By Gabriel Princewill
Meghan Markle’s claim to Oprah Winfrey to have tied the knot with Prince William three days before their official ceremony cannot be legitimately dismissed.
The claim has been erroneously attacked by the UK press on the grounds that in the U.K, a minimum of two witnesses are needed for a legal marriage to take place.
Meghan’s explosive interview with the veteran U.S television icon has been a magnet for both scrutiny and appraisal. Th interview was loaded with bombshells, some more poignant than others. It has inevitably been the subject of close examination by critics, exercising the right to fact check the claims made by The Duchess of Sussex.
This particular criticism examining her claim to have married Prince Harry three days earlier in a ceremony presided over by the Archbishop of Cantebury, is premised on a misapprehension -one that assumes marriage exists only in legal terms.
Mentor and business analyst and mentor, Hannah Rose, explained to The Eye Of Media.Com: ” The presumption that only marriages that are legal can be considered marriage to the parties involved is false. People see marriage differently, and what Meghan Markle might have been saying was that she wanted to have a quiet marriage privately with Prince Harry.
‘It is true that a legal requirement of marriage would include two witnesses, and the open possibility for people to object to the wedding. And that could have been something they did not want to take a chance about.
She continued:
In a world where we have ceremonial commitments and even common law marriage, it’s not a point of legitimate criticism to suggest that Meghan Markle’s claim to have married three days before her wedding was false or deceptive. The important thing is that marriage is historically a solemn vow between two people and God, the legal aspect is for open recognition and the associated benefits”
Common Law
In some U.S states, two individuals living together and behaving like married partners can have a common law marriage, including the District of Columbia still recognize common law marriages.
In such states, couples must fulfil their state’s common law marriage requirements to be eligible for most of the financial benefits
Only nine states and the District of Columbia recognize common law relationships, and each of those states have specific requirements that must be met to legitimize a common law marriage.
In addition to the couple being of mental age, they must have been living together, act and declare their married to the public.
The sheer existence of common law marriages
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle would not have been legally recognised as married had they not exchanged their vows in a public wedding, but if they they conducted a very private wedding which was blessed by a priest, their marriage would have started their for them.
Confused
Stephen Borton, former chief clerk at the Faculty Office, told the Sun, Meghan Markle was confused, He said: “I’m sorry, but Meghan is obviously confused and clearly misinformed. They did not marry three days earlier in front of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
“The Special Licence I helped draw up enabled them to marry at St George’s Chapel in Windsor and what happened there on 19 May 2018 and was seen by millions around the world was the official wedding as recognised by the Church of England and the law.
Simple Vows
“What I suspect they did was exchange some simple vows they had perhaps written themselves, and which is fashionable, and said that in front of the Archbishop.”
The issue of whether Meghan Markle’s the ceremony performed before the Achbishop of Canterbury three days before her wedding is a question of semantics. It really depends what she meant by that.