The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2901  
Old 02-21-2011, 06:59 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
A question to English native speakers:

the invitation invites the guest "to the marriage" of William and Catherine. In a comment to this article someone wrote that the invitation should have been "to the wedding", as it is the actual service but not "to the marriage" because the marriage only starts at the wedding?

Which wording is correct?
The invitation is correct not least of all because it is inconceivable that the wrong wording would be used for a wedding invitation issued by the British Royal Family! But in all seriousness, both words could be used, it's just that the word "marriage" is more traditional and derives from the latin for "to wed, marry, give in marriage".

People will be witnessing the marriage ceremony as well as the wedding.
__________________

__________________
JACK
  #2902  
Old 02-21-2011, 07:16 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
The invitation is correct not least of all because it is inconceivable that the wrong wording would be used for a wedding invitation issued by the British Royal Family! But in all seriousness, both words could be used, it's just that the word "marriage" is more traditional and derives from the latin for "to wed, marry, give in marriage".

People will be witnessing the marriage ceremony as well as the wedding.
Thank you for the information. German has different words: "Hochzeit" or "Heirat" mean the actual wedding service, "Ehe" is the marriage in its length.
__________________

  #2903  
Old 02-21-2011, 07:19 AM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaya View Post
That is cruel and truly petty gesture towards Sarah..Just as the one towards the Obamas.
Please. Sarah has stated herself that she has not been part of William or Harry's life since before Diana's death and she did not expect to receive an invitation.

How is the Obama's not being invited "petty"? They are not personal friends of the RF, nor is this is a state wedding where Heads of State would expect to be included. No Heads of State have been invited.
  #2904  
Old 02-21-2011, 07:28 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
A question to English native speakers:

the invitation invites the guest "to the marriage" of William and Catherine. In a comment to this article someone wrote that the invitation should have been "to the wedding", as it is the actual service but not "to the marriage" because the marriage only starts at the wedding?

Which wording is correct?
That is something I have always wondered about, actually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
The invitation is correct not least of all because it is inconceivable that the wrong wording would be used for a wedding invitation issued by the British Royal Family! But in all seriousness, both words could be used, it's just that the word "marriage" is more traditional and derives from the latin for "to wed, marry, give in marriage".

People will be witnessing the marriage ceremony as well as the wedding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Thank you for the information. German has different words: "Hochzeit" or "Heirat" mean the actual wedding service, "Ehe" is the marriage in its length.
In my eyes; the wedding ceremony (the "Hochzeit") is what is being witnessed by the guests, while the actual marriage (the "Ehe") officially starts as soon as the bride and groom are being pronounced husband and wife.

In that way, I guess, the guests will also witness the earliest moments of the marriage but to me it is still part of the wedding day. A couple's actual marriage (thus when the ceremony and all post-activities have been closed) starts on the next day - imo. And, while thinking about it, I suppose it starts as soon as the couple is pronounced married but then everyone is still in wedding attire so to me it's still the wedding and not the marriage yet.

Perhaps I have a much too detailed look into things like these
  #2905  
Old 02-21-2011, 07:31 AM
4Pam's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 3,109
What does the KG stand for in the invitation?
__________________
Absence is, in my opinion, important to find out whether something in your life is meaningful and important! It may be difficult to endure, but the end result is always revealing.
  #2906  
Old 02-21-2011, 07:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
Please. Sarah has stated herself that she has not been part of William or Harry's life since before Diana's death and she did not expect to receive an invitation.

How is the Obama's not being invited "petty"? They are not personal friends of the RF, nor is this is a state wedding where Heads of State would expect to be included. No Heads of State have been invited.
I am getting tired of stuff like this as well, but some posters (will) find fault with whatever William and Catherine do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Pam View Post
What does the KG stand for in the invitation?
Knight of the Garter, has been mentioned a couple of pages back .
  #2907  
Old 02-21-2011, 07:51 AM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippy View Post
I am getting tired of stuff like this as well, but some posters (will) find fault with whatever William and Catherine do.
Yes, that is very true. It really is ridiculous to be so negative over every detail.
  #2908  
Old 02-21-2011, 08:22 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
I can't believe the whining about President and Mrs Obama not being invited to the wedding of someone they have never met! President Sarkozy isn't invited either and I don't see the French throwing their toys out of the cot.

I think it's because US Presidents and/or their wives have been invited to royal weddings in the past, and so now many people simply expect it.

But in previous cases, those people invited had some sort of relationship to either the Queen or the Prime Minister- which the Obamas don't.

Besides, it's William's wedding, why should he have to forego having some of his friends in order to invite people he hasn't met or (yes, I'll be the one to say it) may not particularly like?
  #2909  
Old 02-21-2011, 09:07 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I think it's because US Presidents and/or their wives have been invited to royal weddings in the past, and so now many people simply expect it.

But in previous cases, those people invited had some sort of relationship to either the Queen or the Prime Minister- which the Obamas don't.

Those wedding were state occasions. This is not. Heads of State do not belong at functions that are not state occasions.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever......"
  #2910  
Old 02-21-2011, 09:11 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
Those wedding were state occasions. This is not. Heads of State do not belong at functions that are not state occasions.
I doubt that many people will make that distinction. Even if they do, they might point out that Prince Andrew's wedding wasn't a state occasion.
  #2911  
Old 02-21-2011, 09:17 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,590
Correct. Prince Andrew's wasnt a state occassion but the circumstances were very different. He was/is the Monarch's son. So I think that is why Nancy Reagan was in attendance.

