The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2341  
Old 10-18-2017, 09:16 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,578
Folks, it’s best to wait for an announcement before getting into all this wedding talk.

“Wait and see” as William once said on him and Catherine.
__________________

__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #2342  
Old 10-18-2017, 09:23 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Folks, it’s best to wait for an announcement before getting into all this wedding talk.

“Wait and see” as William once said on him and Catherine.
Whether it happens or not, though looks likely--wedding planning is fun. As long as people don't become too invested in what they want, rather than what will work for H&M and others personally involved, the speculation and reading various ideas and reasons why is interesting.
__________________

__________________
  #2343  
Old 10-18-2017, 09:58 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 3,474
Quote:
I think she'll have a British designer wedding dress, and a separate dress for the reception, an American designer.
I hadn't considered that option and it's a good one Cocoasneeze.
__________________
  #2344  
Old 10-18-2017, 10:08 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze View Post
I'm the odd one here thinking, that Harry and Meghan are privately engaged, were already, when she did that Vanity Fair interview. I'm thinking the announcement will happen in the end of November or beginning of December, most likely the latter. Wedding in the end of May.
I think she'll have a British designer wedding dress, and a separate dress for the reception, an American designer.
I think the same thing on all of this, except not sure on wedding month.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
With regards to the security situation in London. Just yesterday the head of MI5 said the terror threat level is unprecedented and fresh attacks are inevitable.

So anything that can be done to help mitigate that, like a wedding at Windsor instead of London will certainly be taken into account.
I agree, I think many are underestimating the impact terror threats is having on the security planning for public events.
__________________
  #2345  
Old 10-18-2017, 10:14 AM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Folks, it’s best to wait for an announcement before getting into all this wedding talk.

“Wait and see” as William once said on him and Catherine.
Words of wisdom my dear Dman, but this discussion is already out of control.
We will soon discuss the colours of the underwears of Meghan "girlfriend-bridetobe-justnotyet-betterthanKateanyway-americanprincess" Markle.
Can't wait, sounds promising ...
__________________
  #2346  
Old 10-18-2017, 10:42 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by scriptgirl View Post
I want Westminster. No St. George.


I'm with you!
This will probably be the last major royal wedding until the Cambridge kids grow up- (well, the last one to possibly take place in the Abbey).
I think the RF should go all out!

Westminster Abbey, carriage rides, balcony-
the whole razzle-dazzle.

NOT something low-key (and St. George is bound to be more low-key) than the Abbey.

Security concerns aside, there are many events in London, and they go on as usual. Why not this, too?

And for the dress, Jenny Packham would be an excellent choice.
__________________
  #2347  
Old 10-18-2017, 10:50 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,817
Quote:
the whole razzle-dazzle.
It is notable that its Americans who INSIST on this, yet they won't pay a penny towards the cost [unless obv] tradition holds and the Brides Father 'picks up the tab'...?
__________________
  #2348  
Old 10-18-2017, 10:57 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 1,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
It is notable that its Americans who INSIST on this, yet they won't pay a penny towards the cost [unless obv] tradition holds and the Brides Father 'picks up the tab'...?
I'm sure Americans pay a great amount towards tourism, which is a large part of argument for keeping the monarchy right? Or is the tourism income coming from people living there now?
__________________
  #2349  
Old 10-18-2017, 10:59 AM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Time line for me: (well what seems practical)

-not engaged yet but are under understanding will soon be
-she moves in end of November under fiancé visa (6 months to wed)
-they spend the pre-season together, she goes home to see family for Christmas while he is at Sandringham
-meet up for a vacation between Christmas and New years, one year anniversary of first trip they took. Possibly proposal then.
-Scotland with his family for New Years to tell family. Announce early January

Wedding end of May. May 26 seems likely date:
-Saturday so no concerns for not being bank holiday
-weeks after Kate is due so no worry about baby or her not attending
-before all the big events in June

Also allows for a good honeymoon before June. They could go for a 10-12 day honeymoon and be back for Trooping. She could make her first official debut, after wedding, at Trooping of the color. She would be able to attend Trooping, Order of the Garter, and Ascot as his wife in June.

In October they make their first big trip abroad married, to Invictus in Australia.



I am leaning towards St. George's. 800 people is more then enough room for such a wedding. Likely have seats left open. Unlike the Cambridges there wont be hundreds of politicians and other figures that aren't personal guests. There may be some required guests but certainly not that many.
I love your timeline, but I am still thinking it will be Westminister Abbey (or maybe I am just hoping).
__________________
  #2350  
Old 10-18-2017, 10:59 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
It is notable that its Americans who INSIST on this, yet they won't pay a penny towards the cost [unless obv] tradition holds and the Brides Father 'picks up the tab'...?
Is that *that* weird to understand? The Americans don't have a royal family and if Meghan and Harry get engaged it would bring a little bit of them into Royal Europe. No wonder they want the full monty.

On a more sober note, as you appear to be one of the more realistic people, a royal wedding costs. And that also depends on what one calls 'costly'.
Or do you mean that Americans should rather focus on the huge amount of pounds that go into this territory than how glitzy and glamorous it all should be?
__________________
  #2351  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:03 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 373
Yes, lets turn this into an American vs Brit issue just because a few posters here prefer an Abbey wedding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I'm sure Americans pay a great amount towards tourism, which is a large part of argument for keeping the monarchy right? Or is the tourism income coming from people living there now?
Great point.
__________________
  #2352  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:07 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,817
Tourism contributes to the 'common weal' as in other countries, and of course Americans come into that too, [as do Brits].
However they do not contribute to Duchy of Cornwall income, or the Sovereign Grant, which will be paying for this...
Why is it thought that the wedding of the youngest son of the heir [who will NEVER be King] is of worthy of greater pomp, and expense than that of the youngest son of the reigning monarch [the Earl of Wessex] ?

As for Tourism being a reason for 'keeping the Monarchy'.. it isn't 'in my book'. What is, is that it is a cornerstone of our unwritten Constitution, and a living link to our History...
__________________
  #2353  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:07 AM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
Yes, lets turn this into an American vs Brit issue just because a few posters here prefer an Abbey wedding.



Great point.
Yes, and the American vs British discussion will get this forum shut down...again.
__________________
  #2354  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:14 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,275
I just say let the Americans have their wishes and dreams for a full monty wedding, some Brits are more sober and look at the, say, more technical parts. That's it.
I don't have a particular preference for a venue (yet). I do think that if Harry marries at the Abbey, he is the last.
__________________
  #2355  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:20 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Tourism contributes to the 'common weal' as in other countries, and of course Americans come into that too, [as do Brits].
However they do not contribute to Duchy of Cornwall income, or he Sovereign Grant, which will be paying for this...
Why is it thought that the wedding of the youngest son of the heir [who will NEVER be King] is of worthy of greater pomp, and expense than that of the youngest son of the reigning monarch [the Earl of Wessex] ?
So Harry should have lesser pomp because Edward did? We will just ignore important circumstances and differences? If we're making such comparisons, wouldn't Andrew/Harry or Anne/Harry make more sense? Why is Edward always mentioned?
__________________
  #2356  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:21 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Woodbridge, United States
Posts: 411
I imagine this will be the last major royal wedding until George and Char come of age. So why not indulge in the royalness of it all? I would think that Westminster Abbey would suit both the private and personal along with the spectacle in a way Windsor could not.

While America is not going to fit the bill, they do provide moral and sometimes financial support to the royal family and their individual projects.
__________________
  #2357  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:25 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,817
Quote:
Andrew/Harry or Anne/Harry make more sense
Andrew and Anne are both children of the REIGNING monarch, Harry isn't...
__________________
  #2358  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:32 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
So Harry should have lesser pomp because Edward did? We will just ignore important circumstances and differences? If we're making such comparisons, wouldn't Andrew/Harry or Anne/Harry make more sense? Why is Edward always mentioned?
Anne was married in the Abbey 44 years ago and Andrew 31 years ago. Not a viable comparison to today's times. IMO.

I'm an American and avid follower of royalty in general and the British Royal Family in particular. I don't care where the wedding is held or how big it is. I want Harry to be happy. And I will enjoy it vicariously no matter what.
__________________
  #2359  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:38 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Andrew and Anne are both children of the REIGNING monarch, Harry isn't...
Well that's a convenient argument, lol. Using such logic, why should Harry even be allowed to marry at St George's? I mean, he is not the Queen's son. He should have even less pomp than Edward!
__________________
  #2360  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:41 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 1,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
Well that's a convenient argument, lol. Using such logic, why should Harry even be allowed to marry at St George's? I mean, he is not the Queen's son. He should have even less pomp than Edward!
Hey, maybe Harry can have a PRIVATE family wedding after all then! Without any media or televising the wedding! I vote for the couple to get married outside of UK then! I'd imagine at least some Brits would have issue with this.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Harry and Meghan: The Love Story" eya Royal Library 31 12-07-2017 11:10 AM




Popular Tags
birthday books carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess elisabeth crown princess mary crown princess victoria crown princess victoria daytime fashion current events denmark duke of cambridge family general news grand duchess maria teresa guillaume helena hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy news noice official visit 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 estelle princess eugenie princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sibilla 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 silvia shaikh zayed bin hamdan bin zayed al nahyan sofia state visit state visit to spain stephanie sweden swedish royal family uae wildlife victoria visit to spain



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:26 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises