Wedding of William & Catherine, 29 April 2011: The Wedding Service

[fairy tale]

2 photos of this situation
http://media.oregonlive.com/oregonia...0992-essay.jpg
http://troonopvolgers.web-log.nl/.a/...166e970d-800wi
It's a shame we didn't get to see it in tv.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Redowl

I have watched The Royal Wedding more times than I can count
and the cameras missed the moment when Katherine's veil was lifted.
Did anyone see at what point this happened and who lifted the veil?

Although it was not seen in the live coverage of the wedding, there are several pictures in the thread of Michael Middleton lifting his daughter's veil. Wish I could remember exactly where the photos are located at.

[fairy tale]

I finally found the video, kindly provided by ghost_night554 in the wedding thread #1824
Wedding of William & Catherine, 29 April 2011: The Wedding Service

[monkeyfish]

Originally Posted by fairy tale

2 photos of this situation
http://media.oregonlive.com/oregonia...0992-essay.jpg
http://troonopvolgers.web-log.nl/.a/...166e970d-800wi
It's a shame we didn't get to see it in tv.

I think it was very graceful the way Catherine basically curtsied befor her father for her veil to be lifted. How many times do you reckon they practiced that together?

[IloveCP]

My favorite part was when William first looked at Kate and he smiled!

[miamifla]

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine

BTW, this processional music is STUNNING.

I couldn't agree more. I always thought nothing could top the processional music of Diana - The Prince of Denmark's March - but this is amazingly more "Royal" than that march. Stunning and breathtaking, to say the least.

[miamifla]

Originally Posted by Krisotter

I didn't know that there were nuns at Westminster. Anyone knew about the sisters sitting near the couple?

The Church of England, Episcopal Church (in America), Lutheran Church and Orthodox Church all have nuns, as well as Brothers, living in Monasteries and Convents.

Not just Roman Catholics have Brothers & Nuns.

Originally Posted by Charlotte_Aster

His name is: His Royal Highness The Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter It's not a step down as he is aroyal duke now.

Actually he is not a "The Prince" yet, that will only happen when his father becomes King. In fact if Charles were to die before the Queen, Harry's children will not even be Princes or Princesses, but just Lord & Lady (Christian name) Windsor-Mountbatten, as he is just a grandson of a Sovereign. Now if his brother becomes King, without any children, Harry can't even be a Prince of Wales, even though he is heir.

[miamifla]

Originally Posted by LadyDiana

may sound dumb but i'm confused about him getting the title duke of cambridge isn't that a stepdown from a prince? is he called Prince William Duke of Cambridge?

Formally he will always be referred to as HRH The Duke of Cambridge, when and until his father becomes King and grants him the title The Prince of Wales. He does have that by right, it is granted by the Sovereign. His father was simply known as Prince Charles until 1957 when the Queen made Charles The Prince of Wales. Katherine, as The Duke's wife, automatically takes her rank from her husband, as by British law and is styled and titled HRH The Duchess of Cambrige. She is legally Princess William as well, but that will never, ever be used. She to will always be referred by the palace as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, until her husbands change in title. He style will not change until her husbands accession to the Throne and then she to will be styled Her Majesty and will called Queen. And not usually Queen Katherine, but The Queen, as she will be the only queen present in the realm at the time.

[miamifla]

Originally Posted by American Dane

Channel 7 and possibly the other Australian networks are doing a horrible job of not showing any of the foreign royals.
Barely got to see any arrivals of them.

There was one "pool" camera and it was the BBC camera allowed into the abbey. We saw what the BBC showed. Everyone saw EXACTLY the same thing inside the abbey. No exceptions.

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Zara will be the next BRF member to marry, we cannot forget that.

Zara is not a member of the British Royal Family. She is nothing more than the Queen's granddaughter. She has no title, and no "official" place in the Royal Family. She is a private individual, and is looked at by the law, as a commoner.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by miamifla

Zara is not a member of the British Royal Family. She is nothing more than the Queen's granddaughter. She has no title, and no "official" place in the Royal Family. She is a private individual, and is looked at by the law, as a commoner.

Yes she is. Being 13th in line for the throne makes her a member of the BRF. Same as her brother, her sister-in-law and her neice. Just because she has no title doesn't exclude her from the family which by the way is the British Royal Family. "Official" place? - what about the fact that she does royal engagements for the BRF or that she has royal patronages.

By the way, if you're going to go through the thread and quote posts, click the "" button and that will allow you to respond to all the posts in one reply rather than posting post after post after post.

[miamifla]

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge

Katie Nicholl says Princess Anne, Sophie, etc. has to curtsy to Catherine because William is closer in line to the throne. I have a feeling that might not be correct because of the Order of Precedence.

