Wedding of William and Catherine: Suggestions and Musings

[Isabella]

OMG...that's too much going on! The designers are British ( Marchesa ). Hopefully Kate will look much better . Years ago Nicole's mother bought a pearl diamond tiara specifically for her wedding. Wonder why she didn't wear it? It looked almost exactly like the one Lady Helen Taylor wore at her wedding.

Apparently Nicole wanted a dress reminiscent of Grace Kelly's - and I suppose she wanted her veil attached in a similar way.

 

[Mia_mae]

Kate Middleton to be immortalised in wax at Madame Tussauds | Mail Online

they need to update William' hair situation on his model....
But the Queen one is freakishly similar. Amazing!

 

[wymanda]

I still have a feeling that Catherine may have been offered, and accepted, the use of HM in house design team for her dress. This would account for the rumours of fittings at BP and brings into play the enticing possibility of some gorgeous old fabric HM has put by......

 

[Osipi]

I still have a feeling that Catherine may have been offered, and accepted, the use of HM in house design team for her dress. This would account for the rumours of fittings at BP and brings into play the enticing possibility of some gorgeous old fabric HM has put by......

I think that would be wonderful if she did that. As we've seen from the day of their engagement announcement and the use of a family heirloom as an engagement ring, both William and Kate are sentimental about things that mean something to them. Perhaps Kate won't even have a new dress for the wedding but rather will have her mother's wedding dress altered to suit a cathedral wedding (I saw a picture of Carole and Mike on their wedding day somewhere but dang if I can find it again) with as Wymanda suggested, some beautiful material/lace that HM has in store.

I really bet that Kate is going to surprise us all on April 29th.

 

[ghost_night554]

AFP: Royal wedding bells to chime in 2011

Sadly I feel this line is true..

that brought some cheer to Britons, who were pleased at the announcement but not wildly enthusiastic about the ceremony itself, which will take place in London's Westminster Abbey.In November, pollsters ComRes found that two thirds of Britons were "indifferent" to the big day, despite their general attachment to the monarchy.
"As we go towards it, people will get more interested," predicted historian Jean Seaton.

 

[Iluvbertie]

AFP: Royal wedding bells to chime in 2011

Sadly I feel this line is true..

In 1981 when the engagement of William's parents' was announced the enthusiasm was palpable and continued unabated to the day itself.

This engagement has been greeted with muted enthusiasm, some criticism and a general 'ho hum'.

Yes enthusiasm will be there on the day but this couple don't do anything to inspire. They just are.

 

[Roslyn]

I think the lack of the "fairytale glamour" which attached to William's parents' wedding is a very good thing. The RF needs a solid couple who will get on with the job they need to do, and it seems William and Kate are going to do just that.

 

[Osipi]

I think the lack of the "fairytale glamour" which attached to William's parents' wedding is a very good thing. The RF needs a solid couple who will get on with the job they need to do, and it seems William and Kate are going to do just that.

I agree. With William's parents it was something that happened in such a short amount of time you got the impression of "love at first sight" and the impression that Charles was bowled over by Diana and she as much in love with him also with dreams of "happily ever after". With Will and Kate, they seem to have been together since forever, been through ups and downs and inside outs and stand in line together at the grocery store and do the ordinary things we do everyday. Although very much based in reality, I do think in years to come we'll perhaps be looking at the romance of the 21st century as these two work and grow together and become an integral part of the RF.

 

[firebee34]

Ever since Diana died there has been a huge void. For me anyway. While no one will ever replace her, I think Kate is a good choice for 'a fresh face' for the BRF. I haven't been this excited since Sarah and Andrews wedding in 1986. I do wonder though, at all the negative comments I read when the engagement was first announced in the daily mail and other british tabloids. could it be that Americans are more excited about this Royal Wedding then the Brits?

 

[Mia_mae]

As someone stated before, I also believe that their long courtship contributes. Diana and Charles's had a very short one, so every information that's was out about her came as a "surprise". Kate has been around for +/- 8 years.
The British don't appear to have the same enthusiasm about their marriage as William's parents, but if that contributes to a more peaceful life, well, great then!

 

[vittoria]

Are Americans more excited than the Brits?

Well, you have to remember that Americans have not been subjected to 8 years of coverage of Prince William's girlfriend. The U.S. media don't cover the royals on a regular basis, so naturally people in the U.S. are curious and interested. Most Americans could not have told you who William was dating, and they haven't gotten any coverage of lesser weddings in the royal family either. An American royal watcher has to make an effort to seek out information, because the mainstream US media are not going to provide it unless a major event like a wedding in the upper echelons of the royal family suddenly comes along. When it does, it seems special, something connected with an instutution Americans don't have and are not used to hearing about or seeing.

