The Royal Family faced numerous problems during Harry and Meghan’s wedding, and the use of names was just the tip of the iceberg.

The Archbishop’s decision to refer to them as Meghan and Harry instead of their full names raised concerns about legality, the validity of vows, and the Queen’s wishes.

However, the signing of the marriage certificate holds the legal weight, not the vows themselves.

In fact, Catherine also didn’t use her surname during her vows.

It is possible to include surnames, use formal names, or even opt for common names.

The vows signify readiness and commitment, while the certificate binds the couple legally.

The presence of the most senior cleric and head of the church ensured that no invalid ceremony would take place.

However, judging by the Queen’s expression during the ceremony and subsequent revelations, it seems that the royal family knew Harry was getting into trouble but were powerless to stop it.

Moreover, there are still many unknown details surrounding the event.

Frankly, their wedding was an odd and messy affair, lacking cohesion and a clear theme.

It felt impersonal, with only Doria, the bride’s mother, representing her family.

The absence of a blue carpet, despite the Queen’s advice, further added to the disjointed atmosphere.

What could have been a beautiful fusion of cultures felt haphazardly thrown together.

The preparations for the guests were uncomfortable and lacked proper organization.

It resembled a low-quality street circus, with decisions made seemingly without reason or rhyme.

Harry himself appeared disheveled and under the influence, leading to speculations of drug use.

This event served as an opportunity for Harry and Meghan to establish their brand, but it seemed they prioritized fame over tradition and coherence.

If the story is true, it suggests that Elizabeth merely assumed they would follow her request to use their full names, rather than explicitly instructing them.

The Archbishop, as the top clergyman, would not have agreed to anything illegal.

Meghan, too, would not have risked the validity of her marriage.

It is perplexing why people object to the use of Meghan and Harry instead of Rachel and Henry.

After all, their parents started using these nicknames, and it is common for people to use such informal names.

For instance, my grandmother disliked her first name and exclusively went by her middle name.

We only realized she was near death when a nurse used her legal name, to which she didn’t respond.

Therefore, criticizing this choice seems unwarranted.

Marriage is a sacred ceremony, and using formal names is expected, not a casual affair.

The decision to use nicknames showcased their mindset, which some found cringe-worthy.

However, it is understandable that no one anticipated them disregarding formalities, so there was no need to explicitly instruct the Archbishop on protocols.

This likely contributed to the Queen’s glare, Charles’s head bobbing, and the Archbishop simply going along with what the bride wanted, thinking he was part of a modern and approachable service.

Personally, I found it uncomfortable to witness the use of nicknames, and it was not the last time the Archbishop Markled.

In conclusion, the royal wedding of Harry and Meghan was marred by legal and protocol issues.

The use of nicknames instead of formal names raised questions about the legality of the ceremony and the Queen’s wishes.

The overall lack of cohesion and organization further added to the confusion.

Despite these challenges, the Archbishop ensured the ceremony was valid, but it was clear that the royal family had reservations about the union.

The couple’s disregard for tradition and the use of nicknames showcased their desire for fame and individuality.