And as an American I think she seems like a fitting representative! Harry chose well!

Hear, hear!

So exciting...I am a self confessed royal addict !

Now to get all of us in the mix, Meghan lives and works in Toronto. So we can all celebrate the landing of our bad boy Harry .

Cheers to the happy couple !

I'm thrilled!! She spends a lot of time in Toronto, as that's where Suits is filmed. I think they make a great couple, and I can see Meghan and Duchess Kate getting along real well.

Meghan is as much a commoner as she can get. It's nice that the Queen approved this engagement.

Boy have times changed! For the better for sure. I remember all the folks atwitter when his father married a --**gasp!**-- "commoner". :) Of course, Ranier came from a much older family, and he did well with his American actress. :)

This makes so much more sense. When they were talking about MM looking around K palace preparatory to moving in, I thought it odd. Before a wedding makes much more sense. I wish them well.

ETA: I just heard that she's also a divorcée. Technically, that means that the queen can't countenance the match, though the palace has obviously approved it. I wonder if this means a loosening in the church?

I read that she quit her job in Toronto and moved out of her apartment there, and so she might not continue her role on Suits. I had never heard of that show, and this is the first I've heard of Meghan, even though she is from Los Angeles.

I'm the opposite of a royal addict - I was in Victoria BC when Charles and Diana got married, and it was a huge deal there. I did not know the date of the wedding before I got there or I might have chosen a different time to visit - I just went there to visit friends. I do find Harry an interesting character, however - the other royals not so much.

I do wish them well, and I hope they get started early on having children, since she is already 36 - five years older than Harry. I know he wants children, and so she must be ready for that. I also read that she is retiring from acting - probably so that she can have a family, although it was reported that she wants to spend her time doing charitable work. They might also want to adopt children.

Princess Grace was an American actress before she married royalty as well. It's definitely not without precedent.

I wish them the best of luck, at least she's somewhat accustomed to the constant scrutiny and so it won't be a completely new experience.

I find it hard to get excited about the private lives of people I don't know and most probably will never meet. If I'm not going to be invited to the wedding, I usually just ignore it all, LOL. I've never seen "Suits" since I don't watch television and so I had no idea who she was/is anyway. They both appear to be genuinely nice people, and so I'm happy for them.

Annie

Her divorce isn't a problem as Harry wasn't involved in it and it happened quite a while ago.

I'm no scholar of the Church of England, of which the queen is the head. :) It used to be that divorced people, as in the Roman church, had to wait for the former spouse's death to remarry in church. Apparently, in 2002 they changed this sort of. Now it is up to the minister of whichever church to decide whether it is appropriate to allow it. I suppose that IC's rules above are the way it is commonly figured out nowadays. Great move forward! (I find the politics and sociology of it interesting.)

"I find it hard to get excited about the private lives of people I don't know and most probably will never meet. If I'm not going to be invited to the wedding, I usually just ignore it all, LOL. I've never seen "Suits" since I don't watch television and so I had no idea who she was/is anyway."

I'm with Annie on this. I don't watch TV either--I've never owned one.

There was a funny exchange on Twitter:

"Prince Harry's kids will be Americans. What if one grows up to be president and is in line for the throne at the same time? Brits are playing long-ball here, but it's a smart move."

"For the American colonies will be recovered by the line of the Ginger Ninja."

When Charles married Camilla , a divorcee, they were married in a civil ceremony and then their marriage was "blessed" in the chapel at Windsor Castle.

I don't share everyone's enthusiasm for this marriage, and no, it has NOTHING to do with her being bi-racial. I just think that it's always difficult when people from two very different worlds marry, and when one of those worlds is the British Royal Family, it is especially so. Meghan Markle has a very complicated family and at least one appears to be enjoying her "fifteen minutes of fame" with a tell-all book coming out. I think their behavior may prove an embarrassment to her. The Queen is every inch a lady and will do whatever she must to be gracious to Meghan's family, but there may well be significant awkwardness. Yes, both Kate and Sophie came from what the British press likes to describe as "middle class" families, but would not be described as such in the US - Kate's family had become quite wealthy and she attended a quite posh school; Sophie's family were not as wealthy but she certainly was not just "middle class" by US standards.

I've begun to think that while William most resembles his mother physically, I think that Harry is much more like his mother in his personality and emotionally. I think that may explain his often highly inappropriate conduct. Remember, after the divorce, his mother engaged in some relationships that most thought highly inappropriate for the mother of a future King.

Marrying into the Royal Family is not easy - even Diana, who came from a very old, highly aristocratic family, had problems with all the protocols. Sophie had her problems in the early years of her marriage. Kate had many years dating William to become accustomed to the expectations; Meghan has had a very short time. There are certain expectations, and while many Americans think they are utterly archaic, they are what keeps the Royal Family going and it's never been more popular in Britain than it is today. Remember, the Royal Family is a huge boom to tourism and that helps the economy. In European countries where their Royals have become more like the "common man", Royalty has lost much of its glamour and appeal.

