The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 03-23-2011, 08:00 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdcharlie View Post
I can see Beatrice wanting a really nice event too. She strikes me as the type. That's why I compared it to Peter Philips' wedding, as I think he had an extremely nice wedding and did a beautiful job of balancing his heritage and modern life (ignoring the Hello! spread). The only reason I can't picture Beatrice having a big royal wedding is because I don't know if the public interest is there. Although she and Eugenie are princesses, they've always been on a completely different level than William and Harry. I don't know if it's the "Diana factor" or the fact that William and Harry are closer to the throne, but the public doesn't seem to have the same passion for them.

I think so too, and wouldn't be surprised if Beatrice opted for a wedding in the Abbey.
After all, that is what Andrew chose, rather than a more low-key event like Edward's.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 03-23-2011, 08:15 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I think so too, and wouldn't be surprised if Beatrice opted for a wedding in the Abbey.
After all, that is what Andrew chose, rather than a more low-key event like Edward's.
That could certainly be true.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 03-23-2011, 08:21 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,187
Andrew choose Westminister Abbey because that was the thing to do. Margaret married in Westminister Abbey. I always thought that Edward choose St. Georges because he married after his brothers and sister had already married and divorced. Plus Edward has always wanted a more private life.

Don't regular people get married in Westminister Abbey (although in the smaller aspect of the Abbey)...if Beatrice wants to get married there why shouldn't .........because she is the daughter of Sarah and Andrew?'

Beatrice had a big party which was similar to the one her cousin William had for his 21st. The only difference was the significance of the 8's. She was born on 8/8/88 and thus the decision to have the big 18th birthday party. And wasn't Beatrice's party paid by the Queen. Didn't she do the same for William, Zara and Peter? Silly of me to think that children shouldn't pay for the sins of their parents.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 03-23-2011, 08:50 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Don't regular people get married in Westminister Abbey (although in the smaller aspect of the Abbey)...if Beatrice wants to get married there why shouldn't .........because she is the daughter of Sarah and Andrew?'

I don't think so; I think one must be royal, or related to an Abbey staff member.
But perhaps I am wrong about that.

But I agree that there's no reason Beatrice or Eugenie shouldn't get married in the Abbey, if that's what they wish.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 03-23-2011, 08:52 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,187
I will do some research but I believe that a couple of William and Harry's friends have gotten married at the Abbey. I think you can get married in one of the smaller churches in the Abbey.

Diana's parents were married at the Abbey. As was Lord Mountbatten but he definitely was a royal relation but Diana's parents weren't. They just worked for them.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 03-23-2011, 10:40 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Beatrice had a big party which was similar to the one her cousin William had for his 21st. The only difference was the significance of the 8's. She was born on 8/8/88 and thus the decision to have the big 18th birthday party. And wasn't Beatrice's party paid by the Queen. Didn't she do the same for William, Zara and Peter? Silly of me to think that children shouldn't pay for the sins of their parents.
Zonk, I don't think anyone is condemning Pss B if she chose to get married at the Abbey. She is a royal princess and I agree it would def. be appropriate if she chose that venue. It's a beautiful setting and I think very romantic. I think the comments were more that of the young royals, she would probably be the one that would enjoy a bigger wedding. It's nothing against her.

As for her 18th party, again, it wasn't a dig at her. It just shows that she prefers more glamourous events as compared to her sister, who had a more low-key event. I don't remember what was done for the other royal cousins to mark their coming of age, other than P Wm's African safari-themed party.

I'm not quite sure what you meant about children paying for the sins of their parents. We're talking about futrue weddings for the York girls so that comment has me confused.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 03-23-2011, 10:53 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,187
Well it appears to me (and others here) that Beatrice and Eugenie are held to a different standard than their cousins. And yes, a lot of that has to deal with the perception of them via the press and their parents (hence the sins of the parents). Didn't you usedto post a lot in the York forum before they got mighty toxic.

Andrew had a big wedding and his brother didnt' and the implication (and I apologize if I am misreading that) is that it wasn't his due as the son of a Queen and he went slighly overboard because of him being Andrew. My point was other before him had also had a big wedding (Margaret and Anne included).

Now if Beatrice wants a big wedding...again isn't that her desire...don't a lot of brides including those who are non royal have big weddings?

For the record, I think each of the Queen's grandchildren will have weddings that reflect their status in the BRF.

Peter had and Zara will have weddings that will be grand and private. William and Harry will have grand spectacles that will be public. Harry's smaller than Williams. And Beatrice and Eugenie will have weddings simliar to Edward and Martha Louise of Norway. Whether its at the Abbey or St. George's. They are, after all, HRH's and Princesses of the Royal Blood. I believe James and Louise will be like Peter and Zara.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 03-23-2011, 11:20 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,824
Westminster Abbey is a royal peculiar, which is a church responsible directly to the Sovereign, rather than to a diocesan bishop.

As such only members of the Royal Family are able to get married there, or people whom the Queen allows to marry there. These are people who are very much part of the British establishment and very much part of the upper echelons of aristocratic society.

For a commoner couple to be able to get married at Westminster Abbey, the Queen would actually have to grant a special dispensation. She is actually unlikely to do this since once the floodgates had been opened, then it would be hard to grant some people permission to marry there and refuse others.

It's quite possible that both York sisters will be married there, if they so choose.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 03-23-2011, 11:27 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,187
Again, Diana's parents married at the Abbey. They are definitely not royal but in the Royal Service. In the book, Frances by Max Riddington there is a picture of the Viscount and Viscountess Althrop leaving the West Door of Westminister Abbey.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 03-23-2011, 11:30 AM
rcra's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 64
I think is unlikely that any of the girls will wed at Westminster Abbey. But only because William is already getting married there. I do believe that they have all the right to do so if they wish, but if I was them I would chose a difference site to avoid comparision.
I think William's wedding will serve as a parameter to ones to come.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 03-23-2011, 02:20 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 979
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcra View Post
I think is unlikely that any of the girls will wed at Westminster Abbey. But only because William is already getting married there. I do believe that they have all the right to do so if they wish, but if I was them I would chose a difference site to avoid comparision.
I think William's wedding will serve as a parameter to ones to come.
No, I don't think the girls will marry at Westminster Abbey...I suspect it will be reserved for William and maybe Harry. I think St. George's Chapel is a likely choice for Beatrice and Eugenie--it's at Windsor Castle and isn't Royal Lodge quite close to Windsor Castle? That is also where the last two lower-key royal weddings took place--Edward and Sophie's and Peter and Autumn's.

I do think Beatrice will be the next to marry, though--it's been a very long time since a Windsor Princess married, so I admit I'm eager to see what her wedding will be like!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 03-23-2011, 07:45 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,148
The last princess to marry was Princess Anne, I think? Princess Margaret was the last before her. So yes, it's been quite awhile. It would be nice to see a "Princess Bride."


Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay286 View Post
I do think Beatrice will be the next to marry, though--it's been a very long time since a Windsor Princess married, so I admit I'm eager to see what her wedding will be like!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 03-23-2011, 07:48 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,187
Yes, it has been a minute...and that was in the mid 70's. Depending on who marries first (Harry or Beatrice).....in my mind would determine who gets married in the Abbey. I would think that Harry is definitely doing the Abbey. If its been a while (since Beatrice is only 22) and maybe five to seven years have passed without a royal wedding (i.e. William and Zara)...I could actually seeing Beatrice getting married in the Abbey.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 03-23-2011, 08:41 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by melissaadrian View Post
The Chapel Royal at St. James' palace has a great deal of history. It was ordered constructed by Henry VIII and designed by Hans Holbein, in honor of his short lived marriage to Anne of Cleves. Mary I's heart is buried there, Elizabeth I made her famous prayers there against the Armada attack. Charles I recieved his last communion there, before he was taken to white hall to be beheaded.

But there is also good history. Queen Victoria was wed there. Her wedding contract, hand written by the archbishop and signed by her and Prince Albert, still hangs in the vestry.

I don't know about any modern weddings, but Diana's body was there for viewing before funeral and burial. The Queen Mother's viewing was across the road at the Queen's chapel, which was designed by Inigo Jones, and was built by James I for the catholic wife of his son Charles I.


There is also the Chapel royal at Hampton court palace to consider. It is where the Queen gave her Christmas speech last year. It is also where the religious leaders gathered for James I and came up with the authorized bible.
Thanks so much for the history. I did not know it was quite that extensive. I refreshed my history and the most recent wedding for the chapel at St. James Palace that I could find was that of Henry, Duke of Gloucester to his wife Lady Alice Montagu-Scott. It was originally scheduled for Westminster Abbey but her father died so the venue was changed. The history you mentioned though would make a nice addition for a future royal wedding. Plus the reception could be held in the same venue cutting cost.

As for the York Girls' venue for their weddings, I do think that the public would balk at paying even security fees for their weddings, since they are not as close to the throne as William and Harry are. If the Queen covered everything, including security, then the public wouldn't mind. Nowadays the public expects the lower ranking royals to act more low-key. I do wonder though what message it would send to the public if the York Girls wanted a big wedding but wanted a more low-key royal life. I think Edward did it the right way. Low-key wedding for a low-key royal life.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 03-23-2011, 10:43 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
The only reason for security is that they are expecting a large crowd with carriages etc.

For the York girls I wouldn't expect many people to turn out to see them, or for them to have carriage processions or balcony appearances but I can see them marrying in Westminster - arriving by car and leaving by car with nothing for the public to see so no crowds and no real need for security.

No TV coverage either.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 03-23-2011, 10:52 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: snowsville, Canada
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The only reason for security is that they are expecting a large crowd with carriages etc.

For the York girls I wouldn't expect many people to turn out to see them, or for them to have carriage processions or balcony appearances but I can see them marrying in Westminster - arriving by car and leaving by car with nothing for the public to see so no crowds and no real need for security.

No TV coverage either.
No news coverage? There will be news coverage. Just like there was for Edward and Sophie. Perhaps not as mad as Will, but still crowds and coverage. The fact is that people love royal weddings. A lot of people are not royal buffs like us, and don't care how far from the throne. They will see a royal princess getting married, and want to watch. If their weddings are held at westminster, and not some where private like Saint James, where it could all be contained, there will be some attention.

If they want more low key, lower costs, then perhaps St. James. Then they can have the ceremony and reception all in one place, and there won't be any real show or need for security.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 03-23-2011, 11:40 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by melissaadrian View Post
No news coverage? There will be news coverage. Just like there was for Edward and Sophie. Perhaps not as mad as Will, but still crowds and coverage. The fact is that people love royal weddings. A lot of people are not royal buffs like us, and don't care how far from the throne. They will see a royal princess getting married, and want to watch. If their weddings are held at westminster, and not some where private like Saint James, where it could all be contained, there will be some attention.

If they want more low key, lower costs, then perhaps St. James. Then they can have the ceremony and reception all in one place, and there won't be any real show or need for security.

I didn't say no News Coverage - no TV to me means not inside and coverage all day.

There will be a bit on the news but no I wouldn't expect crowds to line the streets - maybe a few hardy souls outside the venue but nothing more.

To add to the fact that they are further from the throne they are the daughters of hated Andrew and despised Sarah and are depised and loathed almost as much - costing too much, do nothings, partying all the time, no taste, no flair etc. I can't remember the last time I saw a positive article or comment about either girl and the press would have a field day with criticising everything about them if there was constant coverage.

Using vehicles to get to the venue means a glimpse of the bride as she enters the church and another of the bride and groom as they exit - nothing more than that - so no show - nothing to see - so no crowds and no real need for TV coverage either.

When Edward married he was, and still is, the son of the monarch. At best Beatrice and Eugenie will be the granddaughters of the monarch and by the time they marry may be down to the neices or even possibly the cousins and also be down another two or three places in the line of succession.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 03-23-2011, 11:54 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: snowsville, Canada
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I didn't say no News Coverage - no TV to me means not inside and coverage all day.

There will be a bit on the news but no I wouldn't expect crowds to line the streets - maybe a few hardy souls outside the venue but nothing more.

To add to the fact that they are further from the throne they are the daughters of hated Andrew and despised Sarah and are depised and loathed almost as much - costing too much, do nothings, partying all the time, no taste, no flair etc. I can't remember the last time I saw a positive article or comment about either girl and the press would have a field day with criticising everything about them if there was constant coverage.

Using vehicles to get to the venue means a glimpse of the bride as she enters the church and another of the bride and groom as they exit - nothing more than that - so no show - nothing to see - so no crowds and no real need for TV coverage either.

When Edward married he was, and still is, the son of the monarch. At best Beatrice and Eugenie will be the granddaughters of the monarch and by the time they marry may be down to the neices or even possibly the cousins and also be down another two or three places in the line of succession.
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.

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.

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

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 03-24-2011, 02:24 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
I think they will have as grand a wedding as they like. The family knows them well and if their heart is set on having a wedding as pompous as possible for a princess of the blood, they'll get it. Not necessarily in London and definaetely not in Westminster Abbey but there is Windsor and its St. George's chapel where the bride can arrive in all the glamour of her Royal birth while it is still considered as a more or less private wedding without the public involved. So no need to ask the public but any possibility to celebrate in splendour.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 03-24-2011, 03:20 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 2,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemagre View Post
Thanks so much for the history. I did not know it was quite that extensive. I refreshed my history and the most recent wedding for the chapel at St. James Palace that I could find was that of Henry, Duke of Gloucester to his wife Lady Alice Montagu-Scott. It was originally scheduled for Westminster Abbey but her father died so the venue was changed. The history you mentioned though would make a nice addition for a future royal wedding. Plus the reception could be held in the same venue cutting cost.

As for the York Girls' venue for their weddings, I do think that the public would balk at paying even security fees for their weddings, since they are not as close to the throne as William and Harry are. If the Queen covered everything, including security, then the public wouldn't mind. Nowadays the public expects the lower ranking royals to act more low-key. I do wonder though what message it would send to the public if the York Girls wanted a big wedding but wanted a more low-key royal life. I think Edward did it the right way. Low-key wedding for a low-key royal life.
The Gloucester Wedding in 1935 was at the Chapel of Buckingham Palace not St. James Palace.
I think the last royal Wedding at the Chapel royal at St. James Palace was the one of the future George V. and Mary of Teck in 1893. It was also used for the Wedding of Lady Louise Muntbatten and the future Gustaf VI. Adolf of Sweden, The Queen's Chapel at St. James Place was only recently the venue for the Weddings of the Earl of Ulster and his sister Lady Rose Windsor.
__________________

__________________
Stefan

Royal Travel and Events

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
princess beatrice, princess eugenie, wedding


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:06 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]