Future York Weddings

[Iluvbertie]

Even if British media won't make a spectacle of it, Americans will. Every American knows Fergie, Duchess of Pork as she was called. Love her or hate her, she is quite the spectacle. Americans love their reality shows like Real Housewives of New York city. I can see ET doing royal wedding coverage for it as well.

The Americans can cover it but if there is nothing to see - why bother? If the only thing for them to show is a glimpse of the bride entereing the venue and another of them leaving before getting in cars - who would watch that?

And again there is the whole princess bride. Which ever one marries first will be the first British princess to marry since Anne. For better or worse, even if the media just wants to tear them to shreds, there will be interest.

Maybe there will be interest but do they want that sort of interest? They must be hurt by the continuing negative press so why take the chance that their wedding day will be spoilt by negative press about their dress, choice of attendants etc?

And I could see Andrew allowing coverage in the church.Both he and Sarah have no problem with publicity like that.

It wouldn't be up to Andrew but to the monarch of the day if Westminster or St Georges or the presiding minister if elsewhere and not all of them would like to have a media circus.

And cousins to the monarch? We're not talking James Wessex. You really think the York girls will be in their forties when they marry? I guess there is a chance, but not likely. The queen could reign for another 10-15 years if she lives as long as her mother. If she did say for 10, Charles would be 73, considering his dad is now in his nineties, and his mother would be too when she died, he could reign for 20 years too. Princess Beatrice is 23. That would make her in her thirties when Elizabeth will likely died, and forties or fifties possibly when Charles dies. There is a good chance she'll still be grandaughter of a monarch, but not cousin. Unless tragedy strikes twice over.

I am aware of the ages and possible longevity of the Queen and Charles (and personally hope that he lives at least as long as his grandmother - giving him another 39 years) but most of us are also aware that his mother is aging and older people can deteriorate very quickly (as I have just experienced with a friend of mine whose mother was hale and hearty a year ago and did a trip solo around Europe but developed a bad cold at Christmas time and we will be attending her funeral on Monday - from perfect bill of health 12 months ago - except for being 84 - to her funeral in a year). Charles' grandfather's both died at younger ages than he is now - and yes I am also aware that they both abused their bodies throughout their lives with smoke and alcohol but others have pointed out that Charles has had a stressful life with the failure of the fairytale and the animosity spewed at him by many people in the press (and sadly even on boards like this one). It is feasible that in 10 years time William could be King (but I hope not) and Beatrice could be seeking his approval to marry.

I think the best indication will be what Beatrice starts doing on leaving uni later this year. Will she be trying a get a job? Will she be taking on royal duties? Will she continue to be seen as a 'waste of space' for doing nothing concrete? These factors will contribute to what sort of wedding she has.

If she and Dave were to announce their engagement this year to marry next year they might have a larger wedding compared to if they wait another 5 years with Kate producing 2 or 3 children to move Beatrice from her current 5th position to 8th. She may not marry for another 10 years by which time Harry might be married with a couple of his own kids moving her down to about 10th.

Being a princess isn't what it used to be - and Charles and others have already indicated that they would like to remove that title from them (although to be fair that would also mean Harry's kids never getting HRH either). From reading the press most Brits couldn't care less about princesses born.

 

[muriel]

The Americans can cover it but if there is nothing to see - why bother? If the only thing for them to show is a glimpse of the bride entereing the venue and another of them leaving before getting in cars - who would watch that?



Maybe there will be interest but do they want that sort of interest? They must be hurt by the continuing negative press so why take the chance that their wedding day will be spoilt by negative press about their dress, choice of attendants etc?



It wouldn't be up to Andrew but to the monarch of the day if Westminster or St Georges or the presiding minister if elsewhere and not all of them would like to have a media circus.



I am aware of the ages and possible longevity of the Queen and Charles (and personally hope that he lives at least as long as his grandmother - giving him another 39 years) but most of us are also aware that his mother is aging and older people can deteriorate very quickly (as I have just experienced with a friend of mine whose mother was hale and hearty a year ago and did a trip solo around Europe but developed a bad cold at Christmas time and we will be attending her funeral on Monday - from perfect bill of health 12 months ago - except for being 84 - to her funeral in a year). Charles' grandfather's both died at younger ages than he is now - and yes I am also aware that they both abused their bodies throughout their lives with smoke and alcohol but others have pointed out that Charles has had a stressful life with the failure of the fairytale and the animosity spewed at him by many people in the press (and sadly even on boards like this one). It is feasible that in 10 years time William could be King (but I hope not) and Beatrice could be seeking his approval to marry.

