House of Windsor Representation at Royal Weddings


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think people might not realize that when all these marriages were taking place years ago, Sophie was the second lady of the land after The Queen, so that's not for nothing. True, Charles is now married, but I still think Edward and Sophie are the most logical choice. They've been the representatives of HM for years and (we can only guess) are friendly with the members of the other royal houses. Why change things up now?
 
Last edited:
:previous: It's a question of signals.

Each and every single time there is a major event in another monarchy and the European, Arabic, Thai and Japanese families send high ranking representatives the lower ranking BRF representatives are noted and commented on and the result as that the BRF is seen as snobbish, as living in the age of the empire etcetera, etcetera.

What on earth does empire have to do with anything? We in the UK have a different set of relationships to most continental European countries. The links with the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Ireland etc. etc. are so much deeper and more highly valued than those with other nations. The Spanish RF have a similar type of relationship with many South American nations. It's simply a result of our history.

There's the argument about the world wars and the BRF distancing themselves, yes, but that was 60 years ago, isn't it time to move on?
Equally, one could say the so-called 'family' connections between the BRF and the other royal families are now so distant as to be of little relevance. Those close relationships with the Kaiser and the Tsar didn't exactly bring much in the way of benefits to the British people. Those who wish to denigrate the BRF in the UK refer to them as German, even to this day, and the Windsors have been working to prove their Britishness for decades.

Then there is the argument about the Commonwealth and the BRF's obligations. Fair enough, but for how long? Australia may go republic within a generation, especially as the demografic landscape slowly changes. - Even Scotland may be heading for genuine autonomy.
There are lots of ifs, buts and maybes here. The Queen is monarch of 16 sovereign states and her children support her duties in that capacity. There would be something seriously wrong if the BRF didn't value those relationships more than any others. What might possibly happen at some vague date in the future is irrelevant.

The taxpayer argument don't hold water either. It's bad PR work from the BRF, if the British public believe the BRF members are going to weddings just to amuse themselves. It's also about promoting Britain in a positive way.
Why does it not hold water? Why on earth should I have to pay for a whole crew of police protection officers, ladies-in-waiting, equerries, valets, and whatever else to go to Copenhagen or Stockholm for the wedding of some royals I'd never heard of until I joined this forum? What possible benefit or advantage would the British people enjoy by sending the most senior royals to every royal event in the other European monarchies? We already have friendly relations with these countries.

Do you really not see how jetting off to the continent to hobnob with other royals as part of a super-exclusive club could be negative PR for the royals?

Then there is the argument that the average Briton doesn't know about other royals and don't care either. Isn't it pretty embarrassing to realise that say the average German is more well informed about who's who in Europe than the average Briton?
We can argue about whether it's embarrassing or not, but that doesn't mean that it's not fact. I can't see how knowing that Sweden has a constitutional monarchy would be of any particular benefit to the average man on the street.

Then there is the EU argument. Good heavens, EU is hardly popular anywhere in Europe these days! And even worse the nationalism is on the rise, now really is the time to cement the connections between the countries.
But the British people have shown in poll after poll over many years (not only during the current crisis) that they want looser ties with Europe, they certainly don't want to 'cement' further connections. Rightly or wrongly, the British are and have always been a Eurosceptic people.

For me all of the above doesn't mean much, why should I care? If the high ranking BRF members for whatever reason don't want to attend such events, by all means stay away.
But, and I've said that before, I believe it's the BRF who lose. The other royal families do fine without the BRF, they mingle and form personal friendships and it's no secret that they also discuss topics of common interest in their after all exclusive club and exchange experiences and advise each other. The members of the BRF get no such healthy inputs. Inputs which Kate in particular, being a commoner who has married into a royal family, might benefit from. But certainly William as well, because they are the ones who will define the role of the BRF in the future, once QEII is gone. Not Prince Charles, whom I have absolutely nothing against, - but I see him as an interrim figure. W&K is the future and they need all the help and advise they can get.
All this may have been true in the days when royals had actual executive power and relationships between royal houses were all important as regards war and peace. The reality is that these people have no ability to shape or control foreign policy and so the relationships are of limited importance to anyone.

