Tuesday, 21 November 2017

Meghan Photographed in London as It's Revealed She's Moved in with Prince Harry!

After wrapping up season seven of Suits and bidding a fond farewell to her role as Rachel Zane, Meghan Markle travelled to London from Toronto to begin a new chapter of her life. Meghan was photographed doing a spot of retail therapy and getting beauty treatments on King's Road in London. Click here to view more photos on the Mail Online.

Mail Online

We've seen several sets of photos of Meghan jetting from Toronto to London and back over the past year. That's all set to change now as reporter Rebecca English confirmed she has now moved to London. "As the Daily Mail revealed weeks ago, when we told how she was moving to London at the end of November. Meghan Markle is here."


It has also been reported Meghan's furniture from her Toronto home has been moved to storage and Meghan's personal belongings sent to London.

Omid Mio Scobie Twitter Feed

The King's Road will surely become a favourite haunt of Meghan, as it did for the late Princess Diana and the Duchess of Cambridge. What did Meghan get up to during the outing? The blonde lady she was photographed with is none other than London's most sought-after facialist Sarah Chapman (with thanks to RachelMMarkleStyle). More from her biography: "Loved by A list celebrities, beauty editors, socialites and facial obsessives everywhere, Sarah Chapman’s discreet, chic Skinesis clinic in Chelsea has become the ultimate destination for those pursuing perfect skin. Lauded in every glossy magazine (from Vogue to Elle via Tatler and Marie Claire) and regularly praised in newspapers such as The Times and The Telegraph, Sarah’s exceptional skills have earned her a place in Louis Vuitton’s City Guide For London and the Harper’s Bazaar title of ‘Best Skin Transforming Facialist’." Meghan carried a bag with supplies from Ms Chapman in the photographs.

It looks like Meghan purchased several products from Sarah's line. Formulated from a blend of key active ingredients including powerful botanical stem cells and pure flower extracts, the line of products fuses science and nature to visibly protect and rejuvenate. Below, several treatments available at Net-A-Porter including the Skin Tone Perfecting Booster, Eye Recovery Treatment and 3D Moisture Infusion Masks.

Meghan was also spotted leaving the Heidi Klein designer beachwear store (could a holiday in the sun be on the cards for the couple?).


People reports:

'Markle will live with Harry at his two-bedroom Nottingham Cottage in the grounds of Kensington Palace, where staff already know Markle. In a similar fashion, Prince William and Kate Middleton lived together at St. Andrews university and then at a secluded farmhouse in North Wales briefly before they wed in April 2011. There has been speculation  that one day Harry will move into Apartment 1 at the palace which has 21 rooms and is currently the home of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester.

Meghan looked stylish and chic in the grey leather Franklin jacket from The Line (sold out for some time) with a matching oversized scarf from Sentaler (with thanks to Meghan's Mirror).


And Mother Denim Runaway Bootcut Jeans (UPDATE: Almost identical to the Cruiser, these are the correct pair, thanks to What Meghan Wore). They are available at Nordstrom Rack for $79.


Meghan's black knit sweater is by one of her favourite Canadian brands, Smythe. The Handknit Ruffle Sweater retails for $425 and is described as "moderately fitted, this sweater ends at the high hip, meeting the top of your waistband. It has bracelet length sleeves and features a pointelle stitch and ruffle details". A word of thanks to Meghan's Style for the ID.


Japanese Ginger identified Meghan's gorgeous black boots as the Stuart Weitzman Shortys. "Ease into the sock boots trend with these sleek ankle booties, available in our signature stretch leather and suede. These style essentials are finished with a tie back detail for a perfect fit and a stacked block heel. Especially chic when paired with a slim sweater and cropped wide-leg trousers." They retail for $575 at Stuart Weitzman.


Meghan accessorised with her Finlay & Co. Percy Sunglasses.


And completed the look with a striking new season Prada handbag. Meghan's Fashion notes it's the $2,638 Paradigm Tote Bag. The tote features top handles, a front logo plaque and a hanging leather tag. It's available in black and red at Farfetch (Meghan's is black and cream).


It's a significant milestone for Harry and Meghan; moving in together is a big step in any relationship. I think the two have carefully planned out their future over the past year. It's Thanksgiving on Thursday and it has been reported Meghan will celebrate the holiday in LA with her mother Doria. Perhaps Harry will join her? Perhaps they will mark the day in London? Meanwhile, the always reliable Richard Palmer reports "The Archbishop of Canterbury is to be asked to give his blessing to a church wedding for Prince Harry and US divorcee Meghan Markle, the Daily Express understands". On Twitter, Richard added: "Our understanding is that the Archbishop of Canterbury has been sounded out about a church wedding for Harry and Meghan and he has no objections". It's another important step on the road to the announcement.

Certainly, all the signs are pointing to an imminent engagement announcement. It must be such an incredibly exciting time for them. Watch this space! :)

82 comments:

  1. Can't wait for the engagement announcement!
    Can't wait for the wedding!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't wait to see the ring!!

      Delete
  2. yes, ma'am. no prodding necessary here, lol. watching. watching. and watching.
    I am soooo excited. ๐ŸŽ‰

    wow. The Archbishop of Canterbury. I mean.
    The Archbishop of Canterbury.
    This has just skyrocketed ๐Ÿš€ from hearsay, wishful thinking and speculation to...................
    ๐Ÿ’’THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY๐Ÿ’’
    ๐Ÿ’๐Ÿฅ‚๐Ÿคต๐Ÿ‘ฐ๐Ÿป๐Ÿฅ‚๐Ÿ’

    This is really happening. I am in amazement. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, SG...tell us how you *really* feel. ;-)))

      Delete
    2. Now, didn´t I tell ya? ;-))))))))) See my comment on the last post.....
      Harry and Meghan are not Charles and Camilla and it IS the year 2017, surprise, surprise!!!
      I´m so excited, too, surfer girl!!

      Delete
    3. working on it, rf, working on it. :)

      Delete
    4. LOL. Staying tuned in... ;-)

      Delete
  3. Charlotte. Thank you for excellent, excellent work as usual. :) Once I see it in your text, I can rest assured it is fact. Thank you.

    Do you know if Meghan will have to have a coat of arms designed to blend with Harry's once they are married like Michael Middleton did?

    ReplyDelete
  4. And, how cool is it to have as a friend, Sarah Chapman? Sort of hitting the social heights right out of the gate. Maybe they are getting Meghan's skin extra special for the worldwide media engagement announcement. ๐Ÿ’

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I´ve heard many, many times of Sarah Chapman. You read Vogue, Elle, et al and you HAVE to read about her eventually... And that´s what I instantly thought as well, surfer girl: Seems like somebody is getting ready for an announcement!!!

      Delete
  5. Heidi Klein has nothing on Emoji, lol. Her Punta Del Este suit? Emoji has already been there. Done that.๐Ÿ‘™

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, definitely watching! I even reactivated Twitter today so that I won't miss any announcements. I sure hope they don't keep us waiting too long.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for the update. I wish these two all the best. Cant wait for the engagement announcment. N.Lรณpez

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eeeep! I just started watching Suits here in the US, and it's really a great show. Meghan is a fantastic actress! Can't WAIT for an announcement!

    ReplyDelete
  9. yay soo exciting, I was watching segments of morning talk shows leading up to william and kate's wedding, I cant wait for it to happen again it was such an exciting time. Also sorry if its already been asked but what does Watch This Space mean? is it a British term?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Charlotte means there might be updates to her narrative any minute as news might be made available about the engagement. Stay tuned might be another way of saying that I guess.

      Delete
    2. It's used here in the States to mean exciting news is coming. I believe it began as a tease on blank billboards or on the windows of vacant retail shops. I am looking forward to seeing them flash big smiles and a gorgeous ring.

      Delete
  10. Im not bursting my bubble i just love prince harry to get her own family

    ReplyDelete
  11. So... if she is in London, do you think she went to the anniversary party secretly? Wouldn't it be strange if she were in London & stayed at Harry's home while he went? Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kay, I had the same thoughts... We had Diana sneaking into Charles´s birthday celebrations back in the day - and no-one saw her - so why not Meghan, too?

      Delete
    2. Kay. Personally, since she hurried to London after filming was over, I think she secretly attended if they are already engaged (and I think they are). I don't think Harry would want her to miss such a special time with her new family, especially given that some of the family members are older. Harry wouldn't want her to miss the opportunity to be around the older members of the family and have a chance to get to know them. If they are engaged, Meghan is now part of the family, so I think she was there. Easy since no media was allowed.

