Future York Weddings

[melissaadrian]

Going by the the common (no pun intended) view neither Diana nor Kate would not be viewed as a commoner if only because of their wealthy backgrounds.

They probably won't marry royalty or a peer but they'll come with connections and money. Royals have such a small pool to pick from without causing a stir, not unlike the American upper crust, dating outside of one's social group can be socially awkward in many ways.

No matter how rich Kate is, she is as common as they come. It is new money. Diana was by many people considered not commoner, as she was aristocracy, and came with a title. A lot of people don't realize in the UK there are only two options, commoner or royalty, unlike the continent. To many people the daughter of an Earl, a Lady, is above a commoner.

The peerage does have a wide number, non royals are quite plausible as a future husband of the girls. Perhaps even ones from other countries. I noticed at least two Windsors have married women from my country.

 

[MRSJ]

No matter how rich Kate is, she is as common as they come. It is new money. Diana was by many people considered not commoner, as she was aristocracy, and came with a title. A lot of people don't realize in the UK there are only two options, commoner or royalty, unlike the continent. To many people the daughter of an Earl, a Lady, is above a commoner.

The peerage does have a wide number, non royals are quite plausible as a future husband of the girls. Perhaps even ones from other countries. I noticed at least two Windsors have married women from my country.

I'm confused- there are 2 options royal or commoner but Diana wasn't a commoner? Makes no sense... Either there are 3 options or Diana was a commoner...?

 

[melissaadrian]

I can see Beatrice wanting one because of that big party that was thrown for her. Whether or not the public would approve is a different matter. They don't appear to want to pay for security for William's.

As for Harry and Eugenie I see something more low-key because it seems their style. Harry might like to party in clubs but he doesn't seem to like the "royal" party. As for locations I hope it is not St. George's Chapel. We have seen that quite frequently and it would be nice to see different locations. That and the fact that in Harry's case the comparison between his wedding and Charles' second would be endless.

I think Zara has made quite a nice choice for her wedding. What about the chapel at St. James Palace? I believe it has hosted a royal wedding or two?

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.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Unless people are royal, they are considered commoners. So in the UK at least, even if a person is a Duke or an Earl, unless he's of the Royal Family, he's considered a commoner.

I'm confused- there are 2 options royal or commoner but Diana wasn't a commoner? Makes no sense... Either there are 3 options or Diana was a commoner...?

 

[melissaadrian]

I'm confused- there are 2 options royal or commoner but Diana wasn't a commoner? Makes no sense... Either there are 3 options or Diana was a commoner...?

I said Diana was a commoner. In the UK there is only 2 ranks, royal or commoner. But a lot of people are not royal buffs. They hear earl, or duke, or count or other titles and think 'aristocracy' and assume that is a rank above commoner, when at least in the UK, it isn't. Many people saw Lady Diana Spencer, daughter of an Earl, and would assume she was no commoner.

Technically Diana was a commoner. But a member of the peerage even if common, is still in many days different. They are raised in many of the same traditions, and kind of up bringing in many cases as a royal would. They'd attend the same events, run in the same social circles. Yes many of the richer upper crust people can too.

 

[MRSJ]

I said Diana was a commoner. In the UK there is only 2 ranks, royal or commoner. But a lot of people are not royal buffs. They hear earl, or duke, or count or other titles and think 'aristocracy' and assume that is a rank above commoner, when at least in the UK, it isn't. Many people saw Lady Diana Spencer, daughter of an Earl, and would assume she was no commoner.

Technically Diana was a commoner. But a member of the peerage even if common, is still in many days different. They are raised in many of the same traditions, and kind of up bringing in many cases as a royal would. They'd attend the same events, run in the same social circles. Yes many of the richer upper crust people can too.

Thanks for clearing it up. Sorry your wording just confused me a bit. I got it now!

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is right that there are two levels in Britian but they are NOT royal and commoner but noble and commoner.

Strange as it may seem most of the royal family are actually commoners. The members of the royal family who are not commoners are: HM The Queen, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, HRH The Duke of Cornwall (also known as The Prince of Wales), HRH The Duke of York, HRH The Earl of Wessex, HRH The Duke of Gloucester and HRH The Duke of Kent. Why because they could take a seat in the old House of Lords. The rest, including William are commoners - royal but commoners as they could stand for and be elected to the House of Commons.

Diana's father was a noble - as he had a seat in the House of Lords but Diana was a commoner.

 

[Bella]

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 for this information, melissaadrian. This is really interesting. So much history.

 

[jdcharlie]

Whereas the York girls are further down in the pecking order, I think you're right. Though I have a feeling that Pss B would be the one to opt for a more spectacular event (her 18th b. day party at Windsor Castle with 200 guests comes to mind) while I think Pss E would def. be more low key. I also think that their parents would want to make a big deal out of the girls' weddings, as most parents do.

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.

 

[sliver_bic]

Not just a lack of passion but any show of wealth gets them crucified in the papers.

 

[Mirabel]

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.

 

[muriel]

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.

 

[Zonk]

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.

 

[Mirabel]

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.

 

[Zonk]

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.

 

[Bella]

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.

 

[Zonk]

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.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

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.

 

[Zonk]

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.

 

[rcra]

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.

 

[rmay286]

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!

 

[Mermaid1962]

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."

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!

 

[Zonk]

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.

 

[jemagre]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[melissaadrian]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[melissaadrian]

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.

 

[Kataryn]

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.

 

[Stefan]

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.