Churches Where Royals Married

[An Ard Ri]

Its a shame that De Nieuwe Kerk is a redundant church as its a very beautiful and historic space,having visited it twice myself.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Its a shame that De Nieuwe Kerk is a redundant church as its a very beautiful and historic space,having visited it twice myself.

The ongoing secularization has caused that the Protestant Community has to withdraw monumental buildings because of the enormous strains these lay on the budget.

The Nieuwe Kerk Amsterdam (wedding church of King Willem-Alexander) has been taken out of religious service, already for 50 years.

The Great- or Saint James' Church in The Hague (wedding church of Princess Juliana, chirstening church of King Willem-Alexander) has been taken out of religious service.

The Great- or Our Lady's Church in Breda (the oldest Nassau church in the Netherlands) has been taken out of religious service.

The New Church in Delft (where the royal vaults are) still hold irregular services but now the church is closed for years due to restoration. Big chance that after the costly restoration the New Church will remain a tourist attraction but also withdrawn from religious service....

 

[IloveCP]

Here is a list of some of the churches royals married in:

List of royal weddings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[An Ard Ri]

Archduke Otto of Austria married Princess Regina of Saxe-Meiningen in the Church of Saint-François-des-Cordeliers in Nancy, Lorraine in 1951.

Église des Cordeliers de Nancy also houses the burial site of the Dukes of Lorraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Saint-Fran%C3%A7ois-des-Cordeliers

 

[Curryong]

In October 1903 Prince Philip's parents, Prince Andrew of Greece and Princess Alice of Battenberg were married at Darmstadt in Germany (the bride's mother's ancestral home.) There was a civil ceremony, then, the next day, a Lutheran ceremony was performed in the Evangelical Castle Church in the town, followed by a Greek Orthodox ceremony in the Russian Chapel on the Mathildehohe. The bride was profoundly deaf and must have found the multiple ceremonies rather an ordeal.

 

[miss whirley]

In October 1903 Prince Philip's parents, Prince Andrew of Greece and Princess Alice of Battenberg were married at Darmstadt in Germany (the bride's mother's ancestral home.) There was a civil ceremony, then, the next day, a Lutheran ceremony was performed in the Evangelical Castle Church in the town, followed by a Greek Orthodox ceremony in the Russian Chapel on the Mathildehohe. The bride was profoundly deaf and must have found the multiple ceremonies rather an ordeal.

Philip's first cousin Prince Michael of Greece wrote an interesting anecdote about one of the ceremonies. He said

"Prince Andre of Greece, the beloved brother of my father, married Princess Alice of Battenberg. She was somewhat deaf, and out of fear that she would make a mistake, they had her memorize the responses she was to give to the priest’s questions during the marriage ceremony. Unfortunately for Alice, the priest reversed the order of the questions.
Have you already been married?
Yes.
Have you renounced having any other man in your life?
No.
What clearly provoked confusion among the clergy, was a source of great laughter for the family."

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1382063935142287

 

[Curryong]

I'll bet it was a source of laughter within the family for years to come! Alice was an incredibly good lip reader, though. In the days of silent films she would tell people next to her what the actors were really saying.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Oslo Cathedral was the venue for the weddings of Crown Prince Olav of Norway and Princess Märtha of Sweden,Crown Prince Harald and Sonja Haraldsen
, Crown Haakon Prince of Norway, and Mette-Marit Tjessem Høiby.


Princess Märtha Louise of Norway and Ari Behn married at Trondheim Cathedral Norway.

Princess Astrid married Johan Martin Ferner at Asker Parish Church.

Princess Ragnhild married Erling S. Lorentzen at Asker Parish Church.

 

[Anfisa]

Use of St Paul's Cathedral as a wedding venue?

I'm wondering why Charles and Diana chose to get married at St Paul's. I've heard that it was because it could fit more people?

Another question--do you think St Paul's be used as a wedding venue anytime in the future? Say for Harry's wedding?

 

[TLLK]

From what I recall at the time it was selected because it could hold more people than Westminster Abbey. The guest list for this state event was very extensive.

I do not think that St. Paul's will be the site of another British royal wedding in the near future. If QEII is still reigning when Harry weds, then it's likely to be similar in size to his brother's 2011 wedding. Westminster Abbey or St. George's at Windsor would be two possible venues.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I agree. Charles's wedding was a huge State occasion, the first Prince of Wales to marry in over 120 years. Thats not likely to happen again until maybe George marries, as a POW, in a generation's time.

Harry is likely to marry at St George's or the Abbey.

 

[Pranter]

I am thinking Harry will have a smaller wedding than William did.


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

Harry may marry at Westminster Abbey but I wouldn't be surprised if it was at St Georges or even somewhere smaller and more intimate like the Chapel Royal at St James.

I doubt that St Paul's will be used again for quite some time. George's maybe - if he is the heir apparent when he marries but if he is only the 2nd in line and thus not a State occasions (Charles' was but William's wasn't) then I would expect Westminster for George.

A major reason I heard for St Paul's was that it has better acoustics than Westminster and Charles preferred it for that reason.

 

[Countessmeout]

If George continues the recent trend of waiting until 30s to marry or close, there is a pretty high chance of him being Prince of Wales and married at St. Paul's.

Harry I don't see having any where as big as William but Andrew wed at the abbey too. At the very least, st George's. It will be the yorks who have smaller weddings, maybe even at Sabdringham or Balmoral. St George's is possible as well for them, Peter did.

 

[TLLK]

A major reason I heard for St Paul's was that it has better acoustics than Westminster and Charles preferred it for that reason.

Good point IluvBertie as Charles invested much time into selecting the performers and the music for the occasion.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I am thinking Harry will have a smaller wedding than William did. LaRae

Harry may marry at Westminster Abbey but I wouldn't be surprised if it was at St Georges or even somewhere smaller and more intimate like the Chapel Royal at St James.

I agree. Privacy will be key, methinks.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

This has been discussed several times in the relationship thread and this is what I said there:

Princess Elizabeth 1947: To and from Westminster Abbey in closed carriages and appearance on the balcony.

Margaret 1960: To and from Westminster Abbey in closed carriages and appearance on the balcony. (That had not happened today)

Anne 1973: To and from Westminster Abbey in closed carriages and appearance on the balcony. (That had not happened today)

Charles 1981: To and from St Paul's Cathedral in open carriages and appearance on the balcony.

Andrew 1986: To and from Westminster Abbey in open carriages and appearance on the balcony. (That had not happened today)

Edward 1999: A big televised Royal Wedding at St George's Chapel with a carriage procession in Windsor.

William 2011: A scaled-down wedding in comparison with the Abbey weddings mentioned above.

To Westminster Abbey in cars and back to the palace in open carriages for William/Kate and the bridal party, and closed carriages for the Queen/Philip, Charles/Camilla and Kate's parents and appearance on the balcony.

A possible wedding for Harry:

The monarchy is as popular as ever with record high support in several polls since 2002, some of over 80%, but we live in a different era with a more critical press than we did in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

And remember: William is the eldest son of the heir, and he was as popular as Harry (if not even more) when he married, and there were still complaining from media and other people about the costs etc.

I'll therefor be very surprised if he gets a Abbey wedding with a carriage procession and a balcony apperance.

I think we'll see much of the same as we saw for Edward in 1999, A big Televised Royal Wedding at St George's Chapel with a carriage procession in Windsor.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Another wrinkle to add to the situation now is of course the threat of a terrorist attack so avoiding large crowds where protection becomes prohibitive is a potential argument for a smaller wedding and venue for all other than the actual future monarch.

 

[Curryong]

Prince Philip's funeral will bring out crowds. Is that too going to be shoved avay in some minor venue somewhere with no opportunity for the crowds to see members of the BRF?

Why not have Harry go down to the local Registry Office? That will solve problem of crowds, won't it? And of course, no televised ceremony for such a minor royal.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Philip has said he doesn't want a big funeral so there may actually be no public funeral for him at all anyway.

I don't want the 'fuss' of a full state funeral, 92-year-old Prince Philip tells his officials | Daily Mail Online
No state funeral for Philip | UK | News | Express.co.uk
Prince Philip Insists: "I Don't Want A State Funeral" - Mirror Online

These articles are from three different years - 2007, 2012 and 2013 which suggests that he has said this.

Terrorism is a real threat and anyone who suggests that that won't be a consideration with future royal events is just putting their head in the sand. What a grand opportunity for any terrorist to really do some damage at a royal wedding where the security would be massive (and would the British public really want to see all that money spent on security for a rich bloke getting married - who is dropping in the line of succession and thus importance).

Andrew was classed as a minor royal by many people when he was 4th in the line of succession and Harry is not 5th - so more minor than Andrew was when he fell into the 'minor' category. With the births of George and Charlotte, Harry became largely irrelevant to the monarchy (not to suggest he became less loved but not necessary as the chances of him becoming King went from improbable to virtually impossible). Of course if you are a believer in the surrogacy theory propounded by many on the internet that changes things of course but proving that theory will be difficult.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I prefer Westminster Abbey as a venue. It is way older than St Paul's Cathedral and "more English". The architecture of St Paul's could not have mismatched in any Italian city.

 

[Curryong]

Harry is popular and a senior Royal. When Charles comes to the throne he will be a King's son and fourth in line. He'll be the King's only other son besides William, unlike the Queen who had four children. When William comes to the throne, until George produces a child Harry will be third in line.

There are several in this thread who would like hole in the corner sort of nuptials for Harry, no fuss of course because no, he's not important enough, and no TV coverage of the ceremony for the same reason. Won't be happening. The wedding will be televised, the Abbey or St George's the likely venue, and the crowds will come out.

 

[Denville]

who on earth is looking for "hole and corner nuptials" for harry? yes of course he is the future Kings second son. Of course when he marries he'l be married in a reasonably big ceremony, probably at Westminster abbey. much the same as P Andrew was.
But he's nto as important as Charles or WIlliam.. that's a fact. He is extremely unlikely to get near the throne. Probably when Charles is king, George or Charlotte will be married during his reign and Harry will slide further down. he's not goig to be King and his marriage ceremony will reflect that lack of importance.
Anyway I thnk it is moot since I don't believe that Harry will marry for several more years. Maybe when h's 40...

 

[Anfisa]

If Harry and Megan get engaged, could they even marry in a church? I thought the CoE didnt marry divorced people. That's why Charles and Camilla had to have a civil marriage right?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Meghan apparently never had a Church sanctified wedding so her situation might be similar to that of Letizia Ortiz when she married Felipe of Spain.

Since Letizia had only a civil marriage which was never recognized as valid and binding by the Roman Catholic Church, she was able to marry Felipe.

Unless a clergyman or rabbi presided at Meghan's Jamaican wedding, the CoE might take the same view, but I am not sure.

 

[Anfisa]

Meghan apparently never had a Church sanctified wedding so her situation might be similar to that of Letizia Ortiz when she married Felipe of Spain.

Since Letizia had only a civil marriage which was never recognized as valid and binding by the Roman Catholic Church, she was able to marry Felipe.

Unless a clergyman or rabbi presided at Meghan's Jamaican wedding, the CoE might take the same view, but I am not sure.

Hm true...I'm not sure that's how it works in the Church of England though.

 

[Rudolph]

Church of England recognise civil marriage. Meghan is divorced in the eyes of the church

 

[Anfisa]

Church of England recognise civil marriage. Meghan is divorced in the eyes of the church

So that means they can't get married at St George's Chapel or Westminster Abbey, I suppose.

 

[Rudolph]

So that means they can't get married at St George's Chapel or Westminster Abbey, I suppose.

It's up to individual ministers to sign off. They could still be married in a church

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Church of England recognise civil marriage. Meghan is divorced in the eyes of the church

Thanks for the heads up Rudolph, I had no idea! Is this a change in policy or has it always been so?