But the British get regular coverage, and many of them are so used to the royal family (and, in some cases, actively hostile to it) that the prospect of a wedding about which the British media have been speculating for years now can't seem all that vastly exciting. Think about the fact that there have wedding rumors ad infinitum practically since Prince William and Catherine Middleton left university. Perhaps the announcement just seemed more than a little anticlimactic in the UK.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Here is Australia the engagement received a bit of coverage on the day (and Zara's practically nothing) and William is our future King but the lack of coverage just shows that the Australian press knows that Australians, generally, aren't interested in the wedding of some rich foreign man. Sure there will be some coverage in the week leading up to the wedding and the day or so after it but really Australians simply didn't seem all that interested to me.

We get very little coverage here of royal doings. My brother, works in the media (sports area) and knew that Mike Tindall had got engaged to some royal or other but hadn't even heard that William was getting married. In fact none of his wife's family had registered that fact and when I mentioned it at Christmas I got blank stares from everyone - with some of the younger ones saying things like 'who cares?' 'whose William?' 'whose Charles?' 'whose Diana?'. There was over 70 of us for Christmas dinner (my sister-in-law is one of 10 and all were present with kids and grandkids) and I was the only one who knew William was engaged. That surprised me quite a bit - along with the total non-interest when I got to work the day of the announcement. I had expected kids and staff to ask me about things or make comments but there was nothing said by anyone. I have not actually met anyone yet who is in the slightest bit interested or planning on watching the wedding. That will change as the time gets closer and some of the kids at school will watch it I am sure, as will some of the staff (although I have other plans that evening - the football at the SCG - which is where my brother and his family will be as well).

 

[wymanda]

I really wish you would stop using your own small sphere of knowlege for the whole of Australia! Not interested; William & Catherine have been on every magazine cover and all over the news!

Here is Australia the engagement received a bit of coverage on the day (and Zara's practically nothing) and William is our future King but the lack of coverage just shows that the Australian press knows that Australians, generally, aren't interested in the wedding of some rich foreign man. Sure there will be some coverage in the week leading up to the wedding and the day or so after it but really Australians simply didn't seem all that interested to me.

We get very little coverage here of royal doings. My brother, works in the media (sports area) and knew that Mike Tindall had got engaged to some royal or other but hadn't even heard that William was getting married. In fact none of his wife's family had registered that fact and when I mentioned it at Christmas I got blank stares from everyone - with some of the younger ones saying things like 'who cares?' 'whose William?' 'whose Charles?' 'whose Diana?'. There was over 70 of us for Christmas dinner (my sister-in-law is one of 10 and all were present with kids and grandkids) and I was the only one who knew William was engaged. That surprised me quite a bit - along with the total non-interest when I got to work the day of the announcement. I had expected kids and staff to ask me about things or make comments but there was nothing said by anyone. I have not actually met anyone yet who is in the slightest bit interested or planning on watching the wedding. That will change as the time gets closer and some of the kids at school will watch it I am sure, as will some of the staff (although I have other plans that evening - the football at the SCG - which is where my brother and his family will be as well).

 

[Iluvbertie]

I really wish you would stop using your own small sphere of knowlege for the whole of Australia! Not interested; William & Catherine have been on every magazine cover and all over the news!

They weren't all over the news for anything more than the day of the announcement, unless you watch news other than the ABC, Channel 7, 9 10 and Sky (I do watch all of them every day). Since the day of the announcement there has been nothing.

They got the front covers of New Idea and Women's Day for one week (but not Women's Weekly). I have actually been surprised at how few of the magazines that have come out since the engagement have had pictures of them on the covers.

I use my small sphere to show my small sphere - and make it clear that it is my small sphere for that purpose - to counter the arguments that everyone is enthusiastic. I thought that my showing that in a group of over 70 only one knew who William was and that he was engaged might show people something about some Australians. I had never said that it was the whole of Australia. Had I wanted to make that point I wouldn't have made it clear just how big the sphere was.

I am sure there will be more interest in the week or so leading up to the wedding but I am not getting a sense, from watching the news, reading the papers or the magazines that there is all that much enthusiasm.

 

[Marie of The Sea]

Not interested; William & Catherine have been on every magazine cover and all over the news!

Agreed Wymanda. I find it difficult to visualize many people in Australia who don't know who Prince William and Diana are.

Prince William's successful tour of Australia cuts Republican support for ditching monarchy.

Although his three-day trip to Australia was actually only conducted on a semi-official basis (and was, therefore, paid for personally by the Queen) William's brief sojourn in the country sparked the kind of scenes not witnessed since the visit of his late mother, Princess Diana, who remains hugely popular with large swathes of the population.

His public engagements attracted crowds several thousand strong and dominated the television news headlines each night. Several newspapers even bought out souvenirs.


Read more: Prince William's trip to Australia dampens desire for country to ditch monarchy | Mail Online

 

[Iluvbertie]

Agreed Wymanda. I find it difficult to visualize many people in Australia who don't know who Prince William and Diana are.

Prince William's successful tour of Australia cuts Republican support for ditching monarchy.

Although his three-day trip to Australia was actually only conducted on a semi-official basis (and was, therefore, paid for personally by the Queen) William's brief sojourn in the country sparked the kind of scenes not witnessed since the visit of his late mother, Princess Diana, who remains hugely popular with large swathes of the population.

His public engagements attracted crowds several thousand strong and dominated the television news headlines each night. Several newspapers even bought out souvenirs.


Read more: Prince William's trip to Australia dampens desire for country to ditch monarchy | Mail Online

Several thousands is fine - but we were in holiday mode so of course people would turn up for the show.

Of course people get caught up in the story and so any poll about a republic taken at the time - depending on the wording - would show a different result to say one taken after a negative royal experience.

Many young people don't know who William is and even more don't know who Diana was simply because we don't get all that much coverage and total lack of interest.

I can visualise entire classes of teenages who don't know who William is - because I teach them. When I teach the Republican Referendum to 15 -16 year olds each year the first thing I have to do is actually explain who the Queen is and how our system works as they simply don't know anything about her. Many of them actually think we are a republic already as except for the occasional visit from a royal they have no role to play in our country. Ask Australian teenagers who is Australia's Head of State and most will say Julia Gillard (our PM) as they can't even name the GG let alone realise that the Queen holds that title. Many teachers of my acquaitance have found the same thing (and most teach that Australia should be a republic sooner rather than later as most teachers I know are republicans and actively support that cause in their classrooms).

 

[Marie of The Sea]

Our Australian friends are always sending us clippings of articles about William, Kate and Diana from Australian publications so I believe those articles sell or they wouldn't continue to write them.

I respect your opinion of course but get a very different view from other inhabitants of Australia.

William and Diana and increasingly Kate are known and often liked in countries which don't belong to the Common Wealth. Those who read Hello!, the papers, Woman's Own and many American, Australian and European publications, inclluding those which contain celebs know exactly who Harry and William are, so it isn't about politics or geography.

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[soapstar]

Agreed Wymanda. I find it difficult to visualize many people in Australia who don't know who Prince William and Diana are.

I kinda find that difficult to believe too. I could see maybe not knowing the details of their lives, but I can't imagine they have never heard their names.

 

[Roslyn]

They weren't all over the news for anything more than the day of the announcement, unless you watch news other than the ABC, Channel 7, 9 10 and Sky (I do watch all of them every day). Since the day of the announcement there has been nothing.

They got the front covers of New Idea and Women's Day for one week (but not Women's Weekly). I have actually been surprised at how few of the magazines that have come out since the engagement have had pictures of them on the covers.

I missed out on buying copies of the magazines with them on the cover that week, and was looking forward to the Women's Weekly engagment edition, but the new one has Rebecca Gibney in a bathing costume on the cover - and looking very fine for 46, too. There seems to be an article in there about Kate and William "Royal Special - The Making of a Modern Princess", so I'll have to buy it because this may be all the coverage the engagement will get. I assume there will still be a wedding issue though.

I haven't heard anything about them or the wedding on the TV or radio news since the days immediately following the announcement, and I don't recall anything on the news about Zara and Mike.

 

[Marie of The Sea]

I think that as news is released about wedding details, more articles will be written in all countries. At the moment, nothing new to report.

Right, Soapstar.

 

[MRSJ]

US Magazine and People here in USA run a wedding 'story' every week- this week US weekly says Kate's hairdresser is practicing updos, which if true I cheer for!

 

[Zonk]

Since lately US Magazine has been focusing on MTV's Teen Moms, I prefer the Catherine stories. Even though I haven't learned anything new from them. But nice pictures.

 

[jemagre]

I really wish you would stop using your own small sphere of knowlege for the whole of Australia! Not interested; William & Catherine have been on every magazine cover and all over the news!

Just because William & Kate have been all over the news doesn't necessarily mean people are interested.

http://thetvrealist.com/gossip/Teen-Moms-Are-More-Popular-Than-Kate-Middleton-4159228.html

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/sectors/media/royal-wedding-fails-to-boost-tabloid-sales/3021556.article

Just a snippet of links that talk about magazine sells. Then again in Australia she could be a smashing success. I believe that where I live most people could care less about the royals. Then again two towns away that could all change. Most people seem to care more about relevant events like the economy, Iraq/Afghanistan and North Korea.

So I am inclined to agree with Iluvbertie. It is possible that if you don't like the royal family, then when they come on the t.v. you turn it off, or you don't buy the magazines with them on it.

 

[Zonk]

I think Wymanda's main point is that one person doesn't speak for all of Australia just as I don't speak for all of America.

Iluvbertie is probably correct that in her sphere no one is that interested in the royal wedding. But it would be a mistake to take her sphere as a representative for all of Australia.

At the end of the day or rather a day after the wedding, we will know who really cares when the stations release the numbers on who watched the wedding. Until then, its pretty much all specualtion.

 

[Isabella]

Since lately US Magazine has been focusing on MTV's Teen Moms, I prefer the Catherine stories. Even though I haven't learned anything new from them. But nice pictures.

Indeed, it has been nice to see some people on the cover that I actually recognize.

I've also noticed quite a bit of coverage of William & Kate (and what seems to be more coverage of the BRF in general) on NBC Nightly News - I've seen several stories on them since the engagement was announced, including one tonight about William and Kate's decision not to have household staff (which aired on my local news also).

And People magazine seems to be scrambling to have a W&K-related story on their website nearly every day, no matter how trivial.

After a few years during which royal coverage stateside had seemed pretty quiet, I enjoy seeing things pick up again. I don't know how much the public in general are interested, but the continued stories seem to indicate that there's some solid interest there. It's interesting to hear how people perceive it in different countries, though.

 

[COUNTESS]

A royal wedding is glamourous and so magazines like People jump at the bait. Most Americans haven't the foggiest idea who they are and could care less about them. But show a pretty bride and a big show coming and they will take a few minutes to look. Women that is.

 

[Isabella]

A royal wedding is glamourous and so magazines like People jump at the bait. Most Americans haven't the foggiest idea who they are and could care less about them. But show a pretty bride and a big show coming and they will take a few minutes to look. Women that is.

Most Americans don't know who they are? I'd personally find that very difficult to believe. Though I suppose there are people who don't watch the news or don't look at magazines, and of course everyone has their different perceptions based upon their own social groupings.

 

[Princess of Durham]

I can visualise entire classes of teenages who don't know who William is - because I teach them. When I teach the Republican Referendum to 15 -16 year olds each year the first thing I have to do is actually explain who the Queen is and how our system works as they simply don't know anything about her. Many of them actually think we are a republic already as except for the occasional visit from a royal they have no role to play in our country. Ask Australian teenagers who is Australia's Head of State and most will say Julia Gillard (our PM) as they can't even name the GG let alone realise that the Queen holds that title. Many teachers of my acquaitance have found the same thing (and most teach that Australia should be a republic sooner rather than later as most teachers I know are republicans and actively support that cause in their classrooms).

Maybe that is why the aforesaid teen agers don't know these things. I just have to say that I find it strange that these kids at that age don't know these things. It's one thing to be a republican but it seems quite another when it appears factual information has not to be taught in the schools. IT IS the way it is at this point, and the other things you spoke of that they are not aware of is history, not just their history. I'm just kind of surprised as it seems to be leaving a great gaping information hole. I would venture to say that a lot of teen agers in this country know who William is.

I just don't consider this information "celebrity stuff" regarding who the Queen is or how the Commonwealth works. Possibly it is just a different arrangement as to when things are taught, but in this country that sort of information is taught in the elementary schools I guess what puzzles me is that if a teacher "can" teach how things "should" be rather than how they are, it could lead to a lot of very strange ideas floating around depending on the idiosyncrasies of a specific teacher.

 

[COUNTESS]

Most Americans don't know who they are? I'd personally find that very difficult to believe. Though I suppose there are people who don't watch the news or don't look at magazines, and of course everyone has their different perceptions based upon their own social groupings.

No, I am using a large public social grouping. Many Americans, unfortuantely, cannot even name their Congressperson or Senator. That's really a problem. William is, probably, known for being Diana's son. I watch the news, read many magazines and am surrounded by people interested in politics and history, we are all very educated. No one has mentioned this event at any gathering. And the magazines that, mostly, carried this news were People type publications.

 

[Zonk]

It just goes to show that you shouldn't let one specific person or region speak for a country or world.

I am an oddity with my friends, who know of my special interest in royalty. At least 3 to 5 of them have asked me at various times (none together) what my thoughts where of the royal wedding. What did I think about Kate? Did I hear that there was going to be another royal wedding? Who was Zara? They call me when royal specials come on BBC America and PBS, or there is a 2 minute spin on the TODAY show, they checked on me the day Diana died and the day Charles married Camilla.

But that's just me and my friends.