I hope they keep their wedding more low-key. She has been married before. I've been married twice - divorced once, widowed once. My second marriage was low key - no "wedding gown" even though it was the groom's first. It was the appropriate thing to do. I know that it was discovered that Kate had been baptized but never confirmed and that was quietly done prior to her wedding. Meghan is half Jewish and went to a Roman Catholic school but there has been no mention of whether she was raised in any religion. I wonder if there will be any religious requirements for her. I believe one of the Queen's cousins had to renounce his place in the right of succession to the throne when he married a Roman Catholic, but that may all have changed now.

I wish them well and Harry certainly deserves some happiness - losing his mother at such a young age had to have been very difficult. I do think he tends to throw his father under the bus quite often, and I think this is very wrong. Prince Charles loves his sons very much and did an excellent job of bringing them up and being there for them. We may see him as "distant", but those who know him well find him a very warm, caring person, and an especially caring father. Diana left her mark on these two young men, and not always in a good way. She was a very unstable young woman, beautiful and charismatic as she was.

Yes, I DO like the British Royal Family! I think they are very lucky to have a monarchy that provides a stability and a moral compass in the world of politics which today, in any country, is far from stable and often has problems with its moral compass. I think this explains much about its popularity.

It's not a given that their children will be American citizens. They may be far enough from the succession to claim it. There is a provision (was last time I had reason to check) in the American citizenship laws that prevent Americans from serving as head of state or high government office without automatically losing their citizenship. It used to be for any government position, but was changed in the 1980's, I believe by supreme court ruling, and no longer applies to legislators. There may even be question whether the grandchildren of a head of state can claim American citizenship through one parent when they're born and reside abroad, without renouncing the other. There are some odd intricacies there. I'm no immigration attorney, however, and haven't researched this for a few years so there may be changes.

She has already said she will seek British citizenship.........their offspring will never be a consideration for the throne.

There are 5 ahead of them two who are ages 4 and 2 with another on the way. Add that to the fact that Harry wants no part of ascending.....although I suspect he would fulfill his obligation in the unlikely the situation should arrive.

They will be as Anne, Andrew and Edward and their offspring have been. Interesting but irrelevant in the order of things.

It has been said so well above. She won't have a role other than charitable. Couples are a mystery and, as with any couple in love, we can only cross our fingers and wish them well!

It was a joke.

CC, I got that it was a joke, but I'm flippant anyway. (grin)

I will admit to some envy, though. Not because of Meghan Markle, but because Britain gets Duchess Catherine, who is lovely, well dressed, well groomed and well mannered and does charity work while we have the Kardashians running nearly naked all over the place doing nothing good for anyone in particular. (sigh)

Annie

Christine, I know what you said was a joke. I got it! It was amusing. I'm just much more interested in the politics of church and citizenship than I am in the personal lives of people I don't know. I do wish them well, as I would any other couple whose nuptials were announced in the press.

I read yesterday, that Meghan is to be baptized and confirmed in the Anglican Church. Otherwise, Harry would have had to renounce his place in the order of succession to the throne. I'm glad they have chosen St George's church in Windsor castle for their wedding. It's a perfect place. Prince Edward married Sophie in this church and Charles and Camilla had their civil union blessed her.

From what I read, that rule was changed several years ago.

What puzzles me is the baptism, since she almost certainly was baptized as a child. (She went to Catholic school, according to what I read.) Maybe it will be a provisional baptism.

I've heard that a lot of churches require a new baptism when people convert. Heck, if you convert to Judaism, you have to go to the ritual baths, for essentially the same reason. The Catholic school is immaterial. People of all faiths went to the catholic schools when she was a child. They just don't go to catechism class and confession if they're not Catholic, or something like that.

The article said she was never baptized. If she had been baptized a Catholic she would not need to do it again as an Anglican; the reverse holds true. It was greatly criticized when Luci Baines Johnson was re-baptised when she converted to Catholicism - it was unnecessary. Actually, in both the Catholic church and the Anglican, re-baptism is not required - once baptized, baptized forever.

In Catholic schools, non-Catholic students study every single thing that Catholic students do. When an entire year is spent preparing for a First Communion, they do all the work and are graded on it, but as non-Catholics, they cannot make a communion. It's their game their rules and they are quite clear on the subject.

Well, I'm a Catholic and at school we had people from different religions - in my class there was a Buddhist from Thailand.....she didn't study religion with us or go to church. The school didn't mind one bit what faith people were from.

When an entire year is spent preparing for a First Communion, they do all the work and are graded on it

This was not the case at my school. I had several Jewish/atheist/etc. classmates and they had study hall/music lessons scheduled during religion class. They did not ever study religion or go to church. I've never heard of a Catholic school with the policy you mention, Anglophilia, at least not in this part of the country.

I am impressed with her degree from Northwestern, her charitable works way before she met the Prince, her poise, and her equanimity. Princess Diana would like her, I am sure. All that is enough for me, and the rest is a lot of high-horse palaver.

She's got grit.

Writersblock, I can only speak for all the diocesan schools in my area, both parish schools and high schools. This is the policy at all of them - I know this as DGS1 applied to 2 for elementary school and 2 for HS - got in but didn't go as he got in a great magnet middle school and magnet HS. DD had no trouble with religion classes, but all that prep for 1st Communion and then not a part was troubling to her.