I think the best indication will be what Beatrice starts doing on leaving uni later this year. Will she be trying a get a job? Will she be taking on royal duties? Will she continue to be seen as a 'waste of space' for doing nothing concrete? These factors will contribute to what sort of wedding she has.

If she and Dave were to announce their engagement this year to marry next year they might have a larger wedding compared to if they wait another 5 years with Kate producing 2 or 3 children to move Beatrice from her current 5th position to 8th. She may not marry for another 10 years by which time Harry might be married with a couple of his own kids moving her down to about 10th.

Being a princess isn't what it used to be - and Charles and others have already indicated that they would like to remove that title from them (although to be fair that would also mean Harry's kids never getting HRH either). From reading the press most Brits couldn't care less about princesses born.

Fully agree with you.

What the York girls do after they leave university will set the store for how they are viewed by the British people. I have maintained for some time that, depsote being grand children of the monarch, they are not crucial to the future of the monarchy in Britain, and hence, should lead lives independent of the firm. They would do well to have relatively low key weddings at St George's (which is quite grand in itself) or at St J

 

[Bella]

I don't think Andrew is hated. His choice of friendships may be questioned, but there are those who believe he's proven a loyal friend to someone who has paid his dues to society. And Sarah is definitely a spectacle, and I say that in the best of ways, really. I agree with the person who posted that people tune in to Sarah like they do a bad reality show, just to see what's happening.

That being said (I know this is a York weddings thread), who's to say that by the time the York girls marry, and I believe it will be at least 5 years - if Pss B remains with her current bf, that the whole attitude towards the Yorks, even Sarah, might not be changed? There could be alot of changes in the BRF in 5 years. The York girls could have taken on more royal duties by then. The royal cousins (the Kents, Gloucesters, Pss Alexandra) are getting to the point of retirement. Even HM's children are middle-aged - P Edward and Sophie will be 50 in 5 years - so I think there will be plenty of areas where Pss B & E could represent the family. And I think there would be alot of interest in their weddings, even at WA.

 

[jemagre]

Fully agree with you.

What the York girls do after they leave university will set the store for how they are viewed by the British people. I have maintained for some time that, depsote being grand children of the monarch, they are not crucial to the future of the monarchy in Britain, and hence, should lead lives independent of the firm. They would do well to have relatively low key weddings at St George's (which is quite grand in itself) or at St J

I think you make a good point about how one's place in-line to the throne determines what kind of wedding they will have. Given their position I can't i would be surprised if they were given permission for a large wedding especially if they lost their titles. They already lost their security so we know fickle the public can be.

Thanks Stefan for the info on the last st. James wedding.

 

[Osipi]

I think you make a good point about how one's place in-line to the throne determines what kind of wedding they will have. Given their position I can't i would be surprised if they were given permission for a large wedding especially if they lost their titles. They already lost their security so we know fickle the public can be.

With all the publicity both Beatrice and Eugenie have dealt with over their lives whether it be their own or their parents, I wouldn't be surprised if one or either of them just eloped. Perhaps Gretna Green?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think you make a good point about how one's place in-line to the throne determines what kind of wedding they will have. Given their position I can't i would be surprised if they were given permission for a large wedding especially if they lost their titles. They already lost their security so we know fickle the public can be.

Thanks Stefan for the info on the last st. James wedding.

When did they lose their security? Obviously in the last week or so as Beatrice was seen with her security at her recent visit to The Box nightclub. There have been calls for them to lose it but so far I don't think they have.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think you make a good point about how one's place in-line to the throne determines what kind of wedding they will have. Given their position I can't i would be surprised if they were given permission for a large wedding especially if they lost their titles. They already lost their security so we know fickle the public can be.

With all the publicity both Beatrice and Eugenie have dealt with over their lives whether it be their own or their parents, I wouldn't be surprised if one or either of them just eloped. Perhaps Gretna Green?

Unless they had the monarch's permission, regardless of where it takes place, it isn't a legal marriage and their children would have no rights - which is why I don't think an elopement is on the cards.

