Beatrice and Edoardo: Wedding Suggestions and Musings Thread

[Iluvbertie]

When did marriage banns stop being announced at the church where the wedding is to occur?

I don't know.

I have only been going to CoE churches since the 1960s and have never heard the banns being read. Most weekends the various churches have hosted multiple weddings but no banns ever read.

The main reason they were read was to allow people time to object but with modern media that isn't an issue.

 

[Lemon Lyman]

I don't know.



I have only been going to CoE churches since the 1960s and have never heard the banns being read. Most weekends the various churches have hosted multiple weddings but no banns ever read.



The main reason they were read was to allow people time to object but with modern media that isn't an issue.

Marriage banns are definitely read in CofE churches. I married in 2012 and mine had to be read in the church we were marrying and the parish we lived in. They had to be read 3 times and you get a certificate. Registry offices list marriage x weeks before too.

 

[Lilyflo]

I don't know.

I have only been going to CoE churches since the 1960s and have never heard the banns being read. Most weekends the various churches have hosted multiple weddings but no banns ever read.

The main reason they were read was to allow people time to object but with modern media that isn't an issue.

Banns are read out in the CofE unless you are married by licence.

Here's the info about banns from the CofE:
https://www.yourchurchwedding.org/article/reading-of-banns/

Common Licences:
https://www.yourchurchwedding.org/article/common-licences/

Special Licences:
https://www.yourchurchwedding.org/article/special-licences/

 

[Alison H]

I don't see why it can't be televised. There's always interest in royal weddings. If people aren't interested, or object to its being on TV, they don't have to watch!

 

[Iluvbertie]

Marriage banns are definitely read in CofE churches. I married in 2012 and mine had to be read in the church we were marrying and the parish we lived in. They had to be read 3 times and you get a certificate. Registry offices list marriage x weeks before too.

Interesting

I have had friends ask for the banns to be read and been told - we don't do that anymore - in both the UK and Australia.

As I said I have only been going to CoE churches for the past 50 or so years and I have never heard any banns read.

 

[Helen.CH]

Banns are read out in the CofE unless you are married by licence.

Here's the info about banns from the CofE:
https://www.yourchurchwedding.org/article/reading-of-banns/

Common Licences:
https://www.yourchurchwedding.org/article/common-licences/

Special Licences:
https://www.yourchurchwedding.org/article/special-licences/

Very interesting indeed, thanks.
Taken from the same website, see here
Reading of Banns
Most Church of England marriages will require banns to be published before the wedding can take place. You won’t need to arrange banns until about four months before your wedding date. Read more about what’s special and important about banns.

If there is not enough notice given for the banns to be read before the marriage is due to take place, or in the case of the marriage of people who are not nationals of a country within the European Economic Area, or if one or both of you does not live in England or Wales, it is recommended that the Licence procedure be used rather than banns.

And there is further information provided.

 

[Denville]

I don't know.

I have only been going to CoE churches since the 1960s and have never heard the banns being read. Most weekends the various churches have hosted multiple weddings but no banns ever read.

The main reason they were read was to allow people time to object but with modern media that isn't an issue.

Im a churchgoer and often hear banns being read.. Most people are married by banns.

 

[Mirabel]

According to the DM (yes I know but sometimes they get it right) the wedding will be May 29.
A reception at BP, but still no venue for the ceremony.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

According to the DM (yes I know but sometimes they get it right) the wedding will be May 29.
A reception at BP, but still no venue for the ceremony.

Wouldn't it be more usual to select the venue for the ceremony first?

 

[Pranter]

Wouldn't it be more usual to select the venue for the ceremony first?

I'm sure they have...but if they are doing a private wedding they may not release much info at all..they sure haven't as of yet anyway!


LaRae

 

[Alison H]

If the Queen's said they can have the reception at Buckingham Palace, that is really kind and supportive of her. It's very hard luck for Beatrice that what should be a happy time for her is being affected by the goings-on with Prince Andrew, and also with Harry and Meghan.

There are all sorts of rumours flying around the internet! Beatrice has had to postpone the wedding because of everything else that's going on. The Palace wants the wedding to be a big deal as a show of royal unity. Believe what you will . It's never spoken about, but there must have been plenty of words spoken behind the scenes over the decision not to ask either the Duke and Duchess of Windsor or Prince Philip's sisters to the Queen's wedding, so she'll know that wedding planning can be difficult.

 

[Curryong]

Marriage banns are definitely read in CofE churches. I married in 2012 and mine had to be read in the church we were marrying and the parish we lived in. They had to be read 3 times and you get a certificate. Registry offices list marriage x weeks before too.

I've been married twice, decades apart but both times in Australia. On both occasions I married in a CofE service and both times the banns were read. We were there when they were read. And that was certainly since the 1960s!

However, as far as Beatrice and Edo are concerned I'd be very very surprised if, like other members of the BRF, they aren't going to be married by special licence.

 

[Alison H]

There used to be a prestige value to having a special licence, although that was presumably because most people couldn’t afford one. Mrs Bennet in Pride and Prejudice insisted that Elizabeth and Mr Darcy “must and should be married by special licence” – presumably to prove a point to everyone that her daughter had caught a very rich man with aristocratic connections. Either that or because she wanted the wedding ASAP in case he changed his mind. That idea's a bit outdated now , but I'd still assume that Beatrice would be married by special licence.

 

[Mirabel]

Mrs Bennet in Pride and Prejudice insisted that Elizabeth and Mr Darcy “must and should be married by special licence” – presumably to prove a point to everyone that her daughter had caught a very rich man with aristocratic connections. Either that or because she wanted the wedding ASAP in case he changed his mind.

Very unlikely.
In those days a woman could break an engagement, but no gentleman could offer such an insult to a lady.

(It did happen, but a man like Darcy wouldn't do so).
Mrs. Bennet just wanted to show off.

 

[Denville]

You'd have to ask the Queen why...if Andrew is to be believed, he pretty much said in that interview the Queen determined where Eugenie married.



LaRae

in the present circumstances a big showy wedding would look awful.

 

[_Heather_]

If the public is not paying for it, it can and should be as grand as the bride and groom want it to be.

I see no reason whatsoever why it cannot be at WA. Beatrice is a born Royal princess, the granddaughter of a reigning queen.

My sentiments exactly. I do completely understand the perception factor and that so much is about how it will be perceived regardless of the actual facts behind who is paying, why things are handled a certain way, etc. but the fact remains that Bea and Edo should not be made to pay for the mistakes of her father and as both the granddaughter of the reigning monarch and the oldest royal princess of her generation a wedding at the Abbey would actually be highly appropriate. If they were to forgo the carriage procession, balcony appearance, etc. then the level of show and grandeur would be reduced to an acceptable level and, frankly, it would be a lovely gesture of support for Bea from the Queen given how difficult and overshadowed this has all been for her through no fault of her own.

 

[Alison H]

The government in 1947 said that people wouldn't want the Queen and Prince Philip to have a big wedding, because of post-war austerity. They couldn't have been more wrong. OK, this is different, but there's no ill-will towards Beatrice, and people would have no right to complain about anything if the public weren't paying.

 

[ACO]

I think Bea should have the wedding she wants. People will always complain regardless.

 

[Lilyflo]

I'm going to say something that might sound harsh but I'm just trying to be realistic. I think whatever Bea & Edo choose, they need it to be something that requires minimal security because it's the British taxpayer who pays for it. There was grumbling over Eugenie's but this time it would be far more. This isn't against Bea, it's about her father. Think of how it looks: he's a man who stated publicly that he doesn't regret his friendship with a sex offender because it was useful to him personally. His own daughters weren't groomed, abused or trafficked because they were protected and privileged but he showed no empathy or concern for other people's daughters who were victims of his 'useful' friend.

As far as I'm concerned, Bea should have whatever kind of wedding she wants as long as I'm not paying for it and I'm not willing to pay for the security either. Prince Andrew should pay for it. He owns a £13 million Chalet for starters so he can afford it. If the British taxpayer is expected to stump up while he's sitting on a fortune, there will be more than grumbles.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I'm going to say something that might sound harsh but I'm just trying to be realistic. I think whatever Bea & Edo choose, they need it to be something that requires minimal security because it's the British taxpayer who pays for it. There was grumbling over Eugenie's but this time it would be far more. This isn't against Bea, it's about her father. Think of how it looks: he's a man who stated publicly that he doesn't regret his friendship with a sex offender because it was useful to him personally. His own daughters weren't groomed, abused or trafficked because they were protected and privileged but he showed no empathy or concern for other people's daughters who were victims of his 'useful' friend.

As far as I'm concerned, Bea should have whatever kind of wedding she wants as long as I'm not paying for it and I'm not willing to pay for the security either. Prince Andrew should pay for it. He owns a £13 million Chalet for starters so he can afford it. If the British taxpayer is expected to stump up while he's sitting on a fortune, there will be more than grumbles.