As much as Kate is like other commoner women marrying into royal families, there are also enormous differences. Unfortunately for the BRF, the press scrutiny in the UK is way beyond anything any other royal family is subjected to. As we've seen with the pregnancy announcement, William and Kate face a lifetime of media coverage (deserved or otherwise) on a scale that's pretty much unique among RFs in the world. They are going to have to learn to live with the fact that they'll be recognised just about anywhere on the planet, which is not a problem for most other royals. Kate has the best adviser and support in taking on her royal role - her husband, who had a front row seat during his parents' difficulties. I seriously doubt that there's much Mary, Maxima or Mathilde can offer Kate that's better than that.
 
Last edited:
I don't see the big problem in this, Edward and Sophie are much closer in age to most of the couples whose weddings they've attended, it seems much more logical to me for Her Majesty to send them rather than Charles. I suspect, like other previous posters, that William, Catherine and Harry are going to take over once Charles is King.
 
I'm in the process of having EIIR's last comment lamenated so I can carry it around in my wallet hahahha
Seriously folks, does it get any better than this ?
Excellent comment and I agree completely!
 
I don't see how going to a foreign wedding is promoting Britain in a positive way. That what foreign tours are for imo.

I don't see how Edward and Sophie are low ranking members of the royal family, they are more senior than Will and Kate right now.

People complain about the BRF not sending their Crown Prince and Princess or even the Queen herself like the other family do than ask for Will and Kate to go, which base on the complaint above are still lowly rank

I agree with your points here. Edward and Sophie aren't glamorous or high profile, but they're not junior members of the royal family and they seem to be genuinely well liked and appreciated by members of other royal families.

Also, while I'm sure William and Kate would be made feel very welcome if they did start going to these weddings, christenings, etc, I can't help but feel that members of the other European royal families understand quite well that there would be drawbacks to hosting this couple while the attention surrounding them is so intense.
 
Can anyone explain to me why at foreign Royal Wedding's the British Royal family tend to send less senior Royal's to represent the family, but also the nation. To me it shows a bit of lack of respect to other coutries when those countries send their senior members to UK Royal weddings.

All other Royal houses are always represented by the head of the houses, or at least the Crown Prince/Princess.

I have no issue with the Wessex's, however as much as i respect the Queen & Duke Of Edinburgh, i've never understood why unlike Queen Beatrix or Queen Margrethe they have never attended these events. I respect that they are older now, and therefore may not be able to. But why on earth Charles and Camilla, or William and Catherine cannot go still puzzles me. Especially William and Catherine; they are young and vibrant, and i believe need to become better acquainted with their Royal counterparts.

Does anyone else agree?

Now I could be wrong, but I can't recall ever or rarely seeing King Juan Carlos at any weddings.
 
What on earth does empire have to do with anything? We in the UK have a different set of relationships to most continental European countries. The links with the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Ireland etc. etc. are so much deeper and more highly valued than those with other nations. The Spanish RF have a similar type of relationship with many South American nations. It's simply a result of our history.

I was merely quoting what is said at the coffee tables in other monarchies.
This isn't about logic this is about feelings.
I have the priviledge to know about the reasons you have presented as to why the BRF do as they do, because I read about them here on TRF and I can, admittedly with a little difficulty, understand them. The gossip magazines and the TV commentators don't say a word about this.
So when an event takes place in monarchy X, people hear the commentators say: "There is the King of Spain, followed by the Queen of the Netherlands and there is Prince Edward of the UK the third son of QEII, followed by the king of Sweden...".
And because people are proud of their monarchy, their country and their royal family, they feel snubbed on behalf of their royal family. Even though their royal family may not have any problems at all with Edward coming.
That's why this comes up again and again.

Equally, one could say the so-called 'family' connections between the BRF and the other royal families are now so distant as to be of little relevance. Those close relationships with the Kaiser and the Tsar didn't exactly bring much in the way of benefits to the British people. Those who wish to denigrate the BRF in the UK refer to them as German, even to this day, and the Windsors have been working to prove their Britishness for decades.
If anyone to this day is in doubt that the Windsors are British, they are hopeless cases and shouldn't be allowed outside without a guidedog.

There are lots of ifs, buts and maybes here. The Queen is monarch of 16 sovereign states and her children support her duties in that capacity. There would be something seriously wrong if the BRF didn't value those relationships more than any others. What might possibly happen at some vague date in the future is irrelevant.