However, with Eugenie in particular, I could see her simply having an announcement in the press on the day that the Privy Council is notified that the monarch has formally given their consent and then next thing we hear is that she is married.

 

[muriel]

When did they lose their security? Obviously in the last week or so as Beatrice was seen with her security at her recent visit to The Box nightclub. There have been calls for them to lose it but so far I don't think they have.

If I am not mistaken, security for the York girls has been reduced, though not totally rmeoved. They do not always have securit, though I am not sure how it might be determined when they dio and do not have security. In fact the officer that has now been assigned to Catherine used to accompany Beatrice previously.

 

[sliver_bic]

Unless they had the monarch's permission, regardless of where it takes place, it isn't a legal marriage and their children would have no rights - which is why I don't think an elopement is on the cards.

The rule kept the "wrong type" out of the family but that becomes more difficult in this day and age. Considering how this affected the Queen's sister you wonder if she'd have the heart to deny her granddaughter a marriage because of a certain background, nothing criminal but maybe a "proper" commoner like Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland.

However, with Eugenie in particular, I could see her simply having an announcement in the press on the day that the Privy Council is notified that the monarch has formally given their consent and then next thing we hear is that she is married.

I think it'll be a little bigger than this, especially if she's performing duties but yeah it'll be the smaller wedding compared to her sister and far small than her cousins.

Being a princess isn't what it used to be - and Charles and others have already indicated that they would like to remove that title from them (although to be fair that would also mean Harry's kids never getting HRH either). From reading the press most Brits couldn't care less about princesses born.

They'll probably save it for the next generation to save the hassle and press that would come from it. Or maybe take into account whether or not they want to perform duties, if they want a normal life maybe that's the easy way out of the title.

 

[jemagre]

If I am not mistaken, security for the York girls has been reduced, though not totally rmeoved. They do not always have securit, though I am not sure how it might be determined when they dio and do not have security. In fact the officer that has now been assigned to Catherine used to accompany Beatrice previously.

My apologies. I know that something happened to their security I thought it had been removed I guess not.

Eloping might be a good idea for the bride and groom but not for the Queen. My vote goes to a low-key city hall wedding before that happens. Hey C & C did it. I actually thought it was a good idea for the family and that thought had nothing to do with their scandals. Think of all the money that could be saved! The public would love that.

I know this isn't quite the thread for this, but since it has kind-of become the junior royals wedding thread...I wonder how the public would react to Harry losing his HRH. If voluntarily gave it up then it would be a different story but being the son of Diana and his proximity to the throne most people might give it to him but not his children. Beatrice and Eugenie don't have that popularity and while that shoudn't determine titles it does have some impact on events. I mean can you imagine the public reaction if Charles says one son gets it (because he is the heir deserves it) but the other doesn't. The media would have a field day with Charles playing "favorites." Just a thought.

 

[Mirabel]

I don't think that anyone who currently holds the HRH will lose it.
I think it's more a question of who will get the title in future, and we probably won't know that until Charles becomes king.

 

[muriel]

I don't think that anyone who currently holds the HRH will lose it.
I think it's more a question of who will get the title in future, and we probably won't know that until Charles becomes king.

You are right, existing HRHs are unlikely to loose their titles. Some of them are just unlikely to carry out many public engagements in the future.

 

[muriel]

I know this isn't quite the thread for this, but since it has kind-of become the junior royals wedding thread...I wonder how the public would react to Harry losing his HRH. If voluntarily gave it up then it would be a different story but being the son of Diana and his proximity to the throne most people might give it to him but not his children. Beatrice and Eugenie don't have that popularity and while that shoudn't determine titles it does have some impact on events. I mean can you imagine the public reaction if Charles says one son gets it (because he is the heir deserves it) but the other doesn't. The media would have a field day with Charles playing "favorites." Just a thought.

Why would you envisage Harry loosing his HRH? Not only is he the grandson of a monarch, and son of the next monarch, he will be the brother of the monarch after that. Unfortunately, this has little to do with St Diana!

My vote goes to a low-key city hall wedding before that happens. Hey C & C did it. I actually thought it was a good idea for the family and that thought had nothing to do with their scandals. Think of all the money that could be saved! The public would love that.

1) Why do you think civil marriages in a town hall might cost less than a church wedding?

2) No royal wedding is funded by the state, so if the couple / parents of the couple can afford the costs, I am not sure why we should worry?

3) As an Anglican country, and one where the monarch is still the head of the church, I am not sure civil ceremonies for key members of the royal family would go down terribly well.

 

[Zonk]

Let's get back on toic...which are York weddings.

Discussions regarding the future of the BRF following the reign of Elizabeth II should be made here http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/the-monarchy-under-charles-16252-27.html .

 

[jdcharlie]

I doubt Americans would have a lot of interest in a York wedding. Maybe on the same scale of Edward but maybe less. Once upon a time, the Duchess of York was somebody in the US. But before the whole recent scandal and Oprah appearance, I hadn't heard a thing about her in the press for many years. And this recent appearance wasn't endearing.

I would like to think that the girls can have as big of a wedding as they want, but the public, the economy and willingness to pay (who stepped in and paid for Peter and autumn's wedding?) will play a factor. Their choice of groom might also be a factor. Who is he? Can he contribute? Etc.

 

[jemagre]

Why would you envisage Harry loosing his HRH? Not only is he the grandson of a monarch, and son of the next monarch, he will be the brother of the monarch after that. Unfortunately, this has little to do with St Diana!



1) Why do you think civil marriages in a town hall might cost less than a church wedding?

2) No royal wedding is funded by the state, so if the couple / parents of the couple can afford the costs, I am not sure why we should worry?

3) As an Anglican country, and one where the monarch is still the head of the church, I am not sure civil ceremonies for key members of the royal family would go down terribly well.

I replied to some of your comments in the monarchy under Charles thread if you would like to check that out.

Civil marriages in the town hall would cost less because you would just pay for license and not stuff like church rentals. As for the weddings not being funded by the state I don't know that for certain after all security is funded by the state so it is not free from taxpayer cost. So it is something the British public should worry about. I don't know what the entire British public would think about the whole church vs. state debate but I sure that at least some of the public would not care. Those that wish the Royal Family would cost less or even those that are not religious would find a civil ceremony refreshing if it were to cost less than a big church wedding and it would not take place in said church environment. While you can't please everyone there are different alternatives in terms of royal weddings. It would be nice to see those ideas in the future.

Peter and Autumn's wedding I believe was paid for by them but they did accept cash from Hello magazine for exclusive coverage of their wedding. This created controversy because they were seen as cashing in on their royal connections so I don't think we will see something like that again.

 

[Velasco]

Earldoms for Eugenie/Beatrice husbands?

Today I was reading about how the Queen usually offers earldoms to untitled men marrying royal princesses.

I'm wondering if the offer will be extended to Eugenie and Beatrice's husbands in due time?

And on a side note, I'm wondering why does the offer usually get turned down?

(Hope this is posted in the right place/right way)

 

[Iluvbertie]

Today I was reading about how the Queen usually offers earldoms to untitled men marrying royal princesses.

I'm wondering if the offer will be extended to Eugenie and Beatrice's husbands in due time?

And on a side note, I'm wondering why does the offer usually get turned down?

(Hope this is posted in the right place/right way)

I don't envisage her making that offer at all.

She did offer it to both Margaret and Anne's husbands but they were the daughters of a monarch.

Margaret's husband accepted. Anne's didn't - wanting her children to be more normal.

I am not sure if the offer was made to Princess Alexandra's husband.

 

[sliver_bic]

I am not sure if the offer was made to Princess Alexandra's husband.

He declined the offer of an Earldom and a favorable apartment.

I agree on the girl's husbands not being offered anything as they are the grandchildren of the monarch not in the first line.

 

[Velasco]

Princess Alexandra was the daughter of a fourth son of a monarch; Beatrice and Eugenie are the daughters of the second son of a monarch. So if her husband was offered an earldom, wouldn't it make sense for theirs to be offered too?

Why would the husbands turn the offer of an earldom down? What bad could come from being an Earl?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Princess Alexandra was the daughter of a fourth son of a monarch; Beatrice and Eugenie are the daughters of the second son of a monarch. So if her husband was offered an earldom, wouldn't it make sense for theirs to be offered too?

Why would the husbands turn the offer of an earldom down? What bad could come from being an Earl?

Ask it the other way - what benefits are there from being an Earl? None that I can see but the disadvantage is that there are expectations about behavious etc from those who have titles. Compare the constant criticisms about the clothing styles of Beatrice and Eugenie compared to the criticism of Zara at the same age - and she was equally if not more outlandish than the York girls - but being princesses more is expected of them and they are far more open to criticism because of their titles. Yes there was some criticism of Zara but she wasn't referred to as a horse, or Cinderella's ugly sisters etc - both of which I have seen with regard to the York girls quite regularly. They are seen as fair game because of their titles.

The husbands turned down the offer of an earldom because they didn't want a title simply because of the person they had come to love. They also wanted to give their children a chance to live a much freer lifestyle than they would otherwise be able to live.

As the precedent has been set of the husbands turning down the offer it would be expected that if offered, their husbands would also turn down an unearned title.

 

[Mirabel]

Why would the husbands turn the offer of an earldom down? What bad could come from being an Earl?

I think so, too!

I really find it hard to grasp anyone refusing a title, I suppose.
Hopefully Mike Tindall accepts one, if offered.

(I don't see how it makes anyone more normal to be without one; people still know who the Queen's relatives are).

 

[sliver_bic]

I think so, too!

I really find it hard to grasp anyone refusing a title, I suppose.
Hopefully Mike Tindall accepts one, if offered.

(I don't see how it makes anyone more normal to be without one; people still know who the Queen's relatives are).

Some people don't care for titles, consider them pointless. A hark to a bygone era. They don't have to be anti-royalty just unimpressed by some of the pomp and circumstance that surrounds it.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I think so, too!

I really find it hard to grasp anyone refusing a title, I suppose.
Hopefully Mike Tindall accepts one, if offered.

(I don't see how it makes anyone more normal to be without one; people still know who the Queen's relatives are).

I don't see him being offered one, and if he is I'll be super surprised if he accepts it. Why would he when he has the perfect lifestyle? The benefits of being royal with absolutely no drawbacks?

 

[Mirabel]

I don't see him being offered one, and if he is I'll be super surprised if he accepts it. Why would he when he has the perfect lifestyle? The benefits of being royal with absolutely no drawbacks?

What drawbacks are there in having a title?

I thought that when the Queen awards knighthoods, it's considered a great honor and everybody hopes to get one.

 

[Lumutqueen]

What drawbacks are there in having a title?

I thought that when the Queen awards knighthoods, it's considered a great honor and everybody hopes to get one.

Knighthoods but not a title like Earl or Duke. Having a title creates a sense of duty, one that Mike and Zara IMO will be pressured to fulfill if they take up a title. Zara has stayed out of royal life since she was born and is only seen at major events, why change that when she is clearly happy with her life? How do you think Mike would feel walking into the locker room at a rugby tournament and having his friends take the mess for now being an Earl. The press and the people would have a field day. No title was offered when the Queens eldest grandchild got married, what makes Zara so different? Mike can be honoured for his sporting achievements if it comes to it, just like his future wife has been. Honoured for something they worked for.

Somebody might wanna move this discussion out of this thread.

 

[hudsonm]

Had a question.

Could the husbands of the two princess's have an HRH title? I remember hearing that Mark Phillips was offered one, but turned it down.

 

[MRSJ]

Had a question.

Could the husbands of the two princess's have an HRH title? I remember hearing that Mark Phillips was offered one, but turned it down.

I believe he was offered a title of Earl or Duke or something but not HRH....so I doubt the Princesses husband would be HRH's but I may be wrong

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think so, too!

I really find it hard to grasp anyone refusing a title, I suppose.
Hopefully Mike Tindall accepts one, if offered.

(I don't see how it makes anyone more normal to be without one; people still know who the Queen's relatives are).

I really don't see the Queen offereing an Earldom to the spouse of the #13th in line to the throne and one who is likely to go further down within the next couple of years.

Currently 3/8 of her grandchildren can pass on titles - William, Harry and James. I simply can't see any justification for that to change with regard to Zara - especially when her older brother has already said no.

It would mean that she would have to do the same for Beatrice and Eugenie and what about Louise - who will probably be reaching marriageable age in the next reign or even that of William himself.

 

[Susanna Wynne]

To hudsomn's question: When Anne married Mark Phillips, it was the 1970s AND she was the sovereign's daughter, not granddaughter. There's been a lot of water under the bridge since then... So, not very likely that they will be offered titles. As for HRHs?? No way. Even Snowdon wasn't made HRH, only an earl, and he married the sovereign's sister Margaret, who was also the daughter of a king.