal married his presence wife, who was a divorcee, & a Roman Catholic. No matter what reglious you are, we all believe in the same GOD. As for Prince Charles, correct me if I’m wrong, the only way he could of married Camllia, both of them ( Charles & Camllia) are divorcee’s, was the untimely death of Diana. I’m all for Prince Harry and Ms Markle getting married.
King Edward could’ve had his wife as a morganatic spouse without title and remained King if they’d have waited several months more after their separation to conclude her divorce but no one told them. Wallis made an enemy of the queen & certain courtiers and there’s plenty of info that was withheld from them that would’ve allowed them to have their life in the UK together.
Princess Margaret suffered too despite not being next in line to reign. QEII worked with the House of Lords to change anticipated laws that hurt more than helped the aristocracy of hers and the future generations.
Did I read some correctly? Did someone say that because Meghan is divorced she would not be granted a title while Queen Elizabeth is still on the throne? Harry can marry Meghan and if he does, she will leave that church with the title of HRH.
Re-read. What makes you think a Harry marry would cause her to leave the Catholic Church? She doesn’t have to. Her title, like everyone’s in the Royal Family, is determined by the Monarch, whoever that may be at the time
I believe “leave that church” was a reference to leaving after the marriage ceremony.
Sorry. Misunderstood. Thought it meant leave the Catholic Church
Don’t you think that there are discussions about all of your concerns already in the family. There are very positive comments about prince Harry and Meghan relationship that will surely contribute to his healing process. Prince Harry really needs to find the peace and settle down, and having his own family will provide him that love and the security he deserves, and specially when he feels that he finds the right person.
She doesn’t get a title. She would use Harry’s title. Her title, should they get married, would be HRH Princess Henry. She would not even be allowed to use her own name. Recent custom would allow this: Meghan, HRH Princess Henry or better yet her full title HRH Princess Henry of Great Britain, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If Henry is granted a dukedom, such as Duke of Sussex, then her title would be HRH Duchess of Sussex or Duchess Henry of Sussex.
Diana’s title while married to Charles, was HRH Princess Charles of Wales, which she could be called, because Charles is the Prince of Wales. He is technically the reigning monarch of Wales and his overlord is his mother, HM Queen Elizabeth II. Technically William and Harry are not Prince of Wales and therefore their titles don’t include it. Recent custom in this generation has allowed the children to use the name of their father’s dukedom (or principality) as their last name, but technically their last names are either Windsor as in William Windsor or very recent change, Mountbatten-Windsor.
Barring VERY unforeseen – and very unfortunate – circumstances, it’s unlikely Harry will ever be king. His demeanor and lifestyle has created the impression he’s glad that’s so. Seems to me the interest he’s shown in Ms Markle is overblown. It’s a long way from the posh bedroom of an overpriced resort to the aisle of Westminster Abbey.
He’s a young man and a realist about his place in the line of succession. I wouldn’t doubt he’d step up to be an excellent monarch if history came knocking on his door due to exceptionally tragic circumstances.
Charles and Ann both have been divorced and married again. And Andrew is divorced but still lives with Sarah. I bet after Philip is gone he remarried her. Harry will have no problem marring the love of his life!!! Bravo!!!
Aside from the fact that this Megan leech is disgusting looking, probably the only reason that the Queen allowed Charles to marry his mistress was because she was well past the age of being able to have kids when it happened. If that isn’t the reason the Queen had it should have been. Seriously UK, why do you continue to support these people with your tax money? If they want to be like everyone else and marry commoners and live normal lives then why do they have titles and millions of pounds off the backs of UK taxpayers? The whole point of royalty was that they were not like everyone else. Harry needs to give up his title and all the privilege that comes along with it and then he can marry whoever he pleases and nobody will care.
Wouldn’t be amazed if QEll doesn’t care a whit who Pr Harry marries.
Agreed, if they throw all the traditions going back centuries then they are just more wealthy privileged people.
leave harry alone omg after what his father did to diane let him live & marry who ever he wants whats the problem he loves her she loves him just let them be
I read all these comments and have to laugh. So many opinions, and some “facts”, are all based on personal feelings, rather than on law. It doesn’t matter how you feel about Charles, Camilla, Diana, Wm, Harry, etc. Marriages, titles, succession….all have royal law as precidence. YOu may not like it, but who cares.
I have just read all the comments. It really boils down to this, if Prince Harry is not given permission to marry the girl he obviously loves then he does it anyway if he truly loves her, bugger the consequences and seriously i think he will. The chances of his becoming King are less than slim and i really do not think he wants it anyway.
There is no way the establishment will allow a marriage between a Royal and a divorced black woman as that really will be the end of them.