I do think Meghan seems lovely. I only "follow" the royals from a distance but I did watch a 20/20 episode on her and think she and Harry are a great couple.

Well, I just read that she and Harry are actually 17th cousins or something, apparently her father is 24 generations removed from King some-one-or-another who was king in the 1300s. (grin) So, it's all good....

Annie

I don't watch TV either and am fairly indifferent toward royals. But I am glad that Markle's mixed race: it will chip away at one foothold of the church-and-throne bigots. And, she may be retiring from her old acting job, but she's just been taken on for a new role: princess! I suspect her previous work experience is going to serve her very well.

I'm sick to death of them already.

Actually, she probably won't be a Princess, she'll probably be a Duchess, I think, like Catherine. It's all up to the Queen, I believe, and I can't think that she'd make William and Catherine the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (which is the title she gave them) , while making Harry and Meghan Prince and Princess. It's conjectured that they will be the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I can remember that, I have a Speckled Sussex chicken, LOL.

Annie

I don't know about modern usage, but in the ancient days they taught us about in school, they're called "prince" and "princess" as "courtesy titles" because of their positions as children of the royal title holders. They're not the prince or princess of anything, just have the word with their first names. The wife of a prince receives the courtesy title of "princess". The crown has a number of duchies, as well as counties, etc., among the royal possessions, or whatever it's called, and the monarch may bestow them. The tradition was, going back to the Plantagenets, if not before, that princes would be given these duchies as "real" titles. They're still princes--being a royal duke gives them more, not less. Queen Elizabeth has been bestowing royal dukedoms on the princes in her line when they marry.

I wish them the best. That said, I don’t understand Americans’ fascination with them. Who are they to us? Why does it matter to Americans? Celebrity fascination, perhaps? Also, are they really celebrities?

I’m not meaning to be critical; I just don’t understand the fascination.

Beg to differ.......only a direct decedent of a King or Queen can be officially called a Princess in her own right. ...eg Princess Ann, Princess Charlotte.

Officialy Meghan will be Princess Harry of Wales.....as corny as that sounds. She can never be officially called Princess Meghan

Upon their marriage the Queen will bestow a Dukedom on them and she will then be known as the Dutchess of "whatever" forever.

She will never be a Princess...just like Kate will never be a Princess...but not to fret Kate will be Queen......I know go figure.....but I love it !

Thank, chase! You are correct about all of this. Diana was called "Princess DI" by the press. Her correct title was HRH the Princess of Wales. After the divorce, she became just Diana, Princess of Wales. She lost her HRH title which bothered her and her brother enormously.

Camilla could be called HRH the Princess of Wales, but is not called such due to potential bad feelings in the public about her "replacing" Diana as Charles' wife. But in reality,, that is one of her titles.

One is BORN a Princess. One does not become one with the title in front of their baptized name, through marriage.

All this info is readily available on the internet - one need not be born into British aristocracy in order to know the proper titles. Why the press insists on remaining ignorant (and yes, I am including the British press!), is beyond me. And there constant talk about the Queen bypassing Charles and making William the next king is on the level of every single celebrity pregnancy having an "It's Twins" headline on the papers at the grocery store check-out. It is not Constitutionally possible for this to happen. Charles would have to abdicate which might well bring down the monarchy. Monarchs are ordained by God at birth, not by the popular press.

You're quite right, Chase and Anglophilia. The point I was making was that she would have a courtesy title of "princess" as the wife of a prince. It's the born princesses whose title goes with their first names and of their royal house, though they've taken to using a family name in the common fashion. There were a lot of negotiations during the divorce to allow Diana to retain a title of "princess" at all. We had to learn all this stuff as well as how to read heraldry. I don't remember why other than a lengthy band of Plantagenet kings, but I still know my lions passant from rampant and a field of gules from argent, and of course, the bend dexter or sinister.

Suzieque, I don't quite get it either. However, I also don't understand our fascination with movie stars and reality television personalities and models and such. Like we're ever going to meet Christy Brinkley or Paris Hilton or Elton John or whoever. We can see them in concert or watch them on television but for some reason people are still obsessed with their lives and their clothes and their children or lack thereof. I really don't get it, just because I see someone in a movie doesn't mean I care whether their husband cheated on them or that they have 7 children or will only eat organic seeds picked by the light of a half moon by a family of gypsies. I watch the movie, I'm entertained (or more likely, not) and then I go about my life and they do whatever it is they do and never the twain shall meet. (shrug) Others feel differently, of course.

Annie

I don't lurk around in the dark, hoping to catch a glimpse of the royal family, but I am fascinated by the way princess Diana's sons have grown into caring, responsible adults.

Young Prince Harry served and retired from the British Army (which is far more that can be said about our own commander in chief). Princess Diana would be very proud of her boys and their accomplishments.

And while I rarely watch T.V. shows, I certainly do watch enough T.V. to keep myself informed.

In any case, this is another royal wedding I plan to attend from my sofa, in my stretchy pants.

I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious -- Albert Einstein

Sol

Anglophilia said: "Meghan is half Jewish."

She is not half Jewish. Later stories corrected that information.