Readers whose TV choices are not constrained by the viewing demands of toddlers: Did you watch the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? If so, what happened?
The Wikipedia page on Ms. Markle is revealing of American attitudes. Regarding Ms. Markle’s first marriage, it says “[she and Trevor Engelson] divorced in August 2013,” implying that it was a mutual decision and action. Or perhaps it was a natural phenomenon, like a rain shower, that affected them both. Here’s a Reuters/nytimes example: “In 2011, she married film producer Trevor Engelson but they divorced two years later.” Buzzfeed: “They filed for divorce citing ‘irreconcilable differences’ in August 2013.”
In fact, it seems that Ms. Markle sued her husband. See, for example, “Is THIS the real reason Meghan Markle divorced her first husband Trevor Engelson?” (Express):
MEGHAN Markle became so addicted to fame that when she finally hit the big time as an actress on Suits, she divorced her first husband and sent him the wedding ring back in the post, according to a bombshell report.
Mr Engelson’s uncle, Mickey Miles Felton, 73, said the family knows the reason behind her decision to divorce Mr Engelson, but they do not want to disclose it.
The bombshell story paints Meghan, 36, as a social climber determined to get to the top no matter what.
When the royal bride-to-be met Mr Engelson, the then 28-year-old was already a film producer and agent while she was a 23-year-old actress fresh out of theatre school. … They quickly moved in together in Los Angeles and she started getting more parts and auditions.
At the time of the lawsuit it seems that Ms. Markle was more successful financially than her husband/defendant. Thus the divorce petition (a “complaint” in more traditional states) does not ask for alimony (see RADAR and also California family law). Had the decision been mutual, presumably the not-so-happy couple would have filed a California form FL-800, Joint Petition for Summary Dissolution.
What can we make of this choice of bride? The Prince is 33 and presumably will want to have children. The American divorce court veteran is 36, nearing the end of her fertility. Let’s say that the newlyweds enjoy a two-year infant-free honeymoon. Now the Princess is 38. Will my jet-owning fertility doctor friends be practicing the London City Airport steep approach in the sim and then flying over to practice their trade?
Folks expect the marriage to endure under the theory that “She sued the first husband so she would never do that again to a second husband”? Both Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are children of divorced parents and, statistically, such children are at least 1.5X more likely to get divorced than children from intact homes (PyschCentral).
Related:
- Real World Divorce on UK law, which does not enforce prenuptial agreements and allows a plaintiff to collect a 50 percent share of premarital property after only a year or two of marriage
My wife saw it. I told her to call me only if one of the two is trying to do a runner.
Your sister confesses to watching. The intellectuals we know in England view the family as a massive drain on the Bank of England (argument about boosting tourism hard to support as French tourism is equally robust), but intellectual hardly describes the typical Commoner. Views of village of Windsor and Pall Mall were breathtaking.
Harry is a catch so Meghan clearly was on a mission.
It appears that Harry is a bit on the dumb side.
Princess Di wasn’t known for her intellectual prowess, including at the Swiss boarding school she attended. But she gave Harry unconditional love for his first 12 years, so there’s that.
If Obama was “black” how is this woman “bi-racial”?
You would think that with all that familial intermarriage over centuries none of the royal family would be all that swift. Maybe Meghan figured that out.
Couldn’t help but notice that many people were dressed in black, especially the groom.
Not sure what the significance of that is.
The French were smart, they executed their royals during the French revolution. We are still waiting for the English to do the same, think of the money that could be generated from a live public execution, you could charge a fortune for the front row seats and all the live broadcasting rights!
Even if the English do not have a revolution, Markle will end up owning Buckingham Palace as a part of the divorce settlement, after a couple years Prince Harry will get tired of her and finish off with some 20 year old model. The divorce will be like a battle between RAF and USAF.
Grab the popcorn, this could be very entertaining in a couple of years.
My British wife watched it at 4am. I myself am a republican (in the sense of anti-monarchist, not the US party) and can’t fathom why ordinary people are so enthralled with the taxpayer-funded antics of these parasites.
@Pavel: though it pains me as a Frenchman to admit it, the British actually invented the practice of relieving monarchs of their swollen heads, with Charles the First. With a Charles III on the horizon, and economic meltdown impending, who knows?
Fazal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family makes it sound as though these folks are not getting all that much. Any competent Silicon Valley CEO or COO would be looting far more from shareholders than the royals are taking from the UK taxpayer (though arguably they’ve still got quite a stash built up from the good old days). I’m not sure why the minor princes and such actually have any real money at all. It looks as though most of it flows to the Queen and the eldest child. Maybe they are getting around $50 million per year from the government? But most of that is income from lands that they owned before the monarchy was trimmed back? If they get 15% of the income from assets that they formerly owned, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the mob stole only 85% of their stuff and not 100%?
I did not follow the royal wedding, but I did read with amusement as 78-year-old Patsies owner Robert Kraft embraced being cuckholded by his 38-year-old girlfriend. His four grown sons must be so proud of Dad.
https://pagesix.com/2018/05/15/robert-krafts-younger-girlfriend-debuts-baby-on-social-media/
J-E-T-S. Jets, Jets, Jets!
Phil – The fact that the bride has presumably had more than 1 premarital sexual partner increases her odds of divorce more than whether their parents were together:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/
You people are truly past redemption. Whatshername will get pretty little should she divorce because all that stuff is held in trust by the crown, it is not personal property of any royal. They get to use it. Second, if she is all into self aggrandisement, she did choose the wrong turkey. Royalty being what it is, *he* can dump her, and lose little, *she* will lose most everything she wants, namely, being the wife of a royal prince. He might chase other women/men, but as long as they are married, the press will swoon over whatever trivial thing she does as some sort of once in a generation social whatever. They royal family understands this pretty well, and that is why they allowed the ginger dude to marry her. Do you really think these folks marry for love?
What you’re describing explains Sarah Ferguson, and her arrangement with Prince Andrew, to include attempts to profit from “access” to her ex-husband
My opinion is that, while the queen has managed to keep broad popular support, her kids are basically fuckups, especially in their marriage choices. This was a lesson the royal family took to heart. The young ones might look all nice and whatnot, but they have been trained properly to be media friendly and likeable. The wives have been especially selected for their ambition to be royals (which they can be only as long as they stay married, i.e. they play ball).
People think the royal family was surprised by the ‘afro american’ bits in the wedding (which is impossible because these people did not just turn up unannounced. Are people that stupid?). They didn’t. They damn well went along with it to look cool and modern, sensitive to the times. Whomever is managing their PR is pretty slick and effective.