      Delete
    3. I don't believe Meghan attended the anniversary party. But she definitely confirmed that she is in London, did she not? LOL

      Delete
    4. I am curious as to how anyone got this photograph of her. Was it a pap? A pre-planned photoshoot? Any agreement with Sarah Chapman in lieu of gifts (although Sarah Chapman has quite the clientele, so I doubt this) ? A random person in the street ? Who took this picture and why is it being released now? Honestly, it makes me a bit uncomfortable and resurrects all of the questions I had before regarding games being played with the media. I do hope there is a clear answer on this.

      I am also surprised as to why we are absolutely positive that they are getting engaged right now ? All the royal couples in the last decade have lived together for a bit before they got engaged. Why not Harry and Meghan? I am totally rooting for them and the more I see Meghan the more I like her, but honestly I am flabbergast at how people expect this marriage to succeed with this kind of pressure and this kind of speed? Do you think that marriages succeed out of thin air magically? I mean, are we denying that royal marriages need a lot of work? Then why not allow them to figure this out.. I am really astonished at the public pressure on this couple. I would LOVE a royal wedding as much as the next person on this blog, but honestly I would love to see a stable happy marriage more. In that regard I would have to say that William showed good judgement in waiting and letting Kate get a good taste of life with him before jumping into marriage, and it is clear that it has only helped. Kate is bursting with happiness most of the time. I want to see Meghan experience the same.. not just trot off to church only to be burned seven years later.

      Delete
    5. yes, rf. She certainly did. :) And good for her.

      Delete
    6. Rosman, the photo credits say "ldnpix/Mega". Mega is a photo agency specialising in royal/VIP/etc. people´s photos. Someone on the internet said, James Whatling is supposed to be part of/working with them.
      In today´s days you can´t really tell who shot it, but the quality is surprisingly good, as if someone had "time to do it", if you know what I mean. So I would think rather a professional than some random passer-by although he could have spotted her going into a shop and waited until she came out, with enough time to get himself a good spot, today´s mobile cameras are incredible, you can shoot good photos from "miles away").

      Delete
    7. Rosman, ideally, I wish they would live together quietly for a year perhaps even two. But Meghan is 36 and not 26. I think this has a lot to do with it...

      Delete
    8. P.S. How we got the photos is a question in my mind as well. It didn't look like a person with a cellphone scenario. Frankly, and don't anybody throw anything at me here LOL, but to my eye she looked dressed and ready... And enjoying the moment.

      Delete
    9. Julia from Leominster23 November 2017 at 12:46

      The queen's anniversary was mostly about an older generation of cousins and people the queen has known since they were born and probably very old friends. I would be amazed if Meghan was included as she is not yet engaged. It really was less about younger people - they were included as official family that's all. It's not about what Harry wants - it's about the queen and Philip and would be centred on them - not a newcomer who would be a huge distraction.

      Very different from weddings full of dancing and the like.



      Delete
    10. Frankly I'm shocked that there have been so few pap photos of her, photos of her nowadays are so rare and the coverage of her relationship with Harry is only increasing in its frenzied nature. Photos of her must be incredibly valuable at this point, which means that paparazzi must be willing to go to tremendous lengths to get photos of her. She has obviously gone to great lengths to avoid being papped in the past several months, surely if she was eager for attention she would be getting papped every other day.

      Delete
    11. I should add: even if she wasn't eager for attention, and instead she simply wasn't desperate to avoid it, she would still be getting papped every other day given how lucrative photos of her must be at this point. Even Harry-- who has the benefit of a full royal protection detail--has been papped a few times out and about in london by himself since news of his relationship broke with Meghan.

      Delete
    12. Royalfan, isn't this the same as when Kate was getting photographed on the streets of London when she was dating William? Why do you think Meghan staged these (that's clearly what you're implying). What's the difference between Kate getting papped back then Meghan now? I genuinely would like to know.

      Delete
    13. I don't feel like Harry wants to wait. I think he is rushing with his heart. And I think Royalfan has a good point. Unless Meghan gets pregnant before the wedding, she will be 38(or close to it) before they have a baby. And I suspect they would want two or three...well, I feel like Harry does. I know nothing of Meghan's feelings on the subject of babies.

      Charlotte, I am being nosy - how do you handle things like today(assuming it turns out to be an engagement)? How much pre-research and writing can you do about an engagement post? Are you sitting clicking refresh constantly on media sources?