The Obamas haven't been invited and I don't think they are bothered by it at all. But neither has Sarozky...and I haven't checked but I bet Angela Merkel hasn't been invited as well. Looks like the press and people here are more offended than they are.

Also, since we don't know what goes on with the Queen or the Obamas every minute and every second of the day...I wouldn't goes as far as saying the Queen doesn't have a relationship with the Obamas.

The day is about William and Catherine and those who they have decided to share their special day with. End of Story.
__________________
.

  #2912  
Old 02-21-2011, 09:18 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I doubt that many people will make that distinction. Even if they do, they might point out that Prince Andrew's wedding wasn't a state occasion.
I think so too.
  #2913  
Old 02-21-2011, 09:19 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Correct. Prince Andrew's wasnt a state occassion but the circumstances were very different. He was/is the Monarch's son. So I think that is why Nancy Reagan was in attendance.

The Obamas haven't been invited and I don't think they are bothered by it at all. But neither has Sarozky...and I haven't checked but I bet Angela Merkel hasn't been invited as well. Looks like the press and people here are more offended than they are.

Also, since we don't know what goes on with the Queen or the Obamas every minute and every second of the day...I wouldn't goes as far as saying the Queen doesn't have a relationship with the Obamas.

The day is about William and Catherine and those who they have decided to share their special day with. End of Story.
Ditto, I second that. I think it will be a very interesting delegation. This wedding is, according to me, the first of its kind in any recent Royal history. Of course, anyone is free to correct me if I am wrong.
  #2914  
Old 02-21-2011, 09:28 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
No he's not.



William is not first in line. His father is. Charles is an heir apparent. CP Victoria is an heiress apparent. CP Frederik is an heir apparent. All these people have one thing in common; their mother or father is the current sovereign of their country, meaning upon their death they will become the next sovereign.

Upon the Queen's death, the only thing William becomes or inherits is the Duke of Cornwall. Heir/heiress apparent has a specific meaning that applies to just one person.
Hmm, I guess we have somewhat different interpretations of "Heir Apparent" then. I've always thought it just mean someone who will eventually ascend to the throne in due time, not just the very first in line.

If that's the official/widely accepted definition of Heir Apparent, then I stand corrected. Thanks for the discussion!

Back to the program!
  #2915  
Old 02-21-2011, 09:37 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Hmm, I guess we have somewhat different interpretations of "Heir Apparent" then.
There is only one heir apparent, and in this case, it is Charles. Case closed

Which I see you had officialy "closed" yourself, so do pardon my late and rather unenlightening contribution as it were...haha.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #2916  
Old 02-21-2011, 09:55 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,814
Yvonne Yorke: Kate's Royal Wedding Look: The Dress, The Veil, The Tiara and More


According to this, the Queen had all the tiaras in the collection displayed in the ballroom, and invited Kate to select the one she wished to wear to the wedding.

Wouldn't it be better to choose the tiara to go with the dress, rather than the other way? (I would think Kate would want to invite her designer along!)

What does everyone think?
  #2917  
Old 02-21-2011, 09:58 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippy View Post
Ditto, I second that. I think it will be a very interesting delegation. This wedding is, according to me, the first of its kind in any recent Royal history. Of course, anyone is free to correct me if I am wrong.
I agree that in many ways this is the first royal wedding of its kind - certainly for British recent royal history at least. The popular grandson of a British monarch is getting married and I cannot think when that last happened. It is the first high ranking British royal wedding of the 21st century and even Prince Edward's wedding was very much scaled down. It is 25 years since the last royal wedding at Westminster Abbey and so for a whole generation of people it will be something they have not seen before.
__________________
JACK
  #2918  
Old 02-21-2011, 10:04 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
I agree that in many ways this is the first royal wedding of its kind - certainly for British recent royal history at least. The popular grandson of a British monarch is getting married and I cannot think when that last happened. It is the first high ranking British royal wedding of the 21st century and even Prince Edward's wedding was very much scaled down. It is 25 years since the last royal wedding at Westminster Abbey and so for a whole generation of people it will be something they have not seen before.
I think the last marriage of a grandson of a reigning British Monarch was Victoria with George, Duke of York marrying Princess May of Teck.

I would agree that this is something that doesn't happen often. Though I would expect that a King William would see his grandchildren married. Due to the ages of the Queen and Charles and the estimated time frame when William will become King.
__________________
.

  #2919  
Old 02-21-2011, 10:32 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,139
I, too, am curious about the wording of the wedding invitation.

1.) Why is it that the Queen and not Prince Charles, as father of the groom, inviting the guests?
2.) On Prince Charles' wedding invitation, it was the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh who did the inviting ... why not here, too?
  #2920  
Old 02-21-2011, 10:32 AM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
Yvonne Yorke: Kate's Royal Wedding Look: The Dress, The Veil, The Tiara and More


According to this, the Queen had all the tiaras in the collection displayed in the ballroom, and invited Kate to select the one she wished to wear to the wedding.

Wouldn't it be better to choose the tiara to go with the dress, rather than the other way? (I would think Kate would want to invite her designer along!)

What does everyone think?
Maybe Ms Middleton had her wedding dress design by the time the Queen let her pick the tiara.
__________________

__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
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





Popular Tags
best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria crown princess victoria daytime fashion current events denmark earl of snowdon fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy nassau news noice opening of parliament picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess diana lady spencer princess eleonore princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary style princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie succession sweden swedish royal family uae wildlife victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:03 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises