Pippa Middleton: May 2011-May 2017

[Countessmeout]

Not comparable. Buckingham palace may have plenty of space but it's not a private house. It's not like Sandringham where the queen could just lead out suites to people. This is more along the lines of thinking the Middletons staying at Clarence House which would never happen.

But I highly doubt the thought crossed the Matthews minds. It's one thing for James to stay with his in laws when visiting but his parents? It can be uncomfortable being a guest I'm someone's house at the best of times, not sure if you are intruding or in the way. During wedding that would be even worse. I a, sure the couple and kids are more comfortable in a hotel.

I notice they always make sure to mention Spencer but never James' sister. I guess because she is not somr scandalous tv star.

 

[Skippyboo]

Pippa Middleton: May 2011-

Pretty sure the Queen can let people stay the night at BP if she wanted. William and Kate spent their wedding night there. The Queen and Philip regularly invites guests for dinner and a overnight stay at Windsor. Foreign heads of states and their entourages are hosted at the palaces so we know their are guest rooms.

The press likes holding the Middletons to a higher standard than the Queen. Why would the Middletons with only 7 bedrooms host the in laws when the Queen with 700 bedrooms in BP didn't?

 

[Osipi]

There's probably a very good reason why the Matthews wouldn't be staying with the Middletons for the wedding. The big reason being is that the Matthews would arrive for the festivities *before* the wedding. When we get to the night before the wedding, most likely James would want to spend that night with his parents just as Pippa would with her parents. The old "see the bride before the wedding" tradition would be so easy to cross if everyone was in the same house (no matter how big it is).

I can see the Middletons inviting the Matthews to come and stay with them sometime down the line such as a christening or an anniversary but not for the wedding.

 

[Countessmeout]

Pretty sure the Queen can let people stay the night at BP if she wanted. William and Kate spent their wedding night there. The Queen and Philip regularly invites guests for dinner and a overnight stay at Windsor. Foreign heads of states and their entourages are hosted at the palaces so we know their are guest rooms.

The press likes holding the Middletons to a higher standard than the Queen. Why would the Middletons with only 7 bedrooms host the in laws when the Queen with 700 bedrooms in BP didn't?

Foreign dignitaries are invited guests of state. So yes, they are housed in state properties which Windsor and Buckingham are. Windsor is slightly different. Yes it is state owned but it is still more of a private home. Buckingham is a working palace. It's not a simple matter to just have any guests walking around. Her grandson and his wife are another matter. The security concerns alone. Was the queen meant to put them up in rooms used by visiting presidents, or ask someone like Anne to let the couple use her guest room?

Besides the queen is not the same as the Middletons. She is not the parents. She had no more obligation to the Middletons than the Tindall, Kelly, or any future in laws. Charles is the in laws here.

Now if you want to say well Charles didn't invite them to stay at Clarence House you have a point. But I no more expect Charles to house the Middletons than I do the Middletons to house the Matthews.

And Buckingham has 52 bedrooms not 700. Many of which would be contained within the private apartments of the royals who live there. Or state apartments like the Belgian suite.

 

[Rudolph]

Prince Harry's girlfriend Meghan Markle has requested time off from her hit TV show Suits in May, leaving her free to join him at Pippa Middleton's wedding, HELLO! can exclusively reveal.

The American actress wants to take a week off between May 15 to 22, which would allow her plenty of time to travel to the UK for the hotly-anticipated nuptials in Berkshire on May 20.

If the couple do attend the wedding together it is said to mark a significant step in their relationship, as they have tried to keep their romance out of the spotlight since they first started dating in 2016.

Read more:EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry will have Meghan Markle by his side at Pippa Middleton's wedding

 

[Curryong]

We will have to wait to see if there is any truth in this report. If there is, then Meghan's appearance at a family wedding (extended family in Harry's case) will be another significant marker in their relationship. It would also make a lie of all the 'no ring, no bring' policies the media have been carrying on about in recent weeks.

 

[Rudolph]

I agree a family wedding is significant. It also means Meghan been brought into the fold.

A much bigger deal than Tom's wedding.

 

[Skippyboo]

Let's wait and see what happens. I am still waiting for news of the designer dog the Mail said George was getting for his birthday last year.

 

[Mirabel]

We will have to wait to see if there is any truth in this report. If there is, then Meghan's appearance at a family wedding (extended family in Harry's case) will be another significant marker in their relationship. It would also make a lie of all the 'no ring, no bring' policies the media have been carrying on about in recent weeks.

It's already a lie, since it is known that Donna Air is attending, and she is not engaged to James Middleton.

 

[carlota]

It's already a lie, since it is known that Donna Air is attending, and she is not engaged to James Middleton.

but donna has been a long time partner of james and james is pippa's brother, so i guess it is a bit different. harry is an in law of pippa, so the relationship is more distant with meghan than it is with donna.

although i agree, that the policy of only married couples reported by the press sounded ridiculous and unlike something pippa would do. we did hear though that they wanted a private wedding, so maybe they want to limit the number of +1's?

 

[Pranter]

That guest list is certain to make some heads explode lol


LaRae

 

[MichelleQ2]

I have always thought the "no ring, no bring" is just a exploit story amplified by the DMail etc. I believe the truth is closer to the fact that for security reasons, there were no blanket '+ 1' or 'and guest' invitations. If the couple is well known to the guests of honor, then both parties received their own invitation - i.e. Donna Air was invited and at the request of the Cambridges perhaps Meghan was invited as well. With all of the security surrounding this wedding, everyone would have to have been checked out prior to arriving at the wedding and service.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I heard first of no ring, no bring over 25 years ago, when my husband and I were invited to my husband's friend wedding. I was 'lucky' that I was already the wife back then and not the girlfriend, so we went together anyway, my husband later mentioned that he would have declined the invitation without me (not that I would have forced him to). But already back then I thought this this 'rule' was so outdated - and now, in 2017, even more so. This cannot be serious. But maybe can somebody enlighten me, is this a thing of the English upper class? Because you honestly cannot chose your guests from having a ring or not but from the human being you want to have around you on the day.

 

[miss whirley]

I'm very dubious of this Hello! claim. In the headline they boldly proclaim Meghan will be at the wedding, for clicks. Then in the article they quickly dial back their certainty and say "If the couple attends". Tabloid 101. I'm not surprised that they're throwing stories to the wall to see what sticks, it's been obvious for months that they had no pipeline with Pippa or James, as they have been routinely reprinting Daily Mail gossip about the couple. This desperation for a scoop reminds me of when People Magazine claimed Meghan would be spending Christmas with the Middleton family, I think People is still licking their wounds over that one.

 

[Winnie]

I heard first of no ring, no bring over 25 years ago, when my husband and I were invited to my husband's friend wedding. I was 'lucky' that I was already the wife back then and not the girlfriend, so we went together anyway, my husband later mentioned that he would have declined the invitation without me (not that I would have forced him to). But already back then I thought this this 'rule' was so outdated - and now, in 2017, even more so. This cannot be serious. But maybe can somebody enlighten me, is this a thing of the English upper class? Because you honestly cannot chose your guests from having a ring or not but from the human being you want to have around you on the day.

D of M you are correct. As old as I am and a stickler for proper things being followed, as long as "plus one" is on an invitation, the invited person can bring anyone of their choice. I have seen men bring other men and women the same. One gentlemen brought his mother to give her a pleasant day out. Never heard of or followed the silly "no ring, no bring". Maybe that was strictly an European tradition. If the wedding couple didn't like a person's mates or current chippy, the plus one was eliminated from invitation. If he didn't like it, he could stay home. Same goes for dress code. Most of the time that is eliminated from insert with invitation anymore. Shame really. JMO

 

[hel]

I heard first of no ring, no bring over 25 years ago, when my husband and I were invited to my husband's friend wedding. I was 'lucky' that I was already the wife back then and not the girlfriend, so we went together anyway, my husband later mentioned that he would have declined the invitation without me (not that I would have forced him to). But already back then I thought this this 'rule' was so outdated - and now, in 2017, even more so. This cannot be serious. But maybe can somebody enlighten me, is this a thing of the English upper class? Because you honestly cannot chose your guests from having a ring or not but from the human being you want to have around you on the day.

What's bizarre to me is that "no ring, no bring" is being described in some papers as "your spouse is your plus 1" which I do not understand. Because where I grew up, the people whose names are on the invitation are the invited guests, and married couples are invited together. Alternatively, a long established couple who are both known to the bridal couple would be invited together and addressed as "Mr. Bob Noname and Miss Anne Whoisshe". In that case, Anne would be an invited guest, not a plus one.

A "plus one" or "and guest" is just that... "mr. bob noname and guest" and is used when you're encouraging your single guests to bring someone whom you may not know. It's done for the comfort of the guest or when you don't know if the person is dating someone at the moment.

But the idea that you would know who someone was involved with and then put "and guest" is very rude; suggesting that the other half of a married couple is a "plus one" as bad as asking for money on the invitation. SMH

Victoria Arbiter, in an interview I saw recently, said that the concept of "plus one" isn't really all that in vogue in Britain.. is that actually the case? Is it possible that its just a concept that the press is explaining badly because it's not a thing over there?

 

[Rudolph]

Now that's it's confirmed Harry is going to Pippa's wedding, it makes sense (to me) that Meghan will also go, providing she is not filming Suits.

 

[miss whirley]

I don't think "plus ones" are all that common in high society UK, unless the couple has been dating a long time, or the bride/groom are friends with both parties. Look at Pippa, when she dated Nico for 3 years, during those 3 years she attended several weddings, to the point that the media mocked her constant attendance, yet Nico was only brought as a "plus one" to two of those weddings. Same with Alex Loudon, his attendance with her was the exception not the rule. If Pippa has strict guidelines for plus ones at her wedding, it looks like she will just be following the same protocol that she followed as a guest in the past.

 

[Winnie]

What's bizarre to me is that "no ring, no bring" is being described in some papers as "your spouse is your plus 1" which I do not understand. Because where I grew up, the people whose names are on the invitation are the invited guests, and married couples are invited together. Alternatively, a long established couple who are both known to the bridal couple would be invited together and addressed as "Mr. Bob Noname and Miss Anne Whoisshe". In that case, Anne would be an invited guest, not a plus one.

A "plus one" or "and guest" is just that... "mr. bob noname and guest" and is used when you're encouraging your single guests to bring someone whom you may not know. It's done for the comfort of the guest or when you don't know if the person is dating someone at the moment.

But the idea that you would know who someone was involved with and then put "and guest" is very rude; suggesting that the other half of a married couple is a "plus one" as bad as asking for money on the invitation. SMH

When a married couple is invited to a wedding, it is stated Mr. and Mrs. Smith. When an engaged couple is invited the invitation reads Mr. John Smith and Miss Sarah Jones. That also means that if Sarah can't attend, John does not have the liberty to bring any only drinking buddy instead. The plus one is used when you actually don't know the invited person's situation. I was told by a cheeky nephew that the plus one was started as many couples just live together anymore and changed partners as one does their socks. The plus one was originated so the invited wouldn't be embarrassed. This is really only important with a proper "sit down and served reception", with place cards and sitting arrangement for all tables. If a buffet, the extra one or 10 really makes no difference as much more food must be prepared for the event.

