Engagement of Prince Harry of Wales and Meghan Markle: November 27, 2017

[Rudolph]

With the acceptance of the wording I've highlighted, wouldn't it then stand to reason that HM's personal feelings would have been kept out of the legal Instrument of Consent as it was issued by HM, The Queen and her Privy Council?

Logical thinking isn't my strong suit but I try.

I can’t read minds. One thing we know is that for whatever reasons trusty and well beloved was used with Catherine and not with Meghan.

 

[Gawin]

There’s only ONE consent. For William it was issued 9 Feb and for Harry today.

The fancy version is a copy of the original. It’s a government document bearing the great seal of the realm. It just can’t be fiddled with adding words

I’m not suggesting it’s a slight just pointing out that there isn’t two different consents issued.

Please go back to message #1191 and read William's consent, issued on February 9, 2011.

It matches Henry's, issued yesterday. Neither one uses words "well-beloved and trusty."

Then look at William's PERSONAL copy, issued on April 21, 2011, days before his wedding. The words "trusty and well-beloved" have been ADDED.

So yes, it can be fiddled with, and yes, we are still comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Rudolph]

Read William’s personal copy. It’s dated 9 February. There’s only one consent.

What’s different is today we got the full text of Harry’s document. With William only the short version was released until the personal copy.

 

[ACO]

I guess this means the wedding will be cancelled any day now.

 

[Royal Suitor]

Rudolph you're clearly willing to fall on your sword on this one. If you truly think the Queen would go out of her way to slight her new daughter in law in what is ostensibly a templated document, I'd say that's an even poorer reflection on your feelings about the Queen than your feelings about Meghan. Still, if another version of the H&M consent isn't issued in May, I will tip my cap to you.

Mike Tindall wasn't referenced as "trusted and well-beloved" in his Privy Council consent either, but who cares about Mike when you can create a Kate vs. Meghan rivalry.

 

[Rudolph]

Rudolph you're clearly willing to fall on your sword on this one. If you truly think the Queen would go out of her way to slight her new daughter in law in what is ostensibly a templated document, I'd say that's an even poorer reflection on your feelings about the Queen than your feelings about Meghan. Still, if another version of the H&M consent isn't issued in May, I will tip my cap to you.

Mike Tindall wasn't referenced as "trusted and well-beloved" in his Privy Council consent either, but who cares about Mike when you can create a Kate vs. Meghan rivalry.

But I clearly stated it’s not a slight. I wasn’t the first on this thread to bring it up. I joined already being debated.

What can’t be debated is trusty and well beloved was used in one but not the other. As to why, that can be debated.

 

[Curryong]

This is getting to be like the endless debate about Kate's Ivory Family Order each year.

Why not wait until May 12 approx, when the parchment Charter for Harry and Meghan will undoubtedly be issued. If it doesn't state 'trusty and beloved' for Meghan on that then you, Rudolph, will have a point. If it does then you won't.

 

[Rudolph]

Someone on tumblr posted Autumn Philips consent and she got ‘trusty and well beloved’.

The plot thickens.

 

[Somebody]

Was Autumn a British subject at that point? An alternative explanation is a change of mind. It hasn't been used for Mike, so it won't be used any longer for any future consents (the next most likely being the Cambridge prince(sse)s...).

 

[Somebody]

I fail to see why "trusty and well-beloved" would have anything to do with nationality or citizenship. Can anyone confirm that is the case ?

As I explained in my previous post; the issue is with the 'our', not with the 'trusty and beloved'. On what grounds would the queen claim that an American is 'our' (as a grandmother probably but not as the head of a state that Meghan does not belong to).

I am in no way claiming that this is THE reason, just exploring possibilities...

 

[Osipi]

Was Autumn a British subject at that point? An alternative explanation is a change of mind. It hasn't been used for Mike, so it won't be used any longer for any future consents (the next most likely being the Cambridge prince(sse)s...).

Autumn was a Canadian citizen at the time and as Canada has HM, The Queen of Canada, I would presume that yes, Autumn falls into the category as one who has The Queen as her Head of State.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Has anyone here even thought about the LACK OF CAPITALIZATION OF PHRASES in the doc and what meaning that conveys? There are complete phrases that ARE NOT IN CAPS and my heart flutters to think of what that means for the future of the realm.

I may not sleep tonight. ?

 

[ACO]

The most logical explanation, to me, is the the "our beloved and trusty" adjectives denote a subject of Her Majesty's realm. It has absolutely nothing to do with her personal feelings whatsoever.

Possibly. Good speculation. Who knows.

Also didn't notice "Our most dearly beloved " vs "My most dearly beloved"

 

[Somebody]

Autumn was a Canadian citizen at the time and as Canada has HM, The Queen of Canada, I would presume that yes, Autumn falls into the category as one who has The Queen as her Head of State.

Of course! Didn't think it true

One other thing. Some noticed that difference in 'my' vs 'our' beloved grandson. In the queen's announced it states 'my' but in the official document 'our' (plural) is used (in all references to the Sovereign).

 

[Osipi]

Another possible explanation may lie in who exactly was sitting in on this meeting of the Privy Council.

Its my understanding that not all Privy Councilors are required to grant the Instrument of Consent. Its possible that when drawing up William and Kate's, Philip was among the Privy Councilors at the meeting and hence the use of "our beloved grandson". Philip may not have sat in on the meeting for Harry and Meghan's and therefore, the use of "my".

Just a thought from an caffeine deprived one brain cell.

 

[Rudolph]

“Our” seems along the line of the royal “We”.

 

[Skippy]

Roger Bacon, the inventor of the magnifying glass, can be proud of himself.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There is a difference between the Declaration of Consent and the Instrument of Consent.



Declaration of Consent to the marriage of Prince William of Wales and Catherine Middleton

https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/website-list-9-feb-2011.pdf

MY LORDS,

I declare My Consent to a Contract of Matrimony between My Most Dearly Beloved Grandson Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales and Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, which Consent I am causing to be signified under the Great Seal and to be entered in the Books of the Privy Council.​

Declaration of Consent to the marriage of Prince Henry of Wales and Meghan Markle

http://privycouncil.independent.gov...018/03/2018-03-14-List-of-Business-Part-1.pdf

MY LORDS,

I declare My Consent to a Contract of Matrimony between My Most Dearly Beloved Grandson Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales and Rachel Meghan Markle, which Consent I am causing to be signified under the Great Seal and to be entered in the Books of the Privy Council.
​

Instrument of Consent to the marriage of Prince William of Wales and Catherine Middleton

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYV028kWkAM3Yys.jpg:large
https://www.royal.uk/her-majesty-qu...rriage-prince-william-and-catherine-middleton

Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen Head of the Commonwealth Defender of the Faith

To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting!

WHEREAS by an Act of Parliament intituled "An Act for the better regulating the future Marriages of the Royal Family", it is amongst other things enacted "that no descendant of the body of His late Majesty King George the Second, Male or Female, (other than the issue of Princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into Foreign Families,) shall be capable of contracting Matrimony without the previous consent of His Majesty, His Heirs or Successors, signified under the Great Seal, and declared in Council":

NOW KNOW YE that We have consented and do by these Presents signify Our Consent to the contracting of Matrimony between Our Most Dearly Beloved Grandson Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales, K.G., and Our Trusty and Well-beloved Catherine Elizabeth Middleton

IN WITNESS whereof We have caused Our Great Seal to be affixed to these Presents

GIVEN at Our Court at Buckingham Palace the ninth day of February Two thousand and Eleven in the Sixtieth year of Our Reign

BY THE QUEEN HERSELF SIGNED WITH HER OWN HAND​

Instrument of Consent to the marriage of Prince Henry of Wales and Meghan Markle

http://privycouncil.independent.gov...018/03/2018-03-14-List-of-Business-Part-1.pdf

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting!

WHEREAS by an Act of Parliament entitled "Succession to the Crown Act 2013", it is amongst other things enacted that "a person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying", such consent to be signified under the Great Seal, declared in Council, and recorded in the books of the Privy Council:

NOW KNOW YE that We have consented and do by these Presents signify Our Consent to the contracting of Matrimony between Our Most Dearly Beloved Grandson Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and Rachel Meghan Markle.

In Witness whereof We have caused Our Great Seal to be affixed to these Presents.

Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace the Fourteenth day of March 2018 in the Sixty-seventh year of Our Reign.

BY THE QUEEN HERSELF SIGNED WITH HER OWN HAND​

 

[Iluvbertie]

I just went back through the CC in 2011 and Philip did not attend any council meeting prior to the wedding.

I have only been reading the CC since 2002 but other than the day when both Camilla and William were appointed members of the PC I have no recollection of any member of the BRF actually attending other than The Queen.

Of the over 600 members usually there are 4 - 5 members actually present.

 

[Rudolph]

Thanks Tatiana Maria

 

[Lady Nimue]

What a fun discussion.

No it's not. We're comparing apples to oranges.

This is the OFFICIAL copy (the apple) which matches William and Kate's official copy.

It is NOT Harry's more elaborate and decorative copy (the orange) which will be his to keep and won't be released until days before his wedding.

If Harry and Meghan's orange doesn't match William and Kate's THEN we can debate this.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Osipi]

I just went back through the CC in 2011 and Philip did not attend any council meeting prior to the wedding.

I have only been reading the CC since 2002 but other than the day when both Camilla and William were appointed members of the PC I have no recollection of any member of the BRF actually attending other than The Queen.

Of the over 600 members usually there are 4 - 5 members actually present.

That shoots my theory right down the drain. Good thing about making mistakes though is that one gets the opportunity to learn from them.

Where else in the world can someone log on and explore the ins and outs of an enactment of the Royal Marriage Act even down to the specific wording and discover just what the Privy Council does.

I love this discussion.

 

[Rudolph]

Tatiana Maria’s post points out the difference. ‘My’ was used for both William and Harry in the declaration of consent and ‘Our’ was used for both William and Harry in the instrument of consent.

 

[Nico]

Uh oh so there is a difference?
Maybe because she's a divorcee ? Anyone seen the Instrument of Consent for Charles and Camilla ?

 

[Mbruno]

Tatiana Maria’s post points out the difference. ‘My’ was used for both William and Harry in the declaration of consent and ‘Our’ was used for both William and Harry in the instrument of consent.

The relevant difference though is that William’s instrument of consent included the words “ our trusty and well-beloved”, whereas Harry’s did not.

 

[Terri Terri]

Look...I don't see what the big deal is!! Meghan Markle has been treated like a member of the royal family since her engagement. And, she and Harry will have big roles in the upcoming CHOGM next month. No one can dispute that the Queen and the BRF have welcomed and supported Meghan.

But let's be honest, Harry and Meghan have known each other for less than 2 years. W&K knew each other for around a decade and dated for 7 years before becoming engaged...even living together for many years. IMO, Kate had a lot of time to prove how trustworthy she was....Meghan hasn't.

 

[Gawin]

Thanks Tatiana Maria

Now I understand what you meant.

The DECLARATION OF CONSENT (the apple) uses the same wording as William's.

But the INSTRUMENT OF CONSENT differs ("trusty and well-beloved" in Catherine's case but not Meghan's). This is the document that was made public shortly before William's wedding (the orange). But in Harry's case it was published with the DECLARATION OF CONSENT and follows it on the Privy Council website.

So we have both the apple and the orange and the oranges differ.

You were right, I was wrong. I apologize for my mistake. And my stupidity too.

 

[TLLK]

Gwain-Please do not be so hard on yourself. It isn't always easy keeping up with the Windsors.

 

[Rudolph]

Now I understand what you meant.

The DECLARATION OF CONSENT (the apple) uses the same wording as William's.

But the INSTRUMENT OF CONSENT differs ("trusty and well-beloved" in Catherine's case but not Meghan's). This is the document that was made public shortly before William's wedding (the orange). But in Harry's case it was published with the DECLARATION OF CONSENT and follows it on the Privy Council website.

So we have both the apple and the orange and the oranges differ.

You were right, I was wrong. I apologize for my mistake. And my stupidity too.

I’m wrong more often than not so We all learn from each other on here which makes it a great forum

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Out of curiosity, do you think the Queen personally writes these consents or is it a mere formality by the time the consent is actually given?

It's her grandsons wedding. I'm sure she reads and signs off on what she is signing.

I don't. As AlowVera points out the document matches the wording used in William and Catherine's.

The words "trusty and well-beloved" only appear in William and Catherine's own copy, issued on April 21, 2011, just eight days before their wedding.

If Henry and Meghan's copy - which presumably will be issued days before their wedding - doesn't include those words then AND ONLY THEN will we have reason to wonder.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...ed-grandson-William-and-trusty-Catherine.html

So if this is official and the document released today is identical to WnK's first document why are people still up in arms? Wait for the document released in May; though if it does contain the words people will just say it's fake sincerity because of the hoopla over this version.