William and Kate: engagement and relationship rumours and musings 2005 - 2008


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sure I've said it before, but I'm putting in a punt for the Abbey. It's been the location of some sad moments, but it's also the coronation church, and I think it would be lovely to see the couple married in the church where they will one day likely be crowned.

Plus, it's the place where William's grandparents were married on both sides of his family (well, sort of -- I can't remember if Frances and Johnnie were married in the Abbey proper or over at St. Margaret's). There's such a grand sense of history in that church, and I think it's a gorgeous location for a wedding.
 
I was checking some of those out as well randomlyKeira. I think the problem with many of those would be size.

My vote is for Westminster Abbey, it's most traditional. (not like I get a vote, but it's fun to speculate anyway!)
 
I heard William wants St. George's Chapel, but I doubt that will hold the amount of people that will most likely be invited to the wedding.
 
The number of people who will be invited will depend on the location.

The number of people who believe they should be invited to the wedding of the second in line to the throne is a different matter.

I think, after the failed marriages and the big weddings, that smaller occasions are on the cards.

A lot of people are also questioning the cost of the monarchy so a large splash on a wedding might be seen as overkill in these more anti-spending money on the monarchy times.
 
A lot of people are also questioning the cost of the monarchy so a large splash on a wedding might be seen as overkill in these more anti-spending money on the monarchy times.

But I do think that a big royal wedding for Princess Diana's son is something that the people will want and will be willing to pay for. I'd even venture to say that it would be expected.
 
^I agree. People would be insulted to have a small St. Georges wedding, I feel. Weddings are realy the only time that the people of the country are able to feel complete elation for the monarchy, in all it's grandure. Having a small wedding would throw many into fury.

There is the possibility of a legal ceremony at Windsor, and a large religious thing in London I suppose. Many other royal couples have done this in diffrent countries.
 
I hoping for a big wedding for william and i also hope that it will be next year! I can always hope right!!!
 
^I agree. People would be insulted to have a small St. Georges wedding, I feel. Weddings are realy the only time that the people of the country are able to feel complete elation for the monarchy, in all it's grandure. Having a small wedding would throw many into fury.

There is the possibility of a legal ceremony at Windsor, and a large religious thing in London I suppose. Many other royal couples have done this in diffrent countries.

They can't do the legal bit at Windsor, as was the case with Charles and Camilla, as that would mean opening Windsor up to the general public for weddings for a particular period of time.
 
They can't do the legal bit at Windsor, as was the case with Charles and Camilla, as that would mean opening Windsor up to the general public for weddings for a particular period of time.

But they won't have to, because for them as first time bride and groom a Church wedding is no problem and sufficient under British law, as I just learned.
 
Considering the relationship between the monarchy and the Church of England, I don't see any alternative to a CofE wedding unless William decides to take his title "of Wales" seriously and get married in the largest church in Wales. Not that I think that's remotely likely.

I don't see any advantage to a register office wedding followed by a church blessing; it isn't as though either of them is prohibited from being married in church for any reason, and if they're going to use a church, they might as well get married in it. Something tells me that Southwark Cathedral probably won't be in the running either, which pretty much leaves Westminster Abbey and St Paul's as the alternatives. My money would be on Westminster Abbey since it's the traditional location for royal weddings these days.
 
But I do think that a big royal wedding for Princess Diana's son is something that the people will want and will be willing to pay for. I'd even venture to say that it would be expected.
I think you might be disappointed, many will question why 'we' are expected to pay vast amounts for a wedding, no matter who his parents are.
 
Didn't Charles pick St. Paul's because the seating capacity was larger?

I'm betting William's will be a monster-sized wedding.
 
It was also because of the music.
 
I'm betting William's will be a monster-sized wedding.
Monster-sized wedding cost monster-sized amounts of money. If William gets married in the next few years, with the way things are in the UK at the moment, I wonder if people are going to have a problem paying for a large wedding for him when they are having to cut-down on things for themselves?
 
The economy is certainly not at its best these days but it is not as if the heir to the throne gets married every year. A sure fire way to damage the monarchy would be to act as if it is not that important anymore. A lot of people want the pomp and circumstance that a royal wedding brings whether they will admit it out loud or not.
 
Prince Charles picked St. Pauls because his Uncle's mass was held at WA and Diana was not crazy about WA because her parents were married there and she believed it was bad luck.... even the police told PC that they could not put enough men form the castle to St. Pauls his response was stand further apart ....both William's parents did not care for the Abbey for their own reasons and now William has his own. My money is on St. Pauls
 
I think you might be disappointed, many will question why 'we' are expected to pay vast amounts for a wedding, no matter who his parents are.

I don't think I'll be disappointed; I don't really personally have anything at stake here, as I'm not British and don't have to pay for the monarchy. I'm just speculating that I believe British taxpayers might be more willing to pay for a wedding of this nature than they would be willing to pay for other royal expenses.

In lots of ways, these weddings are as much festivals for the people as they are celebrations for the royal family. I think, based on the past reactions of lots of the people in Britain to these kinds of events, using their pence to pay for a royal wedding might be more palatable than using it to pay for Andrew's jetting around the world or other recently questioned expenses. But again, that's just my observation.
 
I agree, I am not British, but i do think it would be easier for me if I were, to have to pay for a grand state wedding, than things like vacations and first class seats. I think people expect it to though, William is popular so why wouldn't everyone, or atleast almost everyone, want a grand state wedding to celebrate. Just my opinion of course.
 
i think you're absolutely right ella. not to get this discussion off track but look at how people reacted to peter and autumn's decision to sell their wedding photos to a magazine. people were going crazy because they assumed that no one in the RF would pony up with the money to pay for a large public display...and they aren't even prinipal players in the big scheme of things. if william's wedding isn't done on a grand scale then imagine what the public will have to say.
 
I think they'll get married at St. Paul's, personally. As for whether it will be a large or small wedding, if they get married after Charles is King, it'll be massive. If they get married before Charles is King, it'll be massive. Prince William is not a minor royal in the BRF. This is the future King of England. I can't imagine anything less than what his parents had.

I can understand however, how some people don't think they should have a huge wedding because they'd be the ones footing the bill for it. However, how many times do weddings of that scale happen? Not often, I would venture to guess. I'm not British though, so perhaps my opinion means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
 
I don't think I'll be disappointed; I don't really personally have anything at stake here, as I'm not British and don't have to pay for the monarchy. I'm just speculating that I believe British taxpayers might be more willing to pay for a wedding of this nature than they would be willing to pay for other royal expenses.
A very unscientific poll amongst the people I met up with yesterday, (most of whom celebrated the big event when Charles & Diana married), and their 'children', out of the 40+ people there, only 3 were in favour of the expense of a big wedding. They did however agree that the tourists would probably flock to London to see it, (by tourist, that is anyone who does not normally reside in London). They also all agreed that 'everyone' would complain about the cost. :flowers:
 
Use the wedding wisely

The thing is, we don't have our royal families in order for them to be private. Their function is to be out on the stage for us all to se them. I think people would be massively disappointed, if William did not have a huge knees-up of a wedding. Having said that, he could use the occasion to do some good as well. How about making sure that all the attending guests come away from the event with a neutral carbon foot print? Or asking for donations to charities instead of presents?:flowers:
 
As long as the wedding is paid for personally by Charles or the Queen with minimal cost to the public, there should absolutely be a huge fantastic wedding.

Plus, when William does eventually marry, the economy will hopefully be in better shape, then people won't really be able to complain.
 
As long as the wedding is paid for personally by Charles or the Queen with minimal cost to the public, there should absolutely be a huge fantastic wedding.

It would be interesting to know exactly how much of the cost of these fabulous weddings is paid for by the family and how much is paid for by the people. I suppose we can't know those things about the '81 wedding or the '86 wedding, because the Queen's finances weren't made public yet, were they? Can we ever know how these costs are covered? I wonder if the numbers for state weddings and funerals are crunched and publicized separately.

It's entirely possible that personal money, like the Duchy of Cornwall income, could be used to pay for a chunk of the wedding, I suppose.

Regardless, I think people will still want to see a big fat royal wedding for William, no matter who pays for it.
 
I'm not sure about Britain, but I heard that in Sweden they asked for public funds (to be diverted from the family's earnings) for a possible wedding, so my guess would be that it is paid for by the people, though at the expense of the family, as they would loose some of their previous income. (Or that's how I understand it.) I suspect that any other tax-funded monarchy would be similar.

Personally I don't care about the taxes for the monarchy. No one would much give a damn about my country without people like the Queen, Prince William, etc, so I really don't care, and I hope there is a HUGE wedding no matter what. :cool:
 
I find the topic of the state of the economy impacting a royal wedding disturbing. When the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were married, Britain had just come out of the war and the country was essentially bankrupt. It was even still necessary for the bride to save ration coupons for her dress. Yet they managed to have a state wedding with all the trimmings. Yes the wedding will cost money, but the wedding will also make money. The wedding will need clothes, food, photography, transportation, security, lodging, flowers, jewelry, all generating sales and income tax. This is not even including the millions of pounds worth of plates, mugs, spoons, T-shirts and tea towels of memorabilia that will be sold before, during and after. Forgive me, but if we are talking about a depressed economy, a royal wedding is the mother lode of all economic stimuli.
 
there's a big difference though between coming out of war where your city has been virtually devestated by bombing as they were when HM and the Doe were married, and marrying during a recession. :flowers:
 
there's a big difference though between coming out of war where your city has been virtually devestated by bombing as they were when HM and the Doe were married, and marrying during a recession. :flowers:


Okay. How so?
 
And isn't a war torn country in a recession? And who said Britian was in a recession?

None the less, hopefully by the time that Wills marries, the state of the economy will be better, rather than worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom