The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4501  
Old 04-07-2011, 02:41 AM
stephanievl's Avatar
Serene Highness
Picture of the Month Representative - Belgium
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: n/a, Belgium
Posts: 3,026
Not sure if this is already posted but according to Monarquiaconfincetial Felipe and letizia will attend the wedding
Monarquía Confidencial
__________________

__________________
  #4502  
Old 04-07-2011, 04:22 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LONDON, United Kingdom
Posts: 730
Royal Wedding: Kate Middelton and Prince William clash with Charles and Camilla over tiaras | Mail Online
__________________

__________________
  #4503  
Old 04-07-2011, 04:48 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 423
Australians rush to book flights for royal wedding
Aussie rush to book flights for royal wedding | Herald Sun
__________________
  #4504  
Old 04-07-2011, 04:53 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 423
Royal Wedding Bash - Home Page
__________________
  #4505  
Old 04-07-2011, 05:15 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,733
This is quite a funny article. Does the DM have a special insight into conversattions between Camilla and Catherine?
__________________
  #4506  
Old 04-07-2011, 05:42 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 629
is nothing by the DM believable? This doesn't sound as bad as the others, it is possible, isn't it?
__________________
  #4507  
Old 04-07-2011, 06:43 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Diarist, as a forum, member's opinions will differ and that should make it too a more interesting setting, so don't fell discourage to post here :) .


But one thing though is that, this is a thread about the couples' wedding so the majority will have a higher appreciation for them. Since you did make the effort to join in we can assume you have an interest in their relationship, I myself wouldn't spend time on a thread that doesn't interest me, although some others seem to do just that..... Anyways, at the end we must agree to disagree. [/QUOTE]


Thank you Mia Mae for your response,

I am afraid that several people here have misunderstood the point I was trying to make; I am NOT objecting to people taking a different view to me - first and foremost, I welcome debate - after all discussion and advice is how we all move forward as people, isn't it?

The only thing that I was objecting to was what struck me [and others, bearing in mind PMs I have received -thank you, good people, I will be responding to you later ] was the language being used , which seemed to be more a 'personal attack' on me - the golden rule used to be 'politely question the ideas in the post, not attack the poster'. I will however take up future posts with the mods.

Just to emphasise again, I was NOT referring to people's right to disagree, only the language being used. Could I make a general plea - as an ordinary, ordinary poster, that we are all courtly to each other when we disagree?

I will obviously expand on this more in the appropriate thread, but a person who apparently posts here [i don't know her user name] contacted me personally some months ago, asking how she could get an invitation to a Buckingham Palace Garden party. I have told her how to go about this, as I do for any one who asks - no special favours!; at the time she asked why I was not a member of TRF [which I had not heard of] and so I only recently got round to joining.


Back on topic; the Daily Mail article [see previous posts] re-iterates some of the points that I have actually made on this forum recently. As to how newspapers get their information - which means whether the DM is true or not, there are various schools of thought.

It's a bit of a longwinded question to answer, but I will try, hoping that this will help some of us:

In basic terms, there are two ways that British Newspapers acquire Royal Information: these are: Officially and Unofficially. 'Official means' are quite obvious:

The Issue of Official Communications [from BP and other Royal 'Offices'] which can be written and unwritten.

Examples of such written communications would be announcements of forthcoming marriages, royal births, deaths etc etc, announcements of programmes of Royal Engagements [meaning visits etc, not betrothals!!] Dates of Official Occasions [such as the forthcoming Wedding, the Diamond Jubilee etc, annual information Royal Ascot etc]. Some announcements - royal births, betrothals etc - are also posted on the Palace gates, Press Releases etc.


The best examples of Official Oral communications are the formal briefings held by the Press Secretaries, to which members of the Press and other interested parties etc are summoned. These are given the status of official announcements, in the sense that they can be relied on as accurate. They are given by named people, who can be quoted by name. Sometimes even the Queen makes such an announcement - one one occasion, this was during an Investiture, when HM actually made an announcement of a royal birth; this was because at that precise time, her staff were pinning up a notice of the annoucment on the Palace gates. [Cheering and applause then followed!!]

For the sake of completeness, I should also include those occasions when the Press actually shout out [a bit rude, this!] a question to a member of the Royal Family during a royal engagement etc, who then replies [e.g when the Prince of Wales is asked [ambushed??] how he feels about the Engagement of Prince William, or how the Prince of Wales feels after his recent polo fall / gardening accident etc, and he then replies, which the press can of course then quote in full as his words.

'Unofficial' Sources of information are more encompassing and cause the most difficulties.

Despite what most of us understand by 'unofficial', a very important source of unofficial information are those remarks given by members of the Royal Household on what is known as an 'unattributable basis' - this is a hard concept for us to understand, but basically, it is 'facts intended to supplement official information which BP [etc] has officially issued'. They can be regarded as 'true'.
Can I give an example of this? 15 years or so ago, ago, the Queen Mother missed a couple of engagements [rare for her] and people began 'thinking the worst'. An official annoucement by Clarence House had been put out to the effect that the QM was 'indisposed'. This did nothing to quell the rumours in the press that something was 'seriously wrong' - the QM after all was very old! It was at this point that one of her staff told groups of people that [and I can quote this, for I was at one such occasion] - 'Listen, the QM is getting over a very bad cold; she's in no apparent danger, but of course you have to rememember she is old; bascially she is spending a lot of time resting in bed, reading the racing news and watching the racing on the television and keeping warm. She's in very good spirits and, knowing HM, we expect her to be up and about in the not too distant future'. Those journalists who recieved this briefing began to incorporate it in their reports, writing stories such as 'palace sources say that the QM is getting over a bad cold, there's no cause for alarm, but wisely she is staying in bed, very comfortable / having one of her favourite gins-and-Dubbonets / her favourite Corgis are with her etc etc.' And so you can see how stories 'spin out'

The other source of unofficial information is of course the many different 'usual' tactics employed by journalists'. These range from the more old-fashioined observation [e.g. standing on public property outside Royal Residences seing who is visiting] to the more disreputable and questionable and sometimes downright illegal tactics. For example, some of the Tabloid Press are known to pay staff [low-paid sevants] for information; some journalists even go so far as to obtain work in BP themselves; then there is the alleged tapping of royal telephones, and then the so-called 'friends' who contact papers with information which they mostly sell [I ask you, if you were a genuine friend of a member of the Royal Family, would you sell information - I think not!!]

There is one other source of unofficial information, which is very much more problematic - when members of the Royal Family [never the Queen] apparently [ I say 'apparently', because in many cases, who really knows?] are happy for their genuine friends to give information to the press. Some of this is given quite openenly. One such example was the outburst of Prince Charles' friend Nicholas Soames MP to the papers following Diana's Panorama broadcast, which was apparently made with the blessing of Prince Charles.
Other information is more clandestine - there were lots of rumours that Diana herself did brief the DM journalist Richard Kay with 'her side of the story' quite often. Certainly, she was seen getting into Mr Kay's car once.

And this brings me back [finally] to the question posed by Muriel. The DM is a strange type of newspaper; it is a tabloid and does indeed contain on occasions what I would call 'typically tabloid rubbish'; but there again, Richard Kay still works for that paper, and it is possible that his contacts are still very good.

Sorry for the length of this post, but I did want to try to share the insight I have gained. Please feel free to debate what I have said, but please remember I am trying in good faith, to help with background.