But as long as Beatrice's grandmother, Uncle Charles and cousin William attend her wedding, the public will be paying for security.

 

[sophie25]

But as long as Beatrice's grandmother, Uncle Charles and cousin William attend her wedding, the public will be paying for security.

We are at a point now where a great many taxpayers are fed up with what the royals are costing them. They don't mind so much with regards to the Queen, Charles and William but anything remotely connected to the Yorks is toxic. If she married at Windsor in the same fashion as Peter Phillips or Ella Windsor, ie with no members of the public brought into the walls of the castle to watch, it would not cost the taxpayer a penny more than the usual security costs which are always in place when the Queen is in residence. If there is a big showy London wedding however the media will have a field day pointing out that as this was the Yorks own personal choice then they should be meeting the additional security costs. They very well might but if they don't then it's just more awful publicity for the BRF.

 

[Helen.CH]

We are at a point now where a great many taxpayers are fed up with what the royals are costing them. They don't mind so much with regards to the Queen, Charles and William but anything remotely connected to the Yorks is toxic. If she married at Windsor in the same fashion as Peter Phillips or Ella Windsor, ie with no members of the public brought into the walls of the castle to watch, it would not cost the taxpayer a penny more than the usual security costs which are always in place when the Queen is in residence. If there is a big showy London wedding however the media will have a field day pointing out that as this was the Yorks own personal choice then they should be meeting the additional security costs. They very well might but if they don't then it's just more awful publicity for the BRF.

Who knows what the Yorks do next
But I think, like you proposed, a wedding with only guests and no public allowed would be the best, as it is not televised, even Andrew could walk her down and official pictures may only show the couple but not Andrew- a good solution for everyone, unless Bea wants a big thing.

 

[ACO]

And if she wants a big wedding then she should have it. They would be wise of optics but honestly people going to rant regardless. Others will love all that comes with celebrating a day of love. They will do what’s best for them.

 

[tommy100]

Beatrice should have the sort of wedding she wants but I highly doubt the public would stomach a wedding with the same sort of elements as Eugenie's (which will have made the public costs higher) such as a carriage rides, live tv coverage and close-by public crowds.

If Beatrice wants to marry somewhere as grand as Westminster Abbey of course she should be able to (got to have some perks to your grandmother being Queen) BUT doing so with carriage rides, live footage and big crowds will go down like a lead balloon with the public who have to pay for the security.

In fairness Beatrice seems a little shy to me, maybe I'm wrong, but given everything with Andrew I can't see her wanting to create unnecessary attention.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I agree. People are going to complain and make snide remarks whatever she does...her father..her mother...the groom...the groom's ex-fiancee and their child...her dress sense...her work ethic...the cost of monarchy vs.republic..

All will be used to beat this girl about the head even if she opts for a registry office with fish and chips take out for the reception.

This is her first and hopefully her only wedding. I say she should do whatever she wants.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Im a churchgoer and often hear banns being read.. Most people are married by banns.

In Roman Catholic churches the banns use to be read.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Banns of marriage are read in my church which is CofE; but of a higher level so many of our practices resemble Catholicism more than Protestantism (e.g. we have incense for special occasions such as Christmas and weddings), so I don't know if that makes a difference. There are different sectors of the Church of England from low to high church, and each does things slightly differently.

 

[Denville]

Banns of marriage are read in my church which is CofE; but of a higher level so many of our practices resemble Catholicism more than Protestantism (e.g. we have incense for special occasions such as Christmas and weddings), so I don't know if that makes a difference. There are different sectors of the Church of England from low to high church, and each does things slightly differently.

If a marriage is by Banns, then they have to be read in church.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

If a marriage is by Banns, then they have to be read in church.

I was just expanding Cyril's comment as he mentioned about Catholic churches.

 

[Denville]

We are at a point now where a great many taxpayers are fed up with what the royals are costing them. They don't mind so much with regards to the Queen, Charles and William but anything remotely connected to the Yorks is toxic. If she married at Windsor in the same fashion as Peter Phillips or Ella Windsor, ie with no members of the public brought into the walls of the castle to watch, it would not cost the taxpayer a penny more than the usual security costs which are always in place when the Queen is in residence. If there is a big showy London wedding however the media will have a field day pointing out that as this was the Yorks own personal choice then they should be meeting the additional security costs. They very well might but if they don't then it's just more awful publicity for the BRF.

I cerianly hope Bea has enough sense to avoid a big showy London wedding. Her mother and father are unpopular as it is.. and it would look awful.