      Delete
    14. 5.15, absolutely Kate was photographed in her single days, as was Diana, Sarah, Sophie....and now Meghan. All perfectly normal. But I do believe that on 2 or 3 occasions Meghan made herself available in order to send a clear message regarding her place in Harry's life. At least that is the vibe *I* got from it.

      Delete
    15. But couldn't the same be said about Kate making herself available back when she and William had their brief break? She was spotted in front of all the hottest clubs and even the very same clubs that William and his friends went to during that period. She knew the paps would be at those clubs (and some could say she courted the attention as well). A lot of people at the time said she was doing it to send a message to William (and btw, I'm glad she did bc it seemed to have worked!). So you may be right that Meghan made herself available, I guess my point is that she would not be the first gf of a prince to do so.
      Anon 5:15

      Delete
    16. I think that given Harry's feelings about media and his privacy he would have shown her the door if she were staging photo ops. Kate has been papped shopping before AND after her marriage, was she doing it in exchange for gifts from the shops she was leaving?

      Delete
    17. 5.15, no argument from me...Kate showed William what he was missing. :-)

      My reference was to three specific occasions when in *my* opinion Meghan took the bull by the horns and made it clear to the media (and us!)that she was IN LONDON AND IN HARRY'S LIFE...
      1. Whole Foods shopping expeditions.
      2. Pre-Pippa wedding visit to hair salon
      3. Most recently...shopping in London.

      Delete
    18. Royalfan, I'm definitely inclined to agree with you about the pre-Pippa wedding visit to the salon, haha. The only thing I think is that Harry is in on it too, but really who knows :)
      Anon 5:15

      Delete
    19. Interesting theory 5.15. Hmmmm... perhaps he is. :-)

      And it fits with *my* gut feeling that Harry is both unhappy and impatient with a royal girlfriend not qualifying for being included on family occasions.

      Delete
  12. Thanks for the post Charlotte! I'm excited to see how it all unfolds. Surely no one knows their relationship better than they and as they're both in their mid-30s I trust they are more than capable of making responsible decisions concerning their own relationship and how best to proceed going forward. I'm confident you will keep us abreast of any new developments, I'm grateful to have such a reliable source of news as your blog as the apparent seriousness of their relationship progresses. My own cousin married a divorcรฉe in the Church of England and unless I'm mistaken the current Bishop of Salisbury is also married to a divorced woman, so I find it difficult to imagine they won't Wed in a religious ceremony unless they don't wish to.
    I have to say I absolutely love Meghan's flared denim, I've never been a great lover of the skinny jean trend to the exclusion of all others myself (although I know many people who adore them and pull them off spectacularly) so I hope this is a sign that wider leg denim is coming back in style!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Finn, I absolutely agree!! As far as the jeans are concerned - I can easily pull off the "skinny one", but I´ve never been a fan of any "to the exclusion of all others"-trend at all! The "flared ones" don´t suit my legs, but I absolutely like them on Meghan - and if "a good amount" of us women breathe a collective sigh of relief now, because they´re back - I´m all for it!!!! :-))

      Delete
    2. Oh, and btw, Finn, your "abuelita" is a wise woman!! Most people here in Germany hate November, because it´s dark and often cold and wet (not today, mind you, we have a day that feels very much like spring!!). I don´t mind that at all, strangely enough. What is getting my mood down to almost zero, is late January to the end of February (my whole family is like that, happy as a fiddle in November, deeply-depressed creatures in February). I´m like: Christmas is over, can we now switch over to spring, please? Which, of course, usually isn´t happening: on the contrary, often snow doesn´t come until January and the real cold often comes in February... So I like "Christmas season, Puerto Rican "old-style"" more and more... ;-))))

      Delete
    3. I will tell my abuelita you said so Eve, I'm sure she'll appreciate the compliment. For me I get anxious until Winter solstice because I dislike the short days, but feel relief afterwards knowing every upcoming day will be longer than the last.
      I am sure you look great in your skinnies, I'm quite tall so they suit me fine too. I do have a pair myself, I just dislike that it is a struggle to find any variety in jean styles. So I am glad to see that Meghan enjoys a variety of cuts, and I agree these really are flattering on her!

      Delete
    4. You are so right, Finn. I really disklike it, too, when only one style of jeans is available. I struggle a lot with the very low-cut ones (ending almost below the hips) - whereas my daughter adores them!As I like the dark blue denim ones, I gave up wearing jeans for years, because you could only find low-cut, stone-washed, bleached and all kinds of very fancy "so-and-so"-washed ones - it drove me crazy! Thank goodness, this has changed.... Mind you, the more I look at Meghan´s pair, the more I like them. With some chic booties with higher heels like Meghan wore... very nice indeed!!

