Future York Weddings


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is an article in the Daily Mail that mentions Zara being able to have sponsorships. Yes, I know they are due to her equestrian talents.

"Yet Zara, 34, who has inherited her mother the Princess Royal’s rather imperious independence, has pressed ahead with any number of lucrative deals and is seen by envious fellow royals as being well on the way to being wealthy in her own right.
In particular, Prince Andrew’s daughters, princesses Beatrice and Eugenie — who are Zara’s first cousins — have watched her commercial prominence and rising wealth knowing that, for them, this is forbidden territory.
‘They see Zara as the royal cousin with real privilege, not themselves,’ says a friend of Beatrice. They would probably not think this if they weren’t forced to live hybrid lives as Royal Highnesses who are seldom actually invited to do anything royal.
Perhaps this less-than-satisfactory state of affairs explains the endless holidays Beatrice is always taking."


Read more: Zara Phillips launches jewellery range as cousins envy her millions | Daily Mail Online

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

That's an interesting article, although with it being the DM it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. It does, however, probably highlight the struggles that Beatrice and Eugenie have due to being HRH but not actually doing anything related to that royal style.

‘They see Zara as the royal cousin with real privilege, not themselves,’ says a friend of Beatrice. They would probably not think this if they weren’t forced to live hybrid lives as Royal Highnesses who are seldom actually invited to do anything royal.

Read more: Zara Phillips launches jewellery range as cousins envy her millions | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Edward did his kids a favour by not allowing them to be HRH - they can be like Zara and live a much freer life, unlike the York sisters who are burdened with this Disney life of being a Princess but not being able to do anything with it.
 
Zara is sponsored because of her equestrian talents not because she is related to The Queen.


I'm not so sure.
Have other members of Britain's equestrian team received the same numerous sponsorships?

Maybe, but I'm betting not to the same extent that Zara has.
Why is that, if not because she is related to the Queen?
 
William Fox-Pitt is a much more accomplished equestrian than Zara.

I don't think its very controversial to say some of Zara's sponsors do like her 'royal connections'
 
Let's stay on topic.....future York Weddings.
 
Why would London need to come to a standstill if either York girl got married in the Abbey?
No one expects a public holiday for the occasion; couldn't they just marry there as others do, without disrupting traffic, etc.?
 
I don't think that royal watchers would crowd the whole city, but before the Abbey it would be pretty crowded with fans and tourists. The crowd would be much smaller than at the Cambridge wedding, but there'd still be a loads of people who enjoy even a smaller royal wedding. People love weddings, let alone royal weddings, it's fairy tale material!

The question is, would the girls want that? And what HM would think about such a hubub about the Yorkies? If HM thought that a too big wedding would take away too much of the limelight and asked her granddaughters to scale down the publicity around their wedding? I think William once said: "You don't mess with Granny!", or something similar. The family has an immense respect for their matriarch, and they don't go against her wishes, it seems.

Personally I don't care so much about how big and how public their weddings will be, as long they allow photographers to take good pics of the couple, the dress, the veil, the tiara ... For my taste Peter and Philip were too stingy with pictures. Didn't they sell exclusive rights to Hello! ?
 
Plenty of events attended by members of the royal family happen at Westminster Abbey from time to time without a great deal of disruption.

I imagine the princesses will have a pretty good idea about what sort of wedding they want, but they will not do anything that the Queen would disapprove of (even if they do not seek approval for something) as she is known these days to "go with the flow".

As royal princesses though, it seems appropriate for them to have a reasonably symbolic weddings - i.e. at a venue that has some royal connection and of a scale reasonably regal in its grandness! The thought occurred to me that one of other of them could have a wedding at St Margaret's Church, Westminster (apologies if this has already been mentioned) or at one the the royal chapels if they would prefer a more chic, private event.

Was it not the case that Edward and Sophie did not want their wedding televised and only after public and media pressure they agreed to allow the cameras in? In 1999 we hadn't had a large-scale royal wedding for years and years and being the son of the monarch it seemed reasonable to have it televised. I do not think there would be such pressure on Beatrice and Eugenie to have their weddings televised.
 
I think there would be a public outcry if Harry wouldn't allow his wedding to be televised. But for Andrew's daughters people would accept it, I think. Needless to say that I'd watch anyway, if it were televised.;)
 
Why would London need to come to a standstill if either York girl got married in the Abbey?
No one expects a public holiday for the occasion; couldn't they just marry there as others do, without disrupting traffic, etc.?

It is not a public holiday. But when Buckingham Palace is the start and end, then the route will most likely go via the Mall, around St James' Park via Horse Guards Parade, passing the Cenotaph, Downing Street, the Foreign Office, the Treasury, the Houses of Parliament and finally the Abbey. When it is done in style, this will require closure of streets, deployment of military-, police and security personnel, deployment of music bands and mounted cavalry, carriages and name it all, even if it is only for a Mr Clark and a Princess Beatrice.

A wedding at St George's Chapel causes no disruption because it is all within the own "backyard" of the Queen's residence. No problem. I am sure that such a disruption of the heart of London will not be in question for Princess Beatrice.
 
Last edited:
I think there would be a public outcry if Harry wouldn't allow his wedding to be televised. But for Andrew's daughters people would accept it, I think. Needless to say that I'd watch anyway, if it were televised.;)

Oh yes, Harry's eventual wedding will be a very different kettle of fish and should be on a par will William's and Catherine's.

Oh there's no doubt I would fully support and watch huge, televised weddings for Beatrice and Eugenie - if it was up to me we would have one every year - but the public appetite and reality of what their weddings will actually be like will no doubt be at odds with that!

One thing for sure, Tilia....tiara's will be worn!
 
It is not a public holiday. But when Buckingham Palace is the start and end, then the route will most likely go via the Mall, around St James' Park via Horse Guards Parade, passing the Cenotaph, Downing Street, the Foreign Office, the Treasury, the Houses of Parliament and finally the Abbey. When it is done in style, this will require closure of streets, deployment of military-, police and security personnel, deployment of music bands and mounted cavalry, carriages and name it all, even if it is only for a Mr Clark and a Princess Beatrice.

A wedding at St George's Chapel causes no disruption because it is all within the own "backyard" of the Queen's residence. No problem. I am sure that such a disruption of the heart of London will not be in question for Princess Beatrice.


They probably wouldn't have carriages through the streets, even if they marry at the Abbey.
Many people have married there, without causing any commotion; I don't think the Yorks will attract massive publicity anyway.
 
There would definitely be a crowd. Everyone that wants to see the royal family will know exactly where they will be. That is the only reason.
 
Oh yes, Harry's eventual wedding will be a very different kettle of fish and should be on a par will William's and Catherine's.

Oh there's no doubt I would fully support and watch huge, televised weddings for Beatrice and Eugenie - if it was up to me we would have one every year - but the public appetite and reality of what their weddings will actually be like will no doubt be at odds with that!

One thing for sure, Tilia....tiara's will be worn!

British royal weddings are usually morning events with hats not tiaras - other than for the bride.
 
I wish they would go for a late afternoon or an evening wedding every so often. It could be held at Windsor, so no balcony, just white tie, tiaras, jewels, gowns and uniforms. It would look wonderful and would make for a different and interesting occasion.
 
I wish they would go for a late afternoon or an evening wedding every so often. It could be held at Windsor, so no balcony, just white tie, tiaras, jewels, gowns and uniforms. It would look wonderful and would make for a different and interesting occasion.

Edward and Sophie had a late afternoon wedding and only the bride wore a tiara. There was no white tie for men and although the female guests wore long dresses the men wore morning suit. The jewels were really no different to those worn during morning weddings.
 
Yes, but the bride and groom wanted an informal wedding (or as informal as royal weddings can be.) Their wedding wasn't a white tie/Orders and decorations affair, where tiaras would be worn. In fact, as I remember, Sophie even asked that the women guests not wear hats or fascinators, though many, including the Queen and the QM, did.
 
This is the BRF's way and it suits them. I like the fact that they have weddings that fit their style rather than the more flamboyant style of the European royals' weddings. To me those weddings are over the top with all the glitz and glitter and belies the seriousness of what a wedding is about. It is one of the reasons why I like the fact that the BRF only shows the going to the service, the service and the getting home again rather than all the stuff before and after.


Each to their own but I prefer the BRF's way of doing things to the Europeans.
 
The BRF have about two or three tiara events where the public get any pictures each year - the State Visits and State Opening of Parliament.


Any other tiara events are private ones such as the diplomatic corps reception and I believe the Christmas Eve Dinner.


They don't see a need to show off all their tiaras - probably as they don't see the need to show off their wealth knowing that many people won't like it.


I don't think there will be an increase in the next couple of reigns. It seems clear that neither Camilla nor Kate really like wearing the fancy jewels. Camilla wears them well but doesn't seem all that comfortable in them and Kate doesn't seem to like wearing much jewellery at all so even fewer tiara events in the future I suspect.


Certainly not at the York girls' weddings (assuming they ever get married and don't just continue to live with their partners even if they decide to have children) - just not the way the British do weddings (not just the BRF but the British) - too showy for them.
 
I honestly believe with what the British public are going through financially, currently it would be in poor taste for wealth to be ostentatiously shown. Remember The Cambridge's wedding was billed as an austerity wedding for that very reason.
 
British royal weddings are usually morning events with hats not tiaras - other than for the bride.
I believe that is what Jacknch meant when he said there will be tiaras: tiaras for the brides (plural because there are two sisters). :flowers:

As gorgeous as it might be to see the full sparkle of a white tie wedding, we all know that is not the way it is done in GB. Apart from the economic situation, can you imagine the outcry when one of them had a white tie wedding? :eek::eek::eek: It would mean that they'd try to upstage William and Kate's wedding, and that would be a big no-no. It's no going to happen.
 
I believe that is what Jacknch meant when he said there will be tiaras: tiaras for the brides (plural because there are two sisters). :flowers:

As gorgeous as it might be to see the full sparkle of a white tie wedding, we all know that is not the way it is done in GB. Apart from the economic situation, can you imagine the outcry when one of them had a white tie wedding? :eek::eek::eek: It would mean that they'd try to upstage William and Kate's wedding, and that would be a big no-no. It's no going to happen.

The reason the BRF don't do white tie weddings is not because they are afraid to bling up. IMO, it is because that is just not the way English weddings are done. They are pretty much always morning or afternoon events, followed by the wedding breakfast. It is not traditional for them to be evening events.
 
Each to their own but I prefer the BRF's way of doing things to the Europeans.


So do I.

I absolutely hated those schmaltzy love songs at the Swedish weddings!

I think the British way is much classier.
 
Yes, I meant that tiara's would be worn (hopefully anyway) by Beatrice and Eugenie at their weddings rather than it being a tiara event itself.

Putting aside some of the music choices, I really liked the Swedish weddings and the way they were done - guest arrivals, ceremony, carriage ride, boat rides, arrival at the reception, balcony appearances, the reception itself and the cutting of the cake - all televised. BUT, it was hard going to watch it all over several hours (and hard-going for some of the guests too I should imagine).

Traditionally in Britain, we had a morning wedding, an afternoon reception and the going away on honeymoon late afternoon kind of thing. But more often these days, the wedding is held in the afternoon and the reception held late afternoon and throughout the evening.

Beatrice and Eugenie will probably do the same.
 
[...]
Each to their own but I prefer the BRF's way of doing things to the Europeans.

Heu... the weddings of the Infanta Doña Elena, the Infanta Doña Cristina, the Duke of Brabant, Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands, the Prince of Orange, Prince Laurent of Belgium, Prince Friso of the Netherlands, the Prince of Asturias, the Prince of Monaco and the Hereditary Grand-Duke of Luxembourg all had exactly the same dresscode as was observed for the wedding of the Duke of Cambridge.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if either of the York girls will wear the tiaria their mother did at her wedding? It would be nice to see it again.
 
I wonder if either of the York girls will wear the tiaria their mother did at her wedding? It would be nice to see it again.

I would imagine so. And I look forward to it, it is a lovely tiara.
 
I would imagine so. And I look forward to it, it is a lovely tiara.
Yes and it was unusual in that The Queen bought it for her and it was not part of the royal collection. A few authors have made quite a bit of that.
 
Yes and it was unusual in that The Queen bought it for her and it was not part of the royal collection. A few authors have made quite a bit of that.

The nice part about Sarah's tiara is that it has become a family tiara and most likely will be handed down to wear for both Bea and Eugenie's daughters should they have any. I would imagine that if the Spencer tiara had somehow became solely the property of Diana rather than had gone to her brother, Kate would have worn the Spencer tiara at her wedding. Camilla wore the family tiara at her first wedding. Its that kind of a family thing.
 
I would expect a very small, private wedding if either of the girls marry. It could seem insensitive to the public if it was a more extravagant affair, particularly as neither of the girls are working royals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom