Prince Harry and William's feud may put awkward edge on coming royal wedding
Prince Harry and William have been growing apart for years, particularly since Meghan Markle and Harry stepped down from their royal duties and moved to the US. But the brothers may come face-to-face soon, as a royal wedding is seemingly on the cards.
Princess Anne's son Peter Phillips revealed that he is now engaged to girlfriend Harriet Sperling after a year of dating, with his fiancé being spotted at several high profile events, including Royal Ascot. Peter's uncle King Charles is said to have been delighted with the news, as was his close cousin Prince William.
While a 'save the date' is yet to be announced, many have wondered who might bag an invite- especially as Peter is thought to be close to both William and Harry. And former BBC royal correspondent Jennie Bond explains that the guest list situation could prove awkward.
She explained to the Mirror: "It seems that Harriet is already a hit in the Royal family. It was quite an accolade for her to be invited to join the carriage possession at Royal Ascot, and she was seen chatting animatedly with the King.
"Given that both she and Peter are divorced, I suspect their wedding may be a fairly low-key civil ceremony. But Peter is very popular in the family and so the reception could well be at Windsor Castle or another royal residence.
"As with all weddings, there will be a conundrum about who to invite. Peter was always very close to both William and Harry. During the difficult times he has been something of a buffer, for example, walking between them at the funeral of their grandfather, Prince Philip.
"However, it's going to be awkward for him to invite them both to his wedding. On the other hand, both William and Harry attended the funeral of their uncle, Lord Fellowes, and even though they were in the same church and then the same room it seems they did not speak. So, anything is possible.
"All things considered, it might be better for Peter and Harriet to have a quiet wedding with just a few friends and family present."
Peter, 47, was previously married to Autumn Kelly, with whom he has two daughters Isla and Savannah. He also dated long-term partner Lindsay Wallace before they split last year and he later found love with Harriet, an NHS nurse.
In April 2024, it was revealed that Peter had split with previous girlfriend Lindsay, who were said to have amicably separated with work commitments getting in the way of their relationship.
Peter married his first wife Autumn back in May 2008 in a grand ceremony at St George's Chapel in Windsor, with guests including the late Queen and Prince Philip as well as his cousin Prince Harry.
Although Prince William was unable to make it, the Princess of Wales was invited, despite being unmarried at the time - and it is believed the wedding marked the first time she met the late Queen.
The couple spent time living in Hong Kong through Peter's previous job with the Royal Bank of Scotland and eventually settled back in the UK with their two daughters Savannah, 14, the late Queen's oldest great-grandchild and Isla, 13.
However, towards the end of 2019, the couple separated and revealed they had taken the difficult step in an emotional statement in 2020.
When they married in 2008, the couple raised eyebrows when the pictures from the wedding were sold to a magazine for a large sum.
And Jennie added: "I imagine Peter has learnt his lesson from his first wedding, when he sold the picture rights to a magazine for £500,000. It did not go down well with the Queen or the palace, who said it had been 'a serious error of judgement'."
Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today.
You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland.
No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team.
All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in!
If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'.
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like.
To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
5 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Destination X reveals savage ‘sabotage' twist as player handed game-changing advantage ahead of brutal cliffhanger
DESTINATION X unveiled a brutal 'sabotage' twist - with one player receiving a huge advantage amid a savage cliffhanger. The BBC programme sees a group of strangers try to figure out where they are in Europe through a series of clues in a bid to win £100,000. 5 Viewers have been gripped by new competition series Destination X Credit: BBC 5 Host Rob Brydon revealed a game-changing twist to one player Credit: BBC 5 Josh received massive power within the competitive game Credit: BBC Contestants will try any tactic to win and the latest episode saw one given a massive advantage. The players balance champagne glasses on a tray - while answering tough questions about their opponents. Josh, a 26-year-old pilot, emerged as the victor and soon learned of a huge twist. Host Rob Brydon privately informed Josh that he would have the power to sabotage a rival. Elimination occurs when the line-up place their 'X' markers based on where they believe themselves to be. Josh received the ability to move someone's 'X' by 250km, which could effectively ensure their exit. Reacting to the game-changing news, he said: "I feel like I've got a lot of influence on the game, which I like having." Josh also didn't have to take part in the next challenge - but got to see a big clue alongside the winners. Elsewhere, he identified fellow players Nick, Judith and Claire as potential targets for sabotage. Although Josh seemingly planned to choose Nick, viewers will have to learn the outcome. Destination X viewers slam show for being 'too easy' after they guess location - as contestant makes huge clue blunder This episode ended on a tense cliffhanger - with Rob having dropped a huge bombshell. Namely, that the bottom two players' X markers were only 600 metres apart. One viewer wrote online: "The sabotage is not fair." Another remarked: "Sorry but why did Josh get to win a ridiculously overpowered advantage AND get the winning clue just from the standard side game??" Whether Nick - who was identified by the others as the biggest threat - has his exit sealed or survives to play on remains to be seen. Viewers will also have to wait to discover where exactly the latest Destination X is. Players and fans alike seem to agree it's Italy, but are divided on the precise spot. One person wrote on X: "They're defo on the south of Italy near Sicily." Another penned: "Changed me mind, Italy, Venice?" A third chimed in: "Donatella Versace. That drink looks like a Campari Spritz. Milan?" Destination X continues on BBC One and iPlayer. 5 Josh had a big decision to make Credit: BBC
The Sun
5 hours ago
- The Sun
Destination X reveals savage ‘sabotage' twist as player handed game-changing advantage ahead of brutal cliffhanger
DESTINATION X unveiled a brutal 'sabotage' twist - with one player receiving a huge advantage amid a savage cliffhanger. The BBC programme sees a group of strangers try to figure out where they are in Europe through a series of clues in a bid to win £100,000. 5 5 5 Contestants will try any tactic to win and the latest episode saw one given a massive advantage. The players balance champagne glasses on a tray - while answering tough questions about their opponents. Josh, a 26-year-old pilot, emerged as the victor and soon learned of a huge twist. Host Rob Brydon privately informed Josh that he would have the power to sabotage a rival. Elimination occurs when the line-up place their 'X' markers based on where they believe themselves to be. Josh received the ability to move someone's 'X' by 250km, which could effectively ensure their exit. Reacting to the game-changing news, he said: "I feel like I've got a lot of influence on the game, which I like having." Josh also didn't have to take part in the next challenge - but got to see a big clue alongside the winners. Elsewhere, he identified fellow players Nick, Judith and Claire as potential targets for sabotage. Although Josh seemingly planned to choose Nick, viewers will have to learn the outcome. Destination X viewers slam show for being 'too easy' after they guess location - as contestant makes huge clue blunder This episode ended on a tense cliffhanger - with Rob having dropped a huge bombshell. Namely, that the bottom two players' X markers were only 600 metres apart. One viewer wrote online: "The sabotage is not fair." Another remarked: "Sorry but why did Josh get to win a ridiculously overpowered advantage AND get the winning clue just from the standard side game??" Whether Nick - who was identified by the others as the biggest threat - has his exit sealed or survives to play on remains to be seen. Viewers will also have to wait to discover where exactly the latest Destination X is. Players and fans alike seem to agree it's Italy, but are divided on the precise spot. One person wrote on X: "They're defo on the south of Italy near Sicily." A third chimed in: "Donatella Versace. That drink looks like a Campari Spritz. Milan?" Destination X continues on BBC One and iPlayer. 5 5
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Woody Allen without the zingers: Materialists reviewed
Celine Song's first film, the wonderful Past Lives (2023), earned two Oscar nominations. So expectations were riding high for Materialists. Perhaps way too high. And, yes, it's a letdown. It feels like an early Woody Allen but blunter, shallower, with no zingers, and a lead character that's hard to care about. Dakota Johnson is our lead, playing a matchmaker who has two dreamboats (Chris Evans, Pedro Pascal) vying for her hand and throughout I was thinking: I should have your problems, love. It's billed as a romcom but those who expect that will be disappointed. It's more an essay on modern dating. Johnson, whom we have forgiven for her horrible performance in that horrible adaptation of Persuasion – we don't hold grudges – is Lucy. She works for a swanky Manhattan dating agency called Adore (ugh) that deals exclusively with the rich elite. She sees marriage as a business transaction in which people are buyers or sellers. The montage of clients' demands and feedback from first dates – too fat, too short, too old, too balding, 'I would never swipe right on that' etc. – is fun but only one client gets any real attention. This is Sophie, a 39-year-old lawyer who fears dying alone. She is played by Zoë Winters who steals the film from under everybody despite it being a minor role. Lucy attends the wedding of one of her clients and here she meets Harry (Pascal, gliding into view in a way that put me in mind of Omar Sharif). He's a 'unicorn' – hot, rich, tall, full head of hair – but, what do you know? At the same event, serving as a 'cater waiter', is John (Chris Evans). He's her ex, an out of work actor who – a flashback informs us – she left because they were always broke. He still wants her but Harry also now wants her. I wondered why, as she comes across as neither interesting nor especially bright. Midway through there's an act of violence and she is forced to reflect on the nature of her work and you think, you've never reflected on that before? Wake up and smell the coffee, lady! As an exploration of the tension between love and money the film is surprisingly unsubtle from the word go. The opening scene involves a prehistoric cave couple – I thought I was in the wrong screen! – which even sets out the film's stall when it comes to marriage, albeit in a laughably clumsy way. Lucy, meanwhile, has the following dilemma on her hands. Should she be seduced by Harry's $12 million penthouse or return to broke John? (Harry! He has silk sheets!) This leads her to question whether we might be worth more than our 'tangible assets' but is that taking us anywhere new? What is new, I suppose, is how far people will go to 'add value' to themselves these days but that involves a surgical subplot that I can't go into as it would take us into spoiler territory. The characters feel like cinema characters rather than character characters. They have no friends, no family, no interests beyond the dating scene. The film is talky, with some sharp dialogue, but no fresh insights. A good actor has something going on behind the eyes that the audience wants to know about and I'm not sure I ever get that with Johnson. Evans and Pascal bring A-list pizazz but no chemistry is ever ignited. I only ever felt for Sophie whom the film abandons just as she's always been abandoned. Poor Sophie. And why does Lucy have to choose? Why not neither? Is this saying marriage is the pinnacle of a woman's achievement? It's lushly photographed and beautifully framed and it's not a nightmare to sit through but whereas Past Lives stayed with you, I can feel this leaving me already.