 

[hel]

When a married couple is invited to a wedding, it is stated Mr. and Mrs. Smith. When an engaged couple is invited the invitation reads Mr. John Smith and Miss Sarah Jones. That also means that if Sarah can't attend, John does not have the liberty to bring any only drinking buddy instead. The plus one is used when you actually don't know the invited person's situation. I was told by a cheeky nephew that the plus one was started as many couples just live together anymore and changed partners as one does their socks. The plus one was originated so the invited wouldn't be embarrassed. This is really only important with a proper "sit down and served reception", with place cards and sitting arrangement for all tables. If a buffet, the extra one or 10 really makes no difference as much more food must be prepared for the event.

Well, it looks like you, me, and Emily and Peggy Post are all on the same page. It's too bad that the british press corps seem to be a bit confused.

 

[Osipi]

To be honest, whether or not Meghan attends Pippa's wedding on Harry's arm doesn't matter one bit. If, and its a big if, Meghan has requested time away during this period, it may point to her being in the UK but then again, there's a bazillion other possibilities for requesting a breather. I seriously doubt that Pippa's going to be reaching for the smelling salts or feel her day will be ruined unless Harry has someone on his arm for her day.

A couple attending a wedding is just that. A couple. Two people there to celebrate and witness a marriage of two people. Its not an indication of Harry being next to marry nor is there any meaning should Harry go solo. People very easily can put two and two together and come up with ABC.

 

[Jacknch]

Time to get back on topic - let's not fill this thread with talk about Harry and his current girlfriend. Thanks.

 

[Mirabel]

I wonder if Pippa will have any adult attendants, or stick to children?

I've read no references to any other members of the wedding party except for George, Charlotte, and Spencer Matthews.

 

[Pranter]

I'm waiting to see if Kate will be part of the wedding party.


LaRae

 

[Marty91charmed]

I'm waiting to see if Kate will be part of the wedding party.


LaRae

I think there is a strong possibility that she might be. Even if the communiquè didn't say so.

I also think that, at this point, Meghan Markle will be there.

 

[Mbruno]

I'm waiting to see if Kate will be part of the wedding party.


LaRae

I don't think that would be appropriate given Kate's current rank.

 

[Osipi]

When it comes to family weddings, I seriously doubt that public rank and file and titles mean very much. First and foremost at this wedding, Kate will be Pippa's sister. In this case I think sister trumps all.

 

[Pranter]

I think there is a strong possibility that she might be. Even if the communiquè didn't say so.

I also think that, at this point, Meghan Markle will be there.

I hope Kate is a matron of honor. They are very close as sisters and I don't think they would let anything like 'status' interfere with her being in the wedding. The thing that would make sense that she wouldn't be in the party is because of George & Charlotte being in the party and she would be needed to help sort them out.

I said all along Harry was going to be invited. Now..I am still not sure he will bring Meghan...actually I will be kinda surprised if he does simply due to it being a smaller venue.

Hmmm maybe he'll bring her to the reception.....


LaRae

 

[Skippyboo]

Pippa Middleton: May 2011-

When it comes to family weddings, I seriously doubt that public rank and file and titles mean very much. First and foremost at this wedding, Kate will be Pippa's sister. In this case I think sister trumps all.

Princess Margaret was a bridesmaid to Elizabeth but Elizabeth then Queen was not a bridesmaid for her sister. Kate is still the future Queen. She isn't going to be standing next to her sister like the Best Man would. That's Mike's job. Kate would be stuck holding the flowers and carrying the train if there is one.

Since we know George and Charlotte are in the wedding, maybe Kate just wanted to be at the top of the aisle, in case the kids need some prodding to move up the aisle.

 

[Osipi]

I think the big difference here is that Margaret's wedding was a very publicized national event as she was the sister of the Queen. All stops pulled out, order of precedence in force and rank and file and titles mattered.

The public is not "invited" to Pippa's wedding. Pippa is a private citizen and this is a family wedding albeit a family wedding with public interest. Once they're all in that church and the doors are closed, the public is out in the cold and they are family and friends there to witness Pippa and James start their life together. I don't see rank, file and titles having any chutzpah for the ceremony. If Pippa wants her sister as her Matron of Honor, I don't see anything preventing Kate from obliging her.