Wedding of William and Catherine: Suggestions and Musings


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

My point is, that has been your experience. My experience has been that I've had lots of people bring up the subject with me, but even more than that, I've been surprised at how many varieties of news outlets have been covering it - as I pointed out a few posts ago, it wasn't just the People and Us Weekly-type sources covering them, but the evening news, and of course the morning news and talk shows, newspapers, etc. But, like, I said, that's just my perception, and I realize you have yours.
 
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. :lol:

Our History course in the Primary schools is supposed to be Australia in the 19th Century but is very badly taught.

In High Schools (and I am speaking here for NSW schools as each state has its own syllabus) we don't do much Australian history until Year 9 - Year 7/8 we teach about the ways the British and Aborigines interacted only. Year 9 is Federation WWI (Gallipoli only), some aspects of the time between the wars and WWII (one major campaign).

Year 10 - Australia's reaction to communism, one post war PM, one post war major event (so have to choose between the Dismissal of the Whitlam government or the republic or a range of other things - some for instance look at the Green Bans of the 1970s) and then a decade study attached to a changing way we live course.

Very poor course and it won't improve much with the national curriculum which is supposed to come in in 2013 but even so the Commonwealth of Nations doesn't get a mention. The entire emphasis is on writing out the British involvement in this country.

When I started teaching High School in 1991 we had an option to study British history in Years 11 and 12 but that went in 1999 as the emphasis has turned to us being in Asia not Britain.
 
http://thetvrealist.com/gossip/Teen-Moms-Are-More-Popular-Than-Kate-Middleton-4159228.html

Hello everyone,

Just pay attention because the site above is just a blog from a non officila columnist who is not linked to any newspapers. It doesnt have any inside information to build his article. It's just speculation and not information. This person is well known on the web (if you check you'l see it's just his opinion) not contractuel facts. The newspapers had william and kate two or 3 weeks with a different story on their covers. How to explain if it doesnt sale, and why the tv cover, and the huffting post, and so on ... When I have time in the evening I try to copy-paste comments against this blogger
 
2011 could see poll tax riots re-run warns TUC | Mail Online

Seems like there could be trouble ahead - but for those of you interested in this wedding I hope not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...l-strikes-to-coincide-with-royal-wedding.html

Another version of the same story.

The unions are protesting the cuts to jobs and other austerity measures being taken due to the appalling state of the UK economy. It was these same measures with regard to students (raising fees) that lead to the riots that attacked Charles and Camilla.
 
Last edited:
No, I am using a large public social grouping. Many Americans, unfortuantely, cannot even name their Congressperson or Senator.

That's because a majority of Americans are too busy worrying about who's going to win the next season of Dancing With The Stars or American Idol, to give two figs about who is running the country and what their platform is. Of all the Western nations, we have one of the lowest voter turnouts for elections -- and we're talking about countries where voting is not mandatory. It's pathetic.
 
2011 could see poll tax riots re-run warns TUC | Mail Online

Seems like there could be trouble ahead - but for those of you interested in this wedding I hope not.

National strikes to coincide with royal wedding - Telegraph

Another version of the same story.

The unions are protesting the cuts to jobs and other austerity measures being taken due to the appalling state of the UK economy. It was these same measures with regard to students (raising fees) that lead to the riots that attacked Charles and Camilla.


I would be more shocked if nobody protested at all. In a difficult economic climate a royal wedding that could cost the taxpayer's millions of pounds is ripe for controversy. I know that they are supposed to be paying for some of the wedding themselves but the taxpayers will still have to shell out money for security. Even if it brings in some tourism is that enough to offset the cost of the wedding? Depends on who you ask. Those who like the royals will say yes and those that don't will say no.
 
I would be more shocked if nobody protested at all. In a difficult economic climate a royal wedding that could cost the taxpayer's millions of pounds is ripe for controversy. I know that they are supposed to be paying for some of the wedding themselves but the taxpayers will still have to shell out money for security. Even if it brings in some tourism is that enough to offset the cost of the wedding? Depends on who you ask. Those who like the royals will say yes and those that don't will say no.


The business community have said that the royal wedding will bring in about 1 billion pounds but the cost of having only three working days in an 11 day period will cost a total of 6 billion meaning a net loss of 5 billion pounds having the wedding the weekend after Easter and on the Friday of the May Day holiday meaning two four day weekends directly after each other. They expect a lot of people to take non-official days off in between - e.g. sick leave - for which they have to be paid.

These protests though are different again - as they are strikes - so no workers. It would be disastrous for the wedding for instance if the railway workers were on strike as the crowds would struggle to get in or away. What about if the police went on strike that day?? Security is a nightmare anyway.
 
The business community have said that the royal wedding will bring in about 1 billion pounds but the cost of having only three working days in an 11 day period will cost a total of 6 billion meaning a net loss of 5 billion pounds having the wedding the weekend after Easter and on the Friday of the May Day holiday meaning two four day weekends directly after each other. They expect a lot of people to take non-official days off in between - e.g. sick leave - for which they have to be paid.

These protests though are different again - as they are strikes - so no workers. It would be disastrous for the wedding for instance if the railway workers were on strike as the crowds would struggle to get in or away. What about if the police went on strike that day?? Security is a nightmare anyway.

Thanks for the information about the money loss given the long holiday. I had some questions about that and couldn't find any information anywhere. Also will people get paid the exact day they get married? I am not familiar with the concept of a "banking holiday."

On the other hand the striking workers would certainly get a lot of attention both national and international and that might prompt the government to take action on their problem. Though I agree that would be a nightmare for the people trying to get in or out. Hopefully they will be paying attention to the news for updates on the situation and make their decisions accordingly.
 
Thanks for the information about the money loss given the long holiday. I had some questions about that and couldn't find any information anywhere. Also will people get paid the exact day they get married? I am not familiar with the concept of a "banking holiday."

On the other hand the striking workers would certainly get a lot of attention both national and international and that might prompt the government to take action on their problem. Though I agree that would be a nightmare for the people trying to get in or out. Hopefully they will be paying attention to the news for updates on the situation and make their decisions accordingly.

I don't like Unions for this reason. If they were to strike and make demonstrations on the day of the weddding they won't be getting any sympathy from anyone except those that dislike the Royal family anyway. This is why I dislike Unions, which in my opinion are nothing short of criminal in how they hold cities and governments hostage when they aren't getting what they want. IF they target the Royal wedding, they may find that it backfires big time.
 
I don't like Unions for this reason. If they were to strike and make demonstrations on the day of the weddding they won't be getting any sympathy from anyone except those that dislike the Royal family anyway. This is why I dislike Unions, which in my opinion are nothing short of criminal in how they hold cities and governments hostage when they aren't getting what they want. IF they target the Royal wedding, they may find that it backfires big time.

I love unions - I would hate to be teaching 60 - 70 kids in a room the size of mine now with no support staff, no time off to prepare my lessons and a myriad of other things that unions have fought for and won as working conditions over the years. It annoys me when they disrupt my life but I certainly wouldn't be earning what I am, getting the benefits I do or have the conditions I have if it wasn't for unions.
 
IMO, there is good and bad in terms of Unions. I certainly realize the need for them in order for fairness to workers who otherwise would be treated poorly. At the same time they can get a strangle hold on a country and do more harm than good. Again, just MO, but I would place a wager that if the unions went on strike and there was not transportation to get into London or various other things which cause hardship to the masses of people who want to participate in the festivities .... I can see that really back firing on them and losing a lot of sympathy to their cause. That is always the danger. Why should anyone become angry with BRF if the mass of people are kept from participating in the event. I have to wonder how many people would really be happy if, for instance, the event were held at Windsor and there was no television available ... then who would the people be angry with? IMO, it would be wiser to go ahead as planned and if there are strikes, then so be it. Everyone will know who to blame.
 
Let's get back on topic.

This isn't the appropriate place to discuss the pro's and cons of Unions.
 

I read this article earlier, and immediately thought it would be nice if the RF gifted Kate with her own tiara, as they did for Sarah Ferguson for her wedding.
After all, she'll have many occasions to wear it in future.

But then it occurred to me that, in a tough economy, this might be viewed as needless extravagance, with the royal collection already overflowing with tiaras.

So I think the best solution is for the Queen to give her one of those (But not the one so closely associated with Diana).
 
Do you think she will choose a tiara first and them design the dress or the other way around?
If she chooses a "big" tiara , I see her going for a more modest look. Although I prefer a not too minimalist dress.
 
Last edited:
Do you think she will choose a tiara first and them design the dress or the other way around?
If she chooses a "big" tiara , I see her going for a more modest look. Although I prefer a not too minimalist dress.


I don't really know, of course, but I'm thinking it would be easier to design the dress around the chosen tiara, rather than the other way.

Although, if she's given the choice of several, she might go with the dress design she likes and then ask the designer which tiara works best with it.

(I do think she'll definitely wear a tiara).
 
Do you think she will choose a tiara first and them design the dress or the other way around?
If she chooses a "big" tiara , I see her going for a more modest look. Although I prefer a not too minimalist dress.


My opinion is, the Queen is very interested in Prince William's and Ms Middleton's public wedding because of report that Catherine is having her fittings at BP. If this report is correct, I think the Queen has given a tiara to her and also maybe some others things.

So to me Catherine probably was given a tiara and is designing her wedding gown around the head piece. I recently went to the exhibit Diana, a Celebration and saw her Spencer tiara and her wedding gown. The tiara and gown went together beautifully.

BTW, the dainty floral design headpiece belonged to the Queen Mother is the tiara I would like to see Ms Middleton get. The tiara was a wedding gift from the Queen Mother's parents. I think Catherine could do a lot with it.:flowers:
 
BTW, the dainty floral design headpiece belonged to the Queen Mother is the tiara I would like to see Ms Middleton get. The tiara was a wedding gift from the Queen Mother's parents. I think Catherine could do a lot with it.:flowers:


That's the one I like best, too.
It's not overwhelming as some of the others tend to be.

Also, I think it would be interesting if Kate were to break with tradition and include some color in her dress, not just stay with white or ivory.
 
Last edited:
That's the one I like best, too.
It's not overwhelming as some of the others tend to be.

Also, I think it would be interesting if Kate were to break with tradition and include some color in her dress, not just stay with white or ivory.

I think Ms Middleton is traditional in her fashion sense, so I don't see her in a new trend with say a sapphire blue tie belt. With that dainty floral tiara I see Catherine in a form fitting, beautiful material, bead and pearl, ivory colored bridal dress.:flowers:

I'd love to see Catherine in the Strathmore Rose tiara, myself. I think it would look beautiful on her.

That is my next choice of a tiara for Ms. Middleton. I think Catherine would look lovely with her brown, thick hair and a floral tiara. I just hope the Queen thinks so too.:flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I found this interesting, since I havent a clue what it signifies: While often seen stopping off at a Tesco in North Wales, Kate is actually a Waitrose kind of girl. When at home in Chapel Row, Berkshire she drives off to the next village which boasts her favourite supermarket.

Tesco vs Waltrose? :unsure: What's the shorthand? What's it signify that she's a 'Watlrose kind of girl'?


I really liked 'The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara' - I'd pick that one. The Wedding Tiara of Sophie, Countess of Wessex was very delicate, not overpowering. Seems like a tiara governs the hairstyle a lot - or both have to go together, so there's the question: will Kate wear her hair up or down?
 
I found this interesting, since I havent a clue what it signifies: While often seen stopping off at a Tesco in North Wales, Kate is actually a Waitrose kind of girl. When at home in Chapel Row, Berkshire she drives off to the next village which boasts her favourite supermarket.

Tesco vs Waltrose? :unsure: What's the shorthand? What's it signify that she's a 'Watlrose kind of girl'?


I really liked 'The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara' - I'd pick that one. The Wedding Tiara of Sophie, Countess of Wessex was very delicate, not overpowering. Seems like a tiara governs the hairstyle a lot - or both have to go together, so there's the question: will Kate wear her hair up or down?

Waitrose is a more upscale supermarket.

And I agree with you - I really like The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara.
 
I actually don't really like that dainty, flowery one the Queen Mother had, myabe it's only from the pictures I've seen of it & more could be done with it but I don't like the way it sits on a person's head! Lol.

I don't know much about tiaras but of the ones I've seen I like the Cambridge Lover's Knot (though wouldn't actually suggest using that one since it is very much associated with Diana & they've probably already got enough association with her already...but if they were to become Duke & Duchess of Cambridge on marriage, it would be lovely!) & the Girls of Great Britain & Ireland is nice too, though I think that is one of the Queen's favourites which she uses often so perhaps she wants to keep it for her own use for now. I actually think they will probably get a brand new one made & give it as a gift to Kate on her wedding day.

I just hope whichever tiara she wears suits her & whatever she wears on the day.
 
I actually don't really like that dainty, flowery one the Queen Mother had, myabe it's only from the pictures I've seen of it & more could be done with it but I don't like the way it sits on a person's head! Lol.

I just hope whichever tiara she wears suits her & whatever she wears on the day.

Rossop the Queen Mom's dainty, flowery tiara can sit on a person's head the way other tiaras do. Queen Mom just like to wear it that way-like a flapper from the twenties.

I too hope that Ms Middleton gets a tiara that suits her and isn't to heavy when wearing it.:flowers:
 
I think Ms Middleton is traditional in her fashion sense, so I don't see her in a new trend with say a sapphire blue tie belt. With that dainty floral tiara I see Catherine in a form fitting, beautiful material, bead and pearl, ivory colored bridal dress.:flowers:


But a white or ivory wedding dress is a fairly recent tradition.
(I know it was worn by Mary Queen of Scots, but wasn't widespread until Queen Victoria).

So it wouldn't be a huge change if Catherine were to incorporate a little color- nothing too glaring but pastel pink, blue, or gold?


Also, I would like to see her have only adults as her attendants and not include any young children. But that would be unlikely, I know.
 
But a white or ivory wedding dress is a fairly recent tradition.
(I know it was worn by Mary Queen of Scots, but wasn't widespread until Queen Victoria).

So it wouldn't be a huge change if Catherine were to incorporate a little color- nothing too glaring but pastel pink, blue, or gold?


Also, I would like to see her have only adults as her attendants and not include any young children. But that would be unlikely, I know.

I see what you mean, but I think a lot of people would frown upon it since the UK is - in the eyes of many - the master when it comes to tradition, especially combined with a royal wedding. That means a traditional wedding gown without coloring, no matter how subtle, is practically almost expected.

I am very curious to see what kind of gown she will be wearing.

Off-topic side note: just notice the index on this forum. The British are above any other Royal Family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom