Is Prince Harry going to invite Sarah Ferguson to ‘part’ of his May wedding?

Endeavour Fund Awards - Arrivals

It’s always been widely reported/believed that Prince Harry is quite close to his York princess cousins, Beatrice and Eugenie. He’s closer in age to the York ladies, and they seem to have the same or overlapping circles of friends. The York princesses even set him up with Cressida Bonas back in the day. This is just an FYI for anyone trying to make “Eugenie and Harry are having battling wedding drama!” stories happen – there is no drama between them. Harry is very fond of his cousins. He’s also one of the few people in the Windsor family in any kind of regular contact with Sarah Ferguson (besides the Yorks, I mean). Prince Philip can’t stand Fergie and I suspect that Charles despises her as well. So that’s the drama: will Fergie be invited to Harry’s wedding? Do you invite your uncle’s much-loathed ex-wife just because you’re fond of your cousins? At first, the Daily Mail’s Girl About Town said no way Jose:

Kensington Palace is ready to send out invitations to Prince Harry’s wedding on May 19 any day now, but one person who won’t find a coveted envelope on her doormat is the Duchess of York. She wasn’t expected to be asked – she didn’t go to Prince William’s wedding – but ever-optimistic Sarah, right, was quietly hoping to be there, not least to experience a dry run of sorts ahead of daughter Eugenie’s wedding, also at St George’s Chapel, Windsor, in October.

Fergie went skiing with Harry and Cressida Bonas in 2013, and the Prince is close to Eugenie whom he considers to be a party-pal and kindred spirit, but not close enough apparently to swing her mum an invitation. Guests will be asked not to buy Harry and Meghan presents, but to donate to a charitable fund instead. William’s wedding fund raised £1 million for 26 charities in 2011.

[From The Daily Mail]

A day later, and the Daily Mail changed course for some reason, reporting this:

Sarah Ferguson will be invited to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding in a bid to heal the family rift over her divorce. It was previously believed that the Duchess of York would not be attending the big event at Windsor Castle on May 19.

However, Fergie, 58, is attending Prince Harry’s wedding in a bid to heal broken ties caused by her divorce to Prince Andrew. Kensington Palace is ready to send out invitations to the wedding this week and royal sources have told MailOnline she will be invited to at least ‘part of the day’.

It is not yet clear whether this will be to the ceremony itself, or just to the reception afterwards. But Harry is keen to ensure that Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie’s mother is there in some way on the day.

[From The Daily Mail]

Prince Harry: Royal Healer. Royal Compromiser. Or maybe he’s just sick of people in his family being so divided up, who knows? If Fergie is invited to any part of the wedding, the conversation then becomes “what will Philip do?” Will he just ignore her? He reportedly can’t stand the sight of her and hates to be at the same events as Fergie, so if Harry does invite her, it will become a bigger mess. Watch this space.

Brilliant is Beautiful Gala

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

49 Responses to “Is Prince Harry going to invite Sarah Ferguson to ‘part’ of his May wedding?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. homeslice says:

    Oh yes, Philip, the paragon of virtue! We should all care what he thinks lol!!
    Go Harry!

    • Maria says:

      Why does Phillip keep on attending church every week and hang on to a grudge for so long? Let it go Phillip!

  2. Ally says:

    Sorry to keep being such a dork about this, but every time I hear one of these tidbits, all I think about is how it’s going to be worked into the next season of The Windsors sitcom. “Girls!”, lol.

    • Becks says:

      I’ve just started watching this and love it. And yes, I would love to see what they would do with Fergie at Harry’s wedding lol.

      also, because of that show, I can’t take Harry seriously anymore hahaha.

    • AdaRose says:

      That show is ridiculous and I love it. The actress that plays Fergie is great.

    • Veronica says:

      I ADORE that show!! I wonder if the RF watches it and laughs?? ?It is just hilarious!!
      And really, Philip is an old racist jerk, so he should just shut up about Fergie. Fergie has done silly things, but I always liked her, and thought she had a big heart. But she was the Spare’s wife, so she went from “breath of fresh air” and “England’s sweetheart” to “Enemy of the People.”
      I hope Harry and Meghan invited her!

    • BCity says:

      YES!!!!! My first thought too 😂😂😂😂

  3. caldwell, Christine says:

    God I hope not….that woman is vile. I bet she still hasn’t followed up with her estate project from a few years back. A good indicator of a person’s character is how they treat service personnel. A young Sarah Ferguson sat her big ass at Highgrove informing Diana’s staff to iron everything in her suitcase for a short visit. In other words not needed.

  4. Olive says:

    DM keeps calling fergie “his [harry's] aunt” like the divorce with andrew never happened. this story sounds straight out of fergie’s mouth.

    • Erinn says:

      I never know how it works in situations like that. She’s the mother of his cousins. She was his aunt when he was born. It just seems weird to suddenly not be considered his aunt in any aspect.

      I’d hate to think my niece would suddenly stop being my niece if I divorced her uncle. We were married before she was born, she’s been my niece since she made her entrance into the world. It’s not like she was a teen when we married or anything. So I would hope in that scenario (which hopefully never comes up) she’d still consider me her aunt.

    • homeslice says:

      We have a similar situation with divorce and my kids still use “Aunt”. It’s not strange at all…

      • Olive says:

        @homeslice differs from family to family i guess. divorce in my family severs those ties.

      • paddingtonjr says:

        I think it depends on the family and the relationship. If Harry is close with Fergie, then it wouldn’t be strange for him to invite her. I think it should be H&M’s choice on who to invite. PP will just need to do what guests at family weddings have been doing for years: put aside whatever grudge there is there, slap on a smile and be happy for the couple.

    • Tessy says:

      I have aunts who are divorced from my blood related uncles and i still love them and include them as part of the family.

      I can see that dastardly old Phil heading off to bed early, maybe they’ll sneak fergie in after he goes. Apparently she’s living with Andrew again anyway. What a bunch. I think the portrayal of Andy and Fergie is pretty accurate on The Windsors…

    • Princessk says:

      Well, I have said all along that I believe Fergie will be at H&M wedding. Harry is close to Beatrice and Eugenie, as well as Fergie so why would he not want them there.

  5. Clare says:

    I Hope he DOES invite Fergie. If only because racist Phil will hate it.

    • Milla says:

      And cos he seems to have great relationship with her daughters.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      What does Fergie being there to punish “racist Phil”? Is she now a POC?

      • formerly known as Amy says:

        Can anyone direct me to 96 yr old aristocrats that are not racist. I mean the British government led by the queen colonized and murdered a lot of African countries. They are all racist including HM. I find this characterization of Phillip annoying.

      • Tina says:

        Well, no. The present Queen became Queen during decolonisation, and her only significant political act has been to oppose Thatcher’s apartheid appeasement. I’m sure the Queen is not exactly woke, but she’s not bad for a 91-year old who’s lived her entire life in absurd privilege.

      • merrit says:

        @Tina that’s exactly when all the genocide and abuse of Africans happened. “Decolonisation” was pretty brutal. There people who still haven’t found the bodies that were put in mass graves by the british.

      • formerly known as Amy says:

        Oh yes and HM the queen must have been aware of what was happening in her name in those African countries. Look I enjoy the Royals as much as the next person but Phillip isn’t the only Racist among them.

      • Tina says:

        @merrit, I’m not going to claim that the UK’s actions in the 1950s were good – far from it. The partition of India, the Mau Mau, etc. Those were all abhorrent. But to me there is a difference between people in a country murdering each other in large part because of colonialism (the partition of India etc) and the colonialists themselves murdering people, as happened with the Nazis, Leopold in the Congo and the Germans in Namibia. The UK has absolutely committed genocide (in the Irish famine and certainly in the colonial period) but not in decolonisation.

        The point is that Philip is about as racist as any 96 year old (how many former WWII soldiers use the “J” word? I’d guess pretty much all of them) and the Queen is quite a lot better.

      • merrit says:

        @Tina “difference between people in a country murdering each other in large part because of colonialism”…….???
        There are Africans who are suing the British government because people still haven’t found family members that were arrested during “decolonisation” as you call it. Yes the British had mass massacres and mass graves like the Nazi’s and it just happened to POC therefore you get to rewrite history.

      • Tina says:

        @merrit, what I mean is that in the partition of India, the crimes were committed by Hindus against Muslims and vice versa, not the British committing genocide. In the Mau Mau uprising/rebellion reputable historians estimate that around 20,000 people were killed by the British, and I absolutely accept that there were concentration camps where there were appalling human rights abuses. But the British did not commit genocide in the post WWII period, at least as the definition of genocide is commonly accepted by historians. It wasn’t like the Nazis.

      • Tan says:

        Tina: Whatever you are saying about Partition of India is not correct

        Hindus and Muslims were not just killing each other. The colonial Govt was actively provoking and festering the active act of violence of one group. There were lot of mass killings by the British Police. Just because there was no Gas Chamber does not mean it was any worse.

        Also another act of actively forcing violence: Partition of India. Do you know how that dumbass Mcmohan drew the line? Through ones Bedroom, dividing ones house and garden in two countries. Without absolute research or knowledge.

        British have done absolute Horror and the British Queen still proudly wears and shows around the Kohinoor

        Stop trivializing the pains of Indians because they do not fit your narrative of suffering.

        Rant over

        On Topic: Good for him to invite Fergie.

    • merrit says:

      “British did not commit genocide in the post WWII period, at least as the definition of genocide is commonly accepted by historians. It wasn’t like the Nazis.”
      Commonly accepted by British/Western historians. That’s my point exactly.
      Where did you get that 20,000 number from anyway? That seems sketchy

      • Tina says:

        The 20,000 figure comes from David Anderson, 2005, Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire (Weidenfeld & Nicholson). I’m sure you’ll say it’s biased, but it’s what we have at the moment. All I’m saying is that you can’t equate what the British did in the post-colonial period to what the Nazis did. It is not acknowledged as genocide by any academic source of which I am aware.

      • Tina says:

        David Anderson’s 2005 book.

  6. Morning Coffee says:

    Phillip needs to just shut up and realize it isn’t about him. Obviously, he’s going to have to see her at his granddaughter’s wedding, so he may as well figure out how to deal with it.

  7. CynicalAnn says:

    Yes-she’ll be there. It will be good preparation for Philip for Eugenie’s wedding.

  8. Hh says:

    While the British media is too harsh on the York Princesses, I think they’re spot on with Fergie. She’s made one mistake too many. Many royals and public figures prize discretion above all else. This is not Fergie’s forte. Even when Eugenie announced her engagement, Fergie couldn’t stop posting on social media.

    ETA: I’m not saying that the other BRF members don’t have their faults, but if my chief concern is privacy… then yeah, she’s off the list.

  9. Feebee says:

    I’m sure Fergie understands the position Harry is in. If anyone can sit the Queen down and say, look Nana, here’s the thing….. it’s Harry. I see her attending at least the Reception. Prince Philip isn’t going to be up for much more than the ceremony – just in my opinion of course. There’s no reason their paths need to cross. Prince Charles may still have a bug up his butt about her but if Harry puts his foot down, I can’t see Charles wanting to make it a thing.

    Of course this is predicated on everyone acting like adults with common sense. Good luck Harry.

  10. Va Va Kaboom says:

    Consider how stressful it will be for the Yorks if Eugenie’s wedding is the first one Fergie attends. It may be messy now, but her role is limited to “guest” at Harry’s wedding as opposed to “Mother of the Bride”. This will be a good trial run because any kinks won’t ruin Harry’s wedding like it would Eugenie’s. If Harry is half as close to his cousins as people say I think he’s doing it for Eugenie and Beatrice’s sake.

  11. Talie says:

    Under most normal circumstances…she wouldn’t be invited, even in the most common of families. So it’s not anything special.

  12. Valiantly Varnished says:

    So what will Phillip do when Eugenie’s wedding comes around and her MOTHER, Sarah is there?? He will show up and do his duty as her grandfather. So he can do the same for Harry’s wedding. It will be nice practice for him.

  13. Lorelai says:

    I can’t stand Fergie, but it’s ridiculous if this is really all about Philip. He could easily just avoid her — he needs to deal with it. FFS

  14. NLopez says:

    Werent Fergie and Diana good friends at some point? I say invite her. Life’s too short to hold some grudges.

  15. Astrid says:

    Let’s not forget Cash for Access where she took bribes for access to her ex. Why would she be lovingly invited to family events? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah,_Duchess_of_York#Cash_for_access

  16. Burdzeyeview says:

    I assume shel be invited to th reception not th ceremony which will suit her as shel be able to hav a laff and a drink with harry …old Phil will hav trundled off to bed by then. Hope she doesn’t embarrass Harry by getting too pissed! Lol

    • Pandy says:

      i thought the opposite – get to sit in the church, but not welcome to the reception. We shall see!

  17. TheOtherSam says:

    For heaven’s sake, he can invite her if he wants. She’s not part of the family anymore, he can invite her as his friend – which is what she is, his former aunt and current friend. She’s been good to him and let him stay at her ski chalet several times.

    She’ll sit in the grooms friends section at St George’s, where I’m sure she’ll know plenty of people. What’s the fuss? Philip has no say in the matter and won’t need to bump into her. It’s as if people expect her to be seated up front with her ex and kids.