Well whoever Katie Nicholl is, she is WRONG. In modern society, the ONE and ONLY person people of Royal rank bow or Curtsey too are monarchs, not other HRH.

But in today's world, bowing and curtseying is looked at as undemocratic and not cool. They have even done away with it at stuffy Wimbeldon on finals day.

Personally, I would bow to Her Majesty, and any Royal, Serene or plain Highness, out of correctness. But I also wouldn't fault anyone else, or pass judgement on another individual who failed to do it. Its a personal choice these days.

[miamifla]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Yes she is. Being 13th in line for the throne makes her a member of the BRF. Same as her brother, her sister-in-law and her neice. Just because she has no title doesn't exclude her from the family which by the way is the British Royal Family. "Official" place? - what about the fact that she does royal engagements for the BRF or that she has royal patronages.

By the way, if you're going to go through the thread and quote posts, click the "" button and that will allow you to respond to all the posts in one reply rather than posting post after post after post.

I respectfully disagree. OFFICIALLY she is not a member of the Royal Family, no matter where her place is in precedence or succession to the Throne. Now that the Queen, her loving grandmother allows her to use herself as Royal Patron, or represent her, well that is well within the Queen's rights to allow this. But the British Government & law courts look upon her as Miss Zara Philips, commoner.

Her mother, in 1973 specifically stated she wanted no royal titles or noble titles for her children, as she wanted them to grow up to be as normal as they could be. Much as TRH The Earl & Countess of Wessex have asked that their children not be HRH, even though OFFICIALLY they are.

[MRSJ]

Originally Posted by miamifla

Well whoever Katie Nicholl is, she is WRONG. In modern society, the ONE and ONLY person people of Royal rank bow or Curtsey too are monarchs, not other HRH.

Katie Nicholl is wrong as are you. HRH's curtesy/bow to each other at official events. Please read the bow/curtesy thread on here bc it has all the details and explanations....

[wbenson]

It's not actually clear the extent to which the BRF curtseys to each other. It's certainly rare that one HRH would curtsey to another in public. (I think the only evidence of it happening recently is the sort of dubious video of Anne supposedly curtseying to Camilla.) In private is another matter, but obviously since it's in private we can't know.

[MRSJ]

Originally Posted by wbenson

It's not actually clear the extent to which the BRF curtseys to each other. It's certainly rare that one HRH would curtsey to another in public. (I think the only evidence of it happening recently is the sort of dubious video of Anne supposedly curtseying to Camilla.) In private is another matter, but obviously since it's in private we can't know.

True in private who knows but pubically I believe they do at official events...Anne is the standard by which I judge Royal Protocol so if she does it seems right to me....

[Krystal]

This is such an interesting discussion! I loved the wedding of William and Kate - it was just lovely! I think they make such a nice couple and are obviously very much in love. I loved the whole ceremony and I thought the carriage ride was wonderful too.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by miamifla

I respectfully disagree. OFFICIALLY she is not a member of the Royal Family, no matter where her place is in precedence or succession to the Throne. Now that the Queen, her loving grandmother allows her to use herself as Royal Patron, or represent her, well that is well within the Queen's rights to allow this. But the British Government & law courts look upon her as Miss Zara Philips, commoner.

Her mother, in 1973 specifically stated she wanted no royal titles or noble titles for her children, as she wanted them to grow up to be as normal as they could be. Much as TRH The Earl & Countess of Wessex have asked that their children not be HRH, even though OFFICIALLY they are.

I disagree with everything your saying, she is quite clearly an official member of the BRF. The British people consider her a member of the royal family. Where's the proof that the law courts and BG look at her as a commoner?

[Zonk]

This is the not the thread to discuss Zara's role in the British Royal Family. You may do so here The Phillips Children and Titles .

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

[Renata4711]

Miamifla and krisotter

I've only just come across this thread and the discussion about religious sisters / nuns / brothers / monks.

When I watched the WillKat Wedding, I saw two faces from the past.

They were the two sisters in turquoise habits. Their names are Sister Judith Mary (left) and Mother Anita (right).
Both are members of an Anglican (C of E) religious community, the Sisters of the Church, situated at Ham Common, Kingston, Surrey.

In the 1980s I was an Associate of this community, which means one doesn't live in the Community, but is associated with it in various ways. I can no longer make the long journey from Edinburgh to London for personal reasons.

Male orders work on a similar basis. I used to have dealings with a Franciscan brotherhood in Alnmouth, Northumberland.

Monks and nuns make similar lifelong vows as Brothers and Sisters.

This is just a snapshot of some of the many religious establishments here in Britain. I don't have any knowledge about foreign convents etc.

[Jacknch]

Renata4711 - I've not read all the way through this thread, but are you talking about the two sisters who sat near William and Catherine during the service near the alter? I did wonder who they were and I wanted to know what their association is with Westminster Abbey as I am sure they have been there before?