Thank you,

Alex
__________________
  #4508  
Old 04-07-2011, 09:14 AM
Susanna Wynne's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jackson Hole, United States
Posts: 262
Thank you, Diarist! It is good to have you in the forum!
__________________
  #4509  
Old 04-07-2011, 09:51 AM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
This is quite a funny article. Does the DM have a special insight into conversattions between Camilla and Catherine?
It seems to me that the author of this article offers little more than filling space based on information already known about the wedding and basing this alleged issue over the tiara vs. flowers on previous decisions to downplay the austerity. I have difficulty seeing Camilla asking Kate's friends to intervene on her behalf. I also have doubts that there is any kind of alleged issue over Kate wearing a tiara at all. The very mention of whether Kate would borrow the Spencer tiara took this article from feasible to ridiculous. If the author had true inside knowledge of the Royal household, then she would know that Spencer tiara is not part of the Royal jewels.

"If Kate chooses to borrow the Spencer tiara, it will excite the ‘It’s all a bit spooky’ crowd, who are already alarmed by the shared engagement ring and the idea that the young couple might live in Diana’s old home at Kensington Palace"
__________________
  #4510  
Old 04-07-2011, 10:03 AM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
I am afraid that several people here have misunderstood the point I was trying to make; I am NOT objecting to people taking a different view to me - first and foremost, I welcome debate - after all discussion and advice is how we all move forward as people, isn't it?

The only thing that I was objecting to was what struck me [and others, bearing in mind PMs I have received -thank you, good people, I will be responding to you later ] was the language being used , which seemed to be more a 'personal attack' on me - the golden rule used to be 'politely question the ideas in the post, not attack the poster'. I will however take up future posts with the mods.

Just to emphasise again, I was NOT referring to people's right to disagree, only the language being used. Could I make a general plea - as an ordinary, ordinary poster, that we are all courtly to each other when we disagree?

I will obviously expand on this more in the appropriate thread, but a person who apparently posts here [i don't know her user name] contacted me personally some months ago, asking how she could get an invitation to a Buckingham Palace Garden party. I have told her how to go about this, as I do for any one who asks - no special favours!; at the time she asked why I was not a member of TRF [which I had not heard of] and so I only recently got round to joining.
I did not see that you were personally being attacked by the poster. She was countering your statements and opinions with her own.

On other topic, do you work for the Royal household? I have seen several references to some inside knowledge and connections you have which made me curious.
__________________
  #4511  
Old 04-07-2011, 10:16 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,159
Let's move on....if anyone has any concerns about the tone of the forum or feels that they have been attacked, please contact anyone on the TRF moderation team.

This thread is not the appropriate place to discuss it.
__________________
.

  #4512  
Old 04-07-2011, 01:21 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,730
Are we being teased here? I read this article over in the Prince William and Harry subforum on Prince Harry and the last paragraph made me go "hmmmmm". I really don't see it happening but what do I know.

"Right now, the only fear for Harry is that he'll embarrass his brother in front of a millions-strongtelevision audience with an indiscreet best man's speech. Harry has promised as much, telling the BBC television in Norway that his speech at William's wedding might "make him lose some hair." GPD © AP

Cool Harry stealing all the headlines - News Summary ROYALBLOG.NL
__________________
  #4513  
Old 04-07-2011, 01:46 PM
Mia_mae's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SP, Brazil
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Are we being teased here? I read this article over in the Prince William and Harry subforum on Prince Harry and the last paragraph made me go "hmmmmm". I really don't see it happening but what do I know.

"Right now, the only fear for Harry is that he'll embarrass his brother in front of a millions-strongtelevision audience with an indiscreet best man's speech. Harry has promised as much, telling the BBC television in Norway that his speech at William's wedding might "make him lose some hair." GPD © AP

Cool Harry stealing all the headlines - News Summary ROYALBLOG.NL
He will do the speech during the private reception, where cameras, as I recall ,won't be allowed. So no chance we'll be embarrassed inf front of a "millions-strongtelevision audience"
__________________
There's not much of a difference between a stadium full of cheering fans and an angry crowd screaming abuse at you. They're both just making a lot of noise. How you take it is up to you. Convince yourself they're cheering for you. You do that, and someday, they will - Sue S.
  #4514  
Old 04-07-2011, 02:10 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,725
Not sure where to post this?!

The London Evening Standard this eveing has an article titled:

"Giant Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square Screens To Show Royal Wedding"

It suggests that those who cannot find space along the processional route will be able to watch the procession and the wedding service live at either Trafalgar Square (which can accommodate 10,000 people) or Hyde Park (where officials expect crowds of between 200,000 and 500,000 people).

There will also be a 60 metre "London Eye" style observation wheel at Hyde Park which opens today until 2nd May.

About a million people are expected to travel to central London on the wedding day and it is expected to attract a global audience of two billion.

The article also states that the wedding service will last for about 1 hour 15 minutes.
__________________
J
  #4515  
Old 04-07-2011, 04:06 PM
Mia_mae's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SP, Brazil
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
Not sure where to post this?!

The London Evening Standard this eveing has an article titled:

"Giant Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square Screens To Show Royal Wedding"

It suggests that those who cannot find space along the processional route will be able to watch the procession and the wedding service live at either Trafalgar Square (which can accommodate 10,000 people) or Hyde Park (where officials expect crowds of between 200,000 and 500,000 people).

There will also be a 60 metre "London Eye" style observation wheel at Hyde Park which opens today until 2nd May.

About a million people are expected to travel to central London on the wedding day and it is expected to attract a global audience of two billion.

The article also states that the wedding service will last for about 1 hour 15 minutes.
Some of this numbers seemed a little exaggerated, anyways. where will those who will actually line up to witness the procession watch the ceremony? I wonder if they prefer to stay put in order to get a glimpse of the couple on the way back to BP or go to some of the places with screens.
__________________
There's not much of a difference between a stadium full of cheering fans and an angry crowd screaming abuse at you. They're both just making a lot of noise. How you take it is up to you. Convince yourself they're cheering for you. You do that, and someday, they will - Sue S.
  #4516  
Old 04-07-2011, 04:44 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,789
If I were in a position to be there on the "day," I'd certainly choose to be along the parade route, hoping to view them "in the flesh."
__________________
  #4517  
Old 04-07-2011, 04:59 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
If I were in a position to be there on the "day," I'd certainly choose to be along the parade route, hoping to view them "in the flesh."
I think that is where I'd want to be too. Right in front of Westminster Abbey. Now I don't know much about Iphones and such but isn't there some phones out there that can pick up internet feeds? That would be the ticket! Right in front of the Abbey and watching the ceremeony on one's phone.
__________________
  #4518  
Old 04-07-2011, 09:02 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I think that is where I'd want to be too. Right in front of Westminster Abbey. Now I don't know much about Iphones and such but isn't there some phones out there that can pick up internet feeds? That would be the ticket! Right in front of the Abbey and watching the ceremeony on one's phone.
I'd go one better and bring a laptop, hook up to a WiFi connection or over my phone's internet and watch it online. No need to use a tiny phone screen, lol.
__________________
  #4519  
Old 04-07-2011, 11:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 423
Me too I'll prefert to be in front of the Abbaye, but it means you probably have to stay all night long to secure your place and sleeps the night before the event in the streets behind fences!!! Dont you think we are going to have reports on thursday and interviews of people who decided to sleep to secure their places?
__________________
  #4520  
Old 04-07-2011, 11:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,349
I know that when I was in The Mall for the 60th Anniversary of the end of WWII there were big screens there - the one I watched was sort of on the fence at the front of BP but over to the side, and I think there was one of the other side. They were removed or lowered by the time the royals were returning to the palace I think as I don't remember seeing it as the royals entered, but then again I was watching the centre of the palace as opposed to the side where the screen had been.

As for sleeping in the street - one night mightn't be enough. I also don't know but I think outside the Abbey will have a lot of press and maybe even uninvited but relevant associates of the bride and groom e.g. people associated with their favourite charities who can't fit inside.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
prince william & catherine middleton 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 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 cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman palace pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:02 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]