Fair enough, but it was worth a try...:)

Why does it not hold water? Why on earth should I have to pay for a whole crew of police protection officers, ladies-in-waiting, equerries, valets, and whatever else to go to Copenhagen or Stockholm for the wedding of some royals I'd never heard of until I joined this forum? What possible benefit or advantage would the British people enjoy by sending the most senior royals to every royal event in the other European monarchies? We already have friendly relations with these countries.

Do you really not see how jetting off to the continent to hobnob with other royals as part of a super-exclusive club could be negative PR for the royals?

Honestly? No, I don't. Perhaps because I'm used to see the other royal families having gettogethers at regular intervals.
Those who complain about the cost will, no matter what.

As for security and housing, that's up to the host country. The BRF needs protection and service no matter what anyway.

We can argue about whether it's embarrassing or not, but that doesn't mean that it's not fact. I can't see how knowing that Sweden has a constitutional monarchy would be of any particular benefit to the average man on the street.

Well, it would be embarrassing for you. If you go on a holiday to say Portugal and you chat with some French, german and Swedish tourists and you show that you don't know the most basic things about other European countries you will not be considered the sharpest knife in the drawer.
And if you have the audacity to add you don't care, well, enjoy your drink - alone.

But the British people have shown in poll after poll over many years (not only during the current crisis) that they want looser ties with Europe, they certainly don't want to 'cement' further connections. Rightly or wrongly, the British are and have always been a Eurosceptic people.

To that I can retort: No man is an island and that goes for countries too in this globalized world.

All this may have been true in the days when royals had actual executive power and relationships between royal houses were all important as regards war and peace. The reality is that these people have no ability to shape or control foreign policy and so the relationships are of limited importance to anyone.

As much as Kate is like other commoner women marrying into royal families, there are also enormous differences. Unfortunately for the BRF, the press scrutiny in the UK is way beyond anything any other royal family is subjected to. As we've seen with the pregnancy announcement, William and Kate face a lifetime of media coverage (deserved or otherwise) on a scale that's pretty much unique among RFs in the world. They are going to have to learn to live with the fact that they'll be recognised just about anywhere on the planet, which is not a problem for most other royals. Kate has the best adviser and support in taking on her royal role - her husband, who had a front row seat during his parents' difficulties. I seriously doubt that there's much Mary, Maxima or Mathilde can offer Kate that's better than that.

I disagree with you. Royals may not have much political influence, but as living role models they certainly have a lot of influence. Why else follow the royals and discuss and imitate what they say and do?

You are basically saying that other royals cannot teach W&K anything. I believe you are very much wrong. You can always learn something new.
Before I began to do what I do now, I instructed new people for a number of years. And even though I was damned good at my job, I learned something in return from every single one I trained. Even the most thick headed.
 
Last edited:
So when an event takes place in monarchy X, people hear the commentators say: "There is the King of Spain, followed by the Queen of the Netherlands and there is Prince Edward of the UK the third son of QEII, followed by the king of Sweden...".
.

Presumably they were all sitting around discussing a funeral because Juan Carlos does not do weddings but seems to prefer funerals.
 
Presumably they were all sitting around discussing a funeral because Juan Carlos does not do weddings but seems to prefer funerals.

Yes, that is what I thought also!!!! I never see him at weddings
 
I think all the royals are as royal as each other.

I think that there are 2 reasons about the BRF attending royal events abroad. 1stly the Queen doesn't (generally) go to weddings, funerals, christenings other than those of her direct family. Good example was the wedding of Richard of Gloucester - didn't go. Go to one, go to them all and I just dont think on the scale of the family, that is possible - and her official duties, rather than family events, always takes priority.

Other reasons
The Queen limits her travelling abroad and I think that has been the case for about 20 years. And I think Charles for quite a while was on his own officially - the BRF only take spouses on royal events. And once he did get married - there is an age gap with the other CP couples. But Edward and Sophie are a tad younger and hve more in common (ie young children) and he is the Queen's son - so suitable I think. I don't think any slight was ever intended and I'm pretty sure that none was taken.
 
This discussion seems weird to me. I hardly think having the Queen's son and daughter-in-law attend Continental royal weddings, etc. is comparable to merely sending a post card. People's noses are really out of joint because the 86 year old Queen herself, along with her 91 year old husband, doesn't attend every wedding and christening in Europe? And really, are the Earl and Countess of Wessex MINOR royals? He is a Prince of the realm and the Queen's son! If she were sending her second cousin, that would be a minor royal!
 
This discussion seems weird to me. I hardly think having the Queen's son and daughter-in-law attend Continental royal weddings, etc. is comparable to merely sending a post card. People's noses are really out of joint because the 86 year old Queen herself, along with her 91 year old husband, doesn't attend every wedding and christening in Europe? And really, are the Earl and Countess of Wessex MINOR royals? He is a Prince of the realm and the Queen's son! If she were sending her second cousin, that would be a minor royal!

Heck, I admire Queen Elizabeth, she is twice as old as me and ten times more active than I am!!!!!
 
Now I could be wrong, but I can't recall ever or rarely seeing King Juan Carlos at any weddings.

It is indeed very rare unless its a member of the extended Spanish Royal Family.The King normally sends the Queen or one of his children and their spouses.
 
Hi all.Wow, during my few days away there was such an extensive discussion on this topic. I am glad to see this.
Actually I raised this topic in 'Windsors and Europe' a couple of weaks ago, hoping for a great discussion.But as usual,for all my posts, hardly anyone responded then.
Ok now I would like to make a few points regarding the discussion held till now.

1.Edward is as much a representative of Queen as Charles
People naturally seem to feel that sending Edward and Sophie is like belittling the hosts. Quite normal, given our over-obsession with the huge queue they are making forever outside the Palace for the throne, waiting for someone to pop off. But I feel Edward and Sophie as much represent the Queen as C&C, and they do so, more directly than W&K.
You can feel sending the last kid is odd, but it is not like only the last kid is doing things forever.
Charles has attended weddings, funerals, enthronements for almost 2 decades. Anne has been the BRF's rep in Norway since her youth. She was Haakon's godmother, received the King in '05 State Visit, attended their b'day parties and all.Andrew takes care of the Middle East and Arab nations. So they are all actually diving their duties properly.
William and Kate have not yet come to age. Come on, many European CPs didnt even have any clue about their life-partners or even lives at 30..
2.Attending royal weddings hardly has anything with bilateral relations
The relations between two countries are almost always, hell always political.A helluva things go behind the scenes between the two governments at several levels, which have absolutely nothing to do with Ohh Our Queen gets along so well with yours..I bet if we TRF people were in Spanish government, we would have thought..To hell with Gibralter, send Queen Sophia to Windsor banquet, wanna see how she kisses and hugs QE and DoE.And does the common man, not interested in royalty, really care which royal from which country attended his country's royal wedding, and measure his regard for that nation in terms of that, no way..
3.No one is gaining or losing anything by attending these events
These people are not real reigning royals who need some retreat for secret consultations over alliances and all. It is not all correct to assume Will and Kate are 'losing' something by not going to weddings.Each RF has an army of advisors and elders with helluve experience to guide them. It is not that these events are the only things where they can meet.
4.Everything need not be shown in front of the media
I have been banging my head on this point since the time I joined TRF. We are all madly hell-bent on making impressions based a very few moments captured on TV/cam. We sometimes even go to an extent to say that a particular mother doesnt care that much for her kids cos we never saw a pic of her giving them a kiss.Just bcos QEII doesnt attend any events does not at all mean she is aloof or distant from other RFs.Just think, which self-respecting King/Queen/CP will come running for William's wedding, if QEII is aloof/distant/egoistic? She probably maintains good relations privately with all of them, and they reciprocate it.
5.BRF is not proud or megalomaniac or something
Again, their good relations with all RFs are purely reflected in the fact that how much other regard the other RFs hold them in. Assuming William need not atten bcos his blood is bluer, is just one's own chauvinism nothing else.
6.BRF always try to keep 'royal' thing away from public focus
You compare any Jubilees/Wedding of BRF and other RF, you will definitely notice this. BRF always wants to involve their own public in their celebrations. Other royals are just a sort of more private thing, though public appearance is there. See for the Jubilee, mainstream public were involved on all 4 days. The banquet for foreign royals was a very low-key.On contrast, see QM's jubilee, there were all Galas, concerts, dinners for all foreign royals, and on final day there was procession and balcony appearance. And there too they brought foreign royals on balcony.At their every event, there is so much, literally so much focus on gowns of foreign royals attending. Common people cannot get connected with that.They just give the impression of celebrating monarchy or royalty, whereas BRF gives the impression of celebrating the nation. PSPSPS:NO OFFENCE MY Opinion. Each one have their own ways of celebrating, though.
So for foreign events, it sends the impression that the Queen sent someone, just because someone has to go.And I believe British public just wants that impression. That must be behind the 'custom' of not attending.
7.'Commoner' royals hardly had anything to do with the practice of monarchs not attending
Someone said that commoners married into BRF like QM, Alice, etc had no interest in foreign events and so monarchs stopped attending. This is not right. The practice was intiated by George V himself. Moreover, the 'commoners' would be more excited to show off their royal status and mingle with royals. In retrospect, the QM who was from lesser well-to-do among the 3 D-I-Ls of George V (Alice's family was way way way more richer than QM's), turned out to be more extravagant then her royal and rich-aristocrat S-I-Ls.

Huh, OK guys these are my opinions on various(almost all) points expressed till now.If anyone by any chance managed to read all this, please put forth ur views.
And again PS: No offence. I dont mean at all to criticise any other RFs or their celebrations. Was just analysing from my point of view.
 
Muhler - I guess I do agree with you that the British Royals will do as they please. I also believe they can deal with it if it ruffles a few feathers on the continent. Queen Elizabeth does things her way for her country and it seems to have worked out fairly well with her constituency. I think that is her overarching concern.

You can't please all the people all of the time and she chooses to manage relationships in her own country with more apparent fervor than relationships with relatives and acquaintances on the continent. I also think that works for her.
 
I have no problem with the Wessexes attending Continental weddings. For the most part they are friends with the Royals their own age in the other RF's. They represent the BRF with great dignity and they seem to enjoy themselves in the bargain.

But the idea that the senior Royals of the BRF don't attend these things because they are somehow superior to their Continental counterparts is simply absurd and laughable. The Continentals are the PEERS and not in any way subordinate to the House of Windsor.

And for the record, if/when Prince William and his generation come to their respective Thrones only three current Heirs will have married Royal/aristocratic spouses and will therefore have children with this so-called "truly blue blood".

William will not be among that small and very elite group. :ermm:
 
Last edited:
Muhler - I guess I do agree with you that the British Royals will do as they please. I also believe they can deal with it if it ruffles a few feathers on the continent. Queen Elizabeth does things her way for her country and it seems to have worked out fairly well with her constituency. I think that is her overarching concern.

You can't please all the people all of the time and she chooses to manage relationships in her own country with more apparent fervor than relationships with relatives and acquaintances on the continent. I also think that works for her.

Oh, the BRF will be fine contuinuing their current line.

If there is anythng I have learned from this and previous debates, it is that the BRF will face little critisism in Britain.
If the British press coverage of other royals is very limited, then the public isn't made aware of the feeling of being snubbed people in mainland Europe have. And if they were made aware I think it would actually heighten the BRF's popularity among many on the street. In spite, because so many feel Britain stands out from mainland Europe or simply because they instinctively from ranks around the BRF - the latter also being evident here.

However I still believe the BRF will lose from not being active members of the social club of royals.
I hear your arguments the royals seeing each other privately, i.e. QEII and Prince Charles and that's true and they are so experienced in their roles that they'll do fine anyway.
It's the next generation that matters.

The era of QEII is ending. That era where royals had a more distant role will end with the current monarchs.
The new generation of royals will face entirely new challenges and have very different roles and I don't think it will be any easier to be a royal, on the contrary!
Within the past one or two generations commoners have begun to marry into the royal families. Harry's wife is also much more likely to be a commoner than a noble or a royal or even from a very wealthy background. They at least had some initial training in the role of being a royal.

The new ones, the commoners, have to start from scratch. It's not a question of using which fork when eating. It's a question of having someone in a similar situation you can confide in, get feedback from, advise and who can understand you. Advisors are not in the same situation as the new commoner-spouses, they can only offer some advise. The royal husbands and wives, will no doubt do their very best but they were born into their role and grew up in their role. They cannot fully comprehend how it is to marry into a royal family.
That's why I believe it would be so beneficial for W&K and Harry to mingle more with other royals. I don't see them doing that now.
One start, and a good start I think, would be to attend events.
There is nothing in the rulebook saying that say Harry can't accompany Edward and Sophie.
 
Last edited:
Muhler...Totally get what you're saying, but if the common thread between the wives and Kate is that they are commoners marrying into royalty, IMO you kinda need "a little more". The current CP couples are all around the same ages, place in life, ect. They've all been married around a few years of each other, started families about the same time and have closer family ties. This is where Edward and Sophie fit in (and in a way William, Kate and Harry never will). No doubt their stories would be invaluable, but when you are at different places in life like the BRF is in general in relation to other RFs, it's hard for them (aside from Edward and Sophie) to form the kind of frienships that the continentals clearly enjoy.
 
Well, I could see Harry mingling gladly with i.g. that Swedish youngster (what's his name? the one with the nude model-girlfriend) But would he profit by that ? I doubt it ;)
 
Well, I could see Harry mingling gladly with i.g. that Swedish youngster (what's his name? the one with the nude model-girlfriend) But would he profit by that ? I doubt it ;)

Carl-Philip, he's not the youngest his sister Madeleine is.
 
Well, I could see Harry mingling gladly with i.g. that Swedish youngster (what's his name? the one with the nude model-girlfriend) But would he profit by that ? I doubt it ;)

There is the chance he could meet a sweet Swedish girl of a good family and marry and become a devoted father and husband, which I think he will once he's genuinely committed.
Or he could meet another appropriate and sweet girl at one of the parties. One who could hold him by the ears. :p
And the BRF would get an injection of foreign blood - and perhaps that would be healthy?

Muhler...Totally get what you're saying, but if the common thread between the wives and Kate is that they are commoners marrying into royalty, IMO you kinda need "a little more". The current CP couples are all around the same ages, place in life, ect. They've all been married around a few years of each other, started families about the same time and have closer family ties. This is where Edward and Sophie fit in (and in a way William, Kate and Harry never will). No doubt their stories would be invaluable, but when you are at different places in life like the BRF is in general in relation to other RFs, it's hard for them (aside from Edward and Sophie) to form the kind of frienships that the continentals clearly enjoy.

You mean the age argument? W&K are around thirty. Victoria and Daniel are a little older, the rest of the current CP's are ten-fifteen years older on avearge.
Ten fifteen years is a big difference when you are twenty, when you are thirty, not so much.
As another poster pointed out, it isn't uncommon (or weird) to have people who are older than you among your frends.

I hope and believe Edward and Sophie have a great time in the Royal Social Club and perhaps when QEII asks for volunteers to attend a wedding somewhere, their hands are up right away, barely concealing their eagerness.
However, with all due respect for Edward and Sophie, they will increasingly become secondary royals, as Harry in particular and probably Andrew's girls as well will take over more and more (the girls will certainly get ever more attention).
Or let me put the issue in another way: will it harm the BRF more than it would benefit, if the younger members in particular joined the Royal Social Club?
 
Well Muhler, I don't think going to weddings/anniversary parties/birthday parties/jubilees would earn the BRF any extra points with the British public and in William and Catherines position would likely earn more than a few detractors at home.
This really seems to be more of an issue for posters on these forums and especially people on the continent than it does in the UK or to the people actually directly involved in these events. It certainly does not seem to bother the continental royals who still extend invitations to the Windsors and accept whomever QEII decides to send as her representatives. If it truly bothered them they would not come to London when ever an invite is received. They stayed away from Princess Margarets wedding so they could do so again. It would not gather much attention from the British public if they decided to stay away.
 
Question: When the continental royals send out their invites to different events, do they actually invite William and Catherine specifically?
I don't think they do, if Europe is clamouring to see the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, maybe try and send them a personal invitation sometime, otherwise its the Queen's call
 
This is just my opinion. Say for some odd (impossible) reason, I get engaged to a European royal. I am being very cheeky -and I hope I make at least a couple of you smile at some of this. These would be my thoughts on my British Royal Family attendee.

Am I at all upset that the Queen will not come to the wedding? Heck no - she's in her 80s and does not need the travel, nor does Philip. Almost everyone at the wedding will be a generation younger than her! She will send a great gift/donation in any case.

Am I thrilled that Sophie and Edward are coming to the wedding? Yes I am. They are great guests, have many friends among the European attendees, are sparkling conversationalists, don't complain about the menu and wine list or the hotel and will bring a good gift/donation. They always look great, but don't upstage the wedding families.

Am I despondent that Charles and Camilla are not coming in person? No I am not. He loathes weddings and I know that. Were he there, I'd feel like I had to duck his conversation because he would lecture me about not serving organic partridge - sorry, Charles, I could not find certified organic partridge, but I did find free range partridge! Then he would fuss because the hotel we arranged had too large a carbon footprint. Camilla would be great conversationally, but make everyone look at snaps of the grandchild! Plus, mums-in-law would get in a snit because the Boucheron Honeycomb put the rest of the headgear into the dust in photographs.

As for Wills not coming, we think Kate is a bit nouveau and she does have that tummy thing. Enough said.

And as Harry, well, he does tend to chase the female herd a bit. Plus, with the open bar, I'd just as soon not.

Hope you enjoyed this look from the other side of the question. :lol:


I ADORE your cheekiness!!!!!:flowers::flowers:
 
to be frank, I wish the BRF would be a little less snooty about things like this. After all, the day might come when the BRF will need the help of the Continental royals and then where will they (BRF) be if the Continentals turn their backs? No monarchy is infalliable and the Russian and French dynasties proved and so really, the BRF is supposedly so infallible, but can one day end up on the end of a stick begging for help.

The Continentals might not be bicycle monarchies, but go figure, thy are far more educated and experienced in a professional work environment, along with being far more cultured.

Question: When the continental royals send out their invites to different events, do they actually invite William and Catherine specifically?
I don't think they do, if Europe is clamouring to see the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, maybe try and send them a personal invitation sometime, otherwise its the Queen's call

It was initially announced that WK would be sent ot the CP wedding in Luxembourg, but when the guest list was officially announced, it was Sophie and Edward.
 
The Continentals might not be bicycle monarchies, but go figure, thy are far more educated and experienced in a professional work environment, along with being far more cultured.
That's a matter of opinion and debate. Personally, I wouldn't say any of the senior British royals are in any way less cultured or educated than their continental counterparts.

It was initially announced that WK would be sent ot the CP wedding in Luxembourg, but when the guest list was officially announced, it was Sophie and Edward.
Nothing of the kind was announced, certainly not officially. Before the official guest list was released, it was merely speculated that William or Kate (or Charles and Camilla) might be the British representatives.
 
to be frank, I wish the BRF would be a little less snooty about things like this. After all, the day might come when the BRF will need the help of the Continental royals and then where will they (BRF) be if the Continentals turn their backs? No monarchy is infalliable and the Russian and French dynasties proved and so really, the BRF is supposedly so infallible, but can one day end up on the end of a stick begging for help.

The Continentals might not be bicycle monarchies, but go figure, thy are far more educated and experienced in a professional work environment, along with being far more cultured.



It was initially announced that WK would be sent ot the CP wedding in Luxembourg, but when the guest list was officially announced, it was Sophie and Edward.

Its almost 2013. Just what sort of help do you imagine a continental royal family might possibly render the BRF? They are all constitutional monarchies without political power.
It was never announced from Buckingham Palace that William & Catherine would travel to Luxembourg. That "new item" came from the Luxembourg press which was purely wishful thinking on their part.
 
I think it's good they don't send William and Catherine to everything, they're the most talked about royals right now afterall. It could be that they're not sending them to a wedding as Guillaume and Stéphanie's because they'd take all focus away from the bride and groom.
 
I think it's good they don't send William and Catherine to everything, they're the most talked about royals right now afterall. It could be that they're not sending them to a wedding as Guillaume and Stéphanie's because they'd take all focus away from the bride and groom.

I think they're the talk in the UK and the USA but in countries where they have their own glamorous royal families, I don't think they're discussed at great lengths. The recent Luxembourg wedding, nobody could have out shined the Bride on that day not even Catherine.

Invites come from Monarch to Monarch, and The Queen presumably 'asks' who wants to go. Unless it was a friends wedding, I doubt an invite would ever come to William and Catherine personally until they are King and Queen.
 
Its almost 2013. Just what sort of help do you imagine a continental royal family might possibly render the BRF? They are all constitutional monarchies without political power.
.

You never know though what might happen. After all few can see the future and that day might come. Technically the BRF was a constitutional monarchy during WWI, but it didn't prevent George VI from interfering in regards to the Romanovs. The King of England pursuaded the Prime Minister to reject the initial offer of asylum.
 
Back
Top Bottom