      Delete
  13. Love those boot cut trousers. They look great on her. That said, I really hope she isn't being mobbed by paparazzi, and she has the security assistance she needs while out and about.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So excited for this! Hope is for the best!
    Thank you for your hard work! God bless!
    Your page has become my favorite FB page! :D

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wonderful! I look forward to the announcement and look at the bling. Not exactly holding my breath with excitement or ramping it up as high as surfer girl (whose enthusiasm I love), but I've been rooting for this match since I first heard of it. I was a Tig follower and aware of Meghan's international status and philanthropy as a result.

    If as the DM speculates that she will spend Christmas (or part of it) at Sandringham, am I correct in believing she and Harry will have to be publicly (not privately/secretly) engaged before Christmas? Isn't Christmas always a very tight squeeze in Sandringham with family bunking into the servants' quarters?

    Perhaps someone else knows for sure. Do tell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is my understanding of it, Philly. :)
      I think there has to be an engagement status before they are allowed Christmas family time at Sandringham. I don't know how being "secretly" engaged without a public engagement announcement would play into that as it seems that presence there, should she attend, would already be an "unofficial" announcement and, being into protocols as they are, I think a before that, a formal announcement is forthcoming as Charlotte said. Actually, with Richard Palmer's comment, the engagement is already pretty much "announced" already much more so than William and Kate's was prior to the Kensington Palace release. Although, for those who were watching, William and Kate walking into that wedding together was sort of equivalent to Richard Palmer's comment. And, upon reflection, Meghan's comment in Vanity Fair that "there would be a time when they would both have to come forth and tell there stories" was a sure confirmation that they were already engaged also just as some noticed and said. Otherwise why would they "have to come forth and tell their stories"? I just want them to come out and "formally" announce it and stop with the intrigue. lol

      Delete
    2. Philly, I had to dig deep in my cupboard to find my old book about Sarah and Andrew´s wedding (Invitation to a Royal Wedding by Trevor Hall). There it says that Sarah was invited to spend the New Year break 1985/86 at Sandringham (with NO official engagement announcement) - that´s when paparazzi first spotted her together with Andrew and the rumour mill went into overdrive.
      So I guess if Meghan spent Christmas at Sandringham, she would be rather "hidden", i.e. not accompany Harry to the Church Service for example. For that - I´m rather certain - she would need to be officially engaged.
      Does that help in any way? ;-))))

      Delete
    3. Just thinking out loud here... I don't see why they couldn't announce an engagement within the next week or two which would allow Harry and Meghan to attend the Queen's Christmas lunch at BP prior to leaving for Sandringham.

      For the record, I do remain cautiously optimistic about this union. But it's clear that the couple is moving forward and I believe the news would be a nice way to follow up on some of the images we've seen and discussions we've had during the last week or so.....

      Delete
    4. I very much agree, rf. No more piddling around.
      If they are engage they must announce it. Any thing else seems silly. And, like you said, Meghan could more easily start assimilating into the family at every family event and not be left as a shadow in the wings. It only makes sense and seems much more humane. I personally think we will get an announcement any day now.

      Delete
    5. Free Meghan from waiting in the shadows, like a second class citizen. Let her join the family events. Announce the engagement already.

      Delete
    6. Thanks, Eve and surfer girl. I didn't know that bit about Andrew and Sarah. I think after Pippa's wedding, that's quite enough "hiding." I can see it in that case as it was likely a courtesy so as not to upstage the bride on her day by openly attending. I can understand the purpose of keeping things private as they got to know each other before that. Now, after regular trans Atlantic flights, the Invictus Games and Meghan moving in with Harry (that typed Happy Dr. Freud), I think it's time to out the couple and be done.

      Delete
    7. My sentiments exactly, royalfan.

      Delete
    8. Ladies, shall we email KP? ;-)

      Another thought or two LOL... Are they waiting to announce it in 2018 so that the relationship appears to be longer? In other words, they met in 2016 and got engaged in 2018.

      Also, this is their first opportunity to enjoy a relatively normal existence compared to a transatlantic relationship. Perhaps they want to enjoy some private time before an announcement is made and they become more accountable as a couple.

      Delete
    9. That is a good game plan but I don't know how realistically practical that would be. I mean, apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury has been approached about a wedding. If true, the stage has definitely already been set and the wedding momentum definitely started and the engagement obviously already a done deal. Consequently, they should be able to manage living their lives within the Royal and non-royal corridors and adjust and assimilate to those as easily being publicly engaged as not, don't cha think, rf? :)

      Delete
    10. SG, something else crossed my mind today (lol, too much stuffing?)... Meghan has given up her home and job, and moved (apparently!) to London to accommodate her relationship with Harry. Now the proverbial ball is in Harry's court and the pressure will be on him to see if he steps up and proves that she did all of the above for a good reason.

      Delete
    11. Amen, rf. Exactly. :)

      Wasn't stuffing just yummy. :) Why I have it only once a year is beyond me, lol.

      Delete
    12. Why once a year indeed. Same question here lol. :-)

      Delete
  16. Awh, we should known ya'll. After all, she was wearing the "husband shirt". She tried to tell us, lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julia from Leominster23 November 2017 at 12:49

      Beyond tacky! There are things I like about Meghan but these coy hints are very unattractive and most un-royal.

      Delete
    2. Julia, couldn't that be considered like a "Kate thing" sort of, although Kate's hints are more event related. Or are you correlating Meghan's to the two bananas, tea cup and puzzle pieces and puppy in the British flag sweater she had on "The Tig"?

      Delete
    3. Hmmmmm...... SG, I see a difference between a hint/nod/tribute to *someone or something else* vs. a coded message about oneself.

      Delete
    4. must be the stuffing for both of us or the tryptophan in the turkey, lol. I don't know what you meant by your comment @ 05:21, lol.

      Delete
  17. I have asked this before: Do we know HOW Meghan got married in Jamaica? I´ve looked at some marriage packages luxury hotels in Jamaica offer, most of them specifically offer a "secular" marriage, which means it´s not a religious wedding, just a civil ceremony. If that´s the case, we have the same situation as with Letizia of Spain. She was a divorcee, too, but had "only" been married in a civil ceremony, so, as far as the Catholic Church was concerned, she was considered not divorced, but "never married"! That´s why she could get married to Felipe in the first place, as the Catholic Church would not have accepted a future Queen who was a divorcee!
    So maybe, for the Church, she´s never ever been married....?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I think most times these are secular weddings. Which doesn't surprise me the least given what I understand of Meghan and her belief system.

      Delete
    2. Julia from Leominster23 November 2017 at 12:36

      That's how it works for the Catholic church but not for the Anglican. The rules aren't the same. The Catholic treats a non-Catholic wedding as if it didn't exist unless it was blessed by a Catholic priest - which then requires an annulment for remarriage. The Anglican recognises these marriages existed.

      Until 2002, the rule was divorced people regardless of who was to blame or where they were previously married, could not have the full marriage sacrament. Instead they would have a registry office civil marriage and then a church 'blessing' following, which could look quite a bit like a wedding but had a different order of service. How much it could look like a wedding depended on the church.

      In the 1990's the English government changed the rules so people could be married in licensed approved buildings such as hotels and stately homes. The license runs to the building unlike Scotland where it goes with the vicar. The building has to be open to public for civil services , not just a one-off which is why you won't see Windsor Castle so approved. Some of the buildings like Blenheim Palace can be hugely expensive, costing tens of thousands of pounds - others are quite modest. In theory, these services are completely secular, meaning no religious music or other attributes of a religious wedding. Weddings abroad have also become much more popular.

      In 2002, the church made marriage of divorced people within the discretion of the vicar. That has led to much inconsistency with some people being allowed to marry fully in the church and others not. Charles and Camilla in the end followed the old rule of having a civil service and a blessing - it has raised issues because the future head of the church - in theory - was legally married in a civil service and some of have said that's not permitted for a monarch. But it's not an issue with Harry - now moving down the line of succession.
      I know this isn't popular here but I always think you never harm yourself by doing less - people may be a bit disappointed but they can't say special exceptions were made. (I think this present rumour about the archbishop of Canterbury giving some sort of approval is just more of this endless and damaging engagement hype.) So I would vote for doing what Charles and Camilla did - then there are no questions asked about Meghan's prior marriage or her beliefs. It can still be a lovely service of blessing at St. George's which is quite special.

      Or better go to Scotland which Julia has been pushing for all along. No issue with divorce and lots of lovely bagpipers - a cathedral, St. Giles, a processional route and a wedding breakfast at Holyrood. And a nice boost to Edinburgh. It helps cement the royal family in Scotland where William and Harry have not been so often seen and gives the public a better view than they would have at Windsor.

      Normally most people married in church are married following the reading of the banns, which is how I believe Pippa's was. There is a residency requirement for that although the rules have been slightly loosened. But I believe royal family members are married by special license which comes from the Archbishop of Canterbury - which may be what that article out there today is trying to talk about.

      The church is all over the place on whether vicars can be divorced and who can marry who which is not doing it any favours. And yes, it was founded by Henry VIII after the pope refused him an annulment for consanguinity because Catherine of Aragon had been first betrothed to his brother. But the situation was more complex - the mood of the nation was turning towards Protestantism and the monasteries were very wealthy and after dissolution, much of their property went to the crown.

      Delete
    3. Hearing you talk about it that way, Julia, I think a wedding in Scotland is a grand idea all around. :)
      Although I did have my heart set on a visit to London and not necessarily to Scotland. (no offense to Scotland.)

      Delete
  18. I was just thinking...it is very probable that this might be the last chance for a "full-on" royal wedding in at least 15-20 years... The next generation of royals here in Europe is in their early teens (most of them even younger)...or have I forgotten someone? So I hope they don´t go too "low-key"....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty sure it won't be low key, Eve. I don't think you have to worry on that front. It will be royal alright.

      Delete
    2. Yes you have forgotten a prince and princess in Luxembourg. A princess in Belgium is also 15 already, you will never know when she will find love and marry. Plenty of royal wedding still to have.

      Delete
    3. Eve, what about Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice? They are the daughters of Prince Andrew and nieces of Prince Charles. Surely they would have royal weddings.

      Delete
  19. Tammy from California22 November 2017 at 16:54

    I have a question. Do the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester live in Apartment 1A now or just on the premises? Do they have to move because Harry will move in?

    I always crack up at the word "apartment" because the biggest apartment you will find in California is a 2 bedroom and approx 800 square feet! Much different from the 21 bedroom apartment at the palace :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Duke and Duchess of Glouchester live in Apartment 1, William and Kate live in Apartment 1A. I guess there is talk about them down-sizing at some point, then Harry and wife could move in. It's all just speculation at this point but we'll see.

      Delete
    2. Julia from Leominster24 November 2017 at 18:24

      You sound like Princess Michael who was saying the Gloucesters ought to move out for Harry long before Meghan was heard of. Perhaps the Michaels should move out! But I think for right now, there won't be any move - that would require more expensive renovations - which did William and Kate no favours.

      Delete
  20. Thank u for the post . Exciting time for us !!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. They could always stay with Will & Kate, like the Middletons did a few Christmases back. So they are very close and can join the festivities but not actually staying "with" the Queen.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Julia from Leominster24 November 2017 at 18:22

    One thing we have yet to hear is if Meghan has the correct visa. There is a particular visa when you come to marry. It's odd with all the other information, no one has mentioned that. This has recently been an extremely sensitive issue with people from the EU able to come in so easily and those from the Commonwealth sometimes facing deportation - so I would assume they would be careful to follow the rules - no reason not to.

    If we assumed she applied for and got that visa, the marriage would be expected in six months. That puts it around May, considered an unlucky month for marriages - although my dear in-laws married over sixty years were married in May! But it was the month of Antony and Margaret's wedding - hardly auspicious. And June 3, would the the Edward VIII anniversary and a lot of people are already making links.

    That's why I thought an engagement in January/February with an early July wedding would be much wiser. But it doesn't look to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charles and Diana we're married in July...likewise for Andrew and Sarah. Although I believe we could find a good/bad association with every month of the year if we looked hard enough.

      Delete
  23. Meghan is an American. I really doubt she would have wanted her engagement announced on an American holiday, or any other American holiday, Fourth of July, Martin Luther King's birthday, Presidents' Day, and Veteran's Day. Can't wait to see them engaged! I am thinking December 1st.

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to Mad About Meghan! We do so look forward to reading your thoughts. Constructive, fair debate is always encouraged. Hateful, derogatory terms and insults are not welcome here. This space focuses on Harry and Meghan, not any other member of the Royal family. It's not the place to discuss politics either. Thank you for reading, we look forward to your comments :)