Trevor Engelson, who was married to Meghan Markle for two years, reportedly popped the question to nutritionist Tracey Kurland in California's Napa Valley on Friday
Royal weddings are so different these days...
There were actually several places that I wish the networks had a lip reader on staff. Now I no longer have to wonder!
Coverage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's wedding.
I liked this coverage quite a lot better than the CBS coverage I originally saw. There was a lot more focus on philanthropy and some British culture and less about the “movie stars”. There also weren’t as many flubs here, particularly on the fashion side, which BBC One covered much better and at least got right. Additionally, their post ceremony coverage was stronger having gotten a few wedding guests to comment on camera after the fact.
Interestingly no one from any outlet I’ve seen seemed to have bothered to have watched the TV show Suits to be able to comment on any of her co-stars at all. There was some camera coverage of many of them, but generally no mention of who they were or why they were there.
The coverage of the ceremony seemed exactly the same without any commentary, so I fast-forwarded through that portion of the coverage here.Syndicated copies to:
Prince Charles walked Meghan Markle down the aisle for the American actress to take vows of marriage with Prince Harry
I taped this last night and am watching all six hours (sans advertising) this afternoon.
CBS coverage was alright despite the fact that they seemed to be getting information either wrong or fixing it after the fact. It makes me wonder if the royal press office was releasing details contemporaneously? In particular they really botched the coverage of the designer of the dress.
I would have appreciated more details on the royals and the culture aspect rather than the heavy emphasis on American-based actors. I think I learned more in the Lifetime-esque movies I saw last weekend than I did in the huge amount of fill time CBS seemed to waste here. They did a vaguely decent job of situating the action at least. Another missing piece here was some reasonable chemistry among the primary team that seemed to be lacking in the reportage–they spent just a bit too much time speaking over each other than I would expect on this level of coverage.
I would have appreciated one or two different key images in the chyron as the same engagement image for 3 hours did seem a bit much.
I did love the fact that 2 billion people were able to see some merging of cultures that wouldn’t otherwise be seen in decades or centuries past. The fact that MLK was quoted in a British wedding was fantastic.Syndicated copies to:
A look at the history and rules of British Royal Weddings and which traditions have been updated for the ceremony of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
A relatively straight up effort for the Lifetime network. It was nice to have a general theme of rebel to highlight the narrative thread of the piece, though several points they kept making were about how they weren’t rebels at all. It would have been nice to have more Harry history here to balance out the excess of Meghan presented, particularly in relation to the several other shows that are almost equivalent to this one.Syndicated copies to:
Directed by Menhaj Huda. With Parisa Fitz-Henley, Laura Mitchell, Melanie Nicholls-King, Burgess Abernethy. The meeting and courtship of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
Dear God, what have I done. This was about as dreadful as I should have expected. The casting of the likenesses was dreadful, though the actress portraying Meghan had her personality and sound down relatively well. The Britishness was dreadful… Lifetime’s other offerings in advance of the royal wedding are much better than this.
Synopsis: Like I’ve said three times already: dreadful, dreadful, dreadful.Syndicated copies to: