Beatrice and Edoardo: Wedding Suggestions and Musings Thread

[Somebody]

The decision is understandable indeed but a great pity for us royalty watchers. I was looking forward to seeing the wedding as Princess Beatrice seems to have some connections to some mainland European royals and nobles, so that would have been interesting as well. Considering the circumstances I fear that we will only see a picture of the bridal couple and that is that.

In the Netherlands all four weddings of the Van Vollenhoven princes were broadcasted. They are in a simular position as Beatrice and Eugenie. Thus I did not find the decision to broadcast Eugenie's wedding very strange, the only strange thing was that it was not done by the public broadcaster.

Same here. I also thought it rather strange that the public broadcaster would not televise the wedding of one of their own royal prince(sse)s - it's not that they have that many of them in this generation (only 4).

In the Netherlands, next to the current king; the weddings of his two brothers (of whom one lost his 3rd place in line to the throne upon marrying) and of his Oranje-Nassau princely cousins (places 5 (Maurits), 6 (Bernhard) and 10 (both Pieter-Christiaan and Floris; as P-C had lost his place upon marrying 2 months earlier; as did Floris himself upon marrying) were all broadcasted live.

Interestingly, at the time of their respective televised church weddings Friso, Pieter-Christiaan and Floris were no longer in line to the throne as they lost their place at the moment they contracted a civil marriage either at the same day (Friso) or 2 days earlier (P-C and Floris)… But nobody made a point about that; it were princes of Orange-Nassau getting married.

I had in mind their position during their weddings.

All the more reason for Beatrice's and Eugenie's weddings to be broadcasted. They are grandchildren of the current monarch not grandchildren of the previous one/nieces of the current one. If even those of princely 'nephews' of the monarch are broadcast (3rd degree); why not of prince(ss)ly granddaughters (2nd degree).

Regarding Beatrice and Edo: just hoping that we will somehow still see the guests arrive; as I expect a rather large royal and noble turnout.

 

[Somebody]

My guess is after Beatrice we won't see another Royal wedding till George or Charlotte marry...if we are still around! lol


LaRae

No worries; there are still sufficient other royal families around to provide you with royal weddings until George and Charlotte (and Louis I assume) are ready to get married

You might need to wait some more years for the big affairs as the older ones of the future queens and king just reached or are getting closer to reaching adulthood. But most of them will most likely get married before George - as they are about 10 years his senior.

 

[Curryong]

As both bride and groom and the bride's family have such a large circle of friends I'm still thinking it will be St George's (packed to the brim) but photos of some better known guests and the wedding party only. I just think it will be St George's for better privacy and for the convenience of Beatrice's grandparents as well. In the late Spring.

 

[Somebody]

Actually, there's a difference between the Royal House and the Royal Family. As grandchildren of the sovereign in the female line, Peter and Zara are members of the royal family, but not the royal house. They're invited to all formal events like weddings, funerals, Trooping the Colour, etc., and they'll no doubt be invited to Charles's coronation one day, but they don't undertake any official duties, and they don't receive an allowance from the Privy Purse. That sets them apart from William, Harry, and their wives.

My point was that, like Beatrice and Eugenie, they have one royal and non-royal parent. They're coming from a similar position — grandchildren of the sovereign. As I also pointed out, Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, grandchildren of the sovereign as well, probably won't have televised weddings either, not because they aren't members of the Royal House (they are), but because outside of people like us who post on message boards like these, who really cares?

Nonetheless, there is a big difference: Beatrice and Eugenie are 'their ROYAL highnesses' (so royal) - princess B/E (of York); Peter and Zara are just that: Mr Peter and Mrs Mike (not royal). You may like it or not: but it the royal and noble world it makes a difference whether it is your father who is a royal or your mother. In the first case, you might be a royal too (depends on the country but otherwise normally titled or in the UK a Lord/Lady), in the second case, you are only a royal if your mother happens to be in direct line to the throne. Peter and Zara's mother isn't as she has 3 brothers.

Louise and James are outliers in that they should have been princess and prince but instead it was decided they would be known as a mere Lady and Lord (Viscount); nonetheless, even they are treated differently that their cousins Peter and Zara who never rode in a carriage during Trooping, while Louise did (so, she was treated as if she were a royal highness).

 

[Moonmaiden23]

No worries; there are still sufficient other royal families around to provide you with royal weddings until George and Charlotte (and Louis I assume) are ready to get married

You might need to wait some more years for the big affairs as the older ones of the future queens and king just reached or are getting closer to reaching adulthood. But most of them will most likely get married before George - as they are about 10 years his senior.

Exactly. I am thinking Nikolai of Denmark, Alexandra of Lux, and Lisa Brabant just to name a few.

Things will by no means be slow on the Royal weddings watch!

 

[sophie25]

One thing we'll never know really is if this wedding isn't televised because its what Beatrice wants or that Andrew doesn't have the "clout" anymore to insist that it be televised. Regardless, I'm sure Beatrice and Edo will have a beautiful wedding among friends and family and we'll get pictures released.

I also was looking forward to watching this wedding on TV. I'm a sucker for royal weddings from the grandeur of the venue, to the cute children in the bridal party to the gown and tiara and all aspects of the ceremony.

Ah well.... probably will be a long time now before another televised royal wedding.

Exactly. It's one thing to say B dosn't want it televised but then she can't say much else since no TV channel wants to do it anyway.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

While I am not expecting the wedding to be broadcast, has it in fact been confirmed that it will not be? I have not seen an announcement posted.

Actually, they aren't royal at all. They may have the same degree of relation to the Queen as Beatrice and Eugenie but they aren't members of the Royal Family according to their mother.

Actually, there's a difference between the Royal House and the Royal Family. As grandchildren of the sovereign in the female line, Peter and Zara are members of the royal family, but not the royal house.

All descendants of King George VI are at present included in the official list of members of the Royal Family. I don't think the expression Royal House is used in Britain.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_9.pdf

Same here. I also thought it rather strange that the public broadcaster would not televise the wedding of one of their own royal prince(sse)s - it's not that they have that many of them in this generation (only 4).

In the Netherlands, next to the current king; the weddings of his two brothers (of whom one lost his 3rd place in line to the throne upon marrying) and of his Oranje-Nassau princely cousins (places 5 (Maurits), 6 (Bernhard) and 10 (both Pieter-Christiaan and Floris; as P-C had lost his place upon marrying 2 months earlier; as did Floris himself upon marrying) were all broadcasted live.

Interestingly, at the time of their respective televised church weddings Friso, Pieter-Christiaan and Floris were no longer in line to the throne as they lost their place at the moment they contracted a civil marriage either at the same day (Friso) or 2 days earlier (P-C and Floris)… But nobody made a point about that; it were princes of Orange-Nassau getting married.

And more recently in Japan, the wedding reception of former princess Ayako Moriya (daughter of the first cousin of the then emperor and lost her position upon marrying) was televised. Every royal family has its own customs, but as some of Queen Elizabeth II's royal cousins had televised weddings and others apparently did not, it seems that custom does not point to a particular approach in Britain.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No worries; there are still sufficient other royal families around to provide you with royal weddings until George and Charlotte (and Louis I assume) are ready to get married

You might need to wait some more years for the big affairs as the older ones of the future queens and king just reached or are getting closer to reaching adulthood. But most of them will most likely get married before George - as they are about 10 years his senior.

With monarchies such as the Saudis having thousands of royal princes and princesses there is probably no need to wait.

You may like it or not: but it the royal and noble world it makes a difference whether it is your father who is a royal or your mother. In the first case, you might be a royal too (depends on the country but otherwise normally titled or in the UK a Lord/Lady), in the second case, you are only a royal if your mother happens to be in direct line to the throne. Peter and Zara's mother isn't as she has 3 brothers.

That is true for the UK and most countries, but not for all (it does not make a difference whether it is your father or your mother in Spain, for example).

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I was surprised that ITV broadcasted Eugenie's wedding to be honest - I expected a short YouTube coverage from the BRF's YouTube channel and Instagram coverage, but that's about it. I didn't expect Beatrice's to be broadcasted so this isn't surprising.

 

[victor1319]

I have no problem, that the marriage ceremony will not be televised... - albeit I wonder, if it would have helped, if Prince Andrew would have come to terms with a "Maxima aggreement" and in that would have stayed away from the church...

 

[Osipi]

I have no problem, that the marriage ceremony will not be televised... - albeit I wonder, if it would have helped, if Prince Andrew would have come to terms with a "Maxima aggreement" and in that would have stayed away from the church...

Considering that Andrew is the bride's father, I don't think it'd be a hard decision to make for Beatrice to decide whether to have her wedding televised or have her father walk her up the aisle on her wedding day. For me, there'd be no contest or even a moment's hesitation.

 

[Somebody]

That is true for the UK and most countries, but not for all (it does not make a difference whether it is your father or your mother in Spain, for example).

In the case of duchies it no longer matters - if your parent IS the rightful holder of a duchy the eldest child will inherit. And while until not that long ago brothers had preference over daughters that no longer is the case.

However, in the casa real it's Juan Carlos and now Felipe who were/are kings and their children who are infantas (or prince(ss)); none of the children of Pilar, Margarita, Elena or Cristina are royals. So, so far, it did matter whether it was their father (Juan Carlos/Felipe) or their mother (Pilar/Margarita/Elena/Cristina) who was the infante/a. Had Juan Carlos' younger brother still been alive, I would think that his children would have been styled differently than their cousins by their aunts but I am not 100% sure.

Edit: Had to go back many generations: but children of younger sons indeed were infantes/infantas whereas children of daughters were not.

For all others: sorry for this sidetrack.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I don't think the expression Royal House is used in Britain.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_9.pdf

It doesn't matter if it is or if it isn't, as far as my argument goes. I used it to differentiate between the Princess Royal's children and Prince Andrew's. That one can be a member of the royal family and be included in all the royal family goings-on, yet not be a member of the royal house (aka a male-line descendant).

 

[Sister Morphine]

Nonetheless, there is a big difference: Beatrice and Eugenie are 'their ROYAL highnesses' (so royal) - princess B/E (of York); Peter and Zara are just that: Mr. Peter and Mrs. Mike (not royal). You may like it or not: but it the royal and noble world it makes a difference whether it is your father who is a royal or your mother. In the first case, you might be a royal too (depends on the country but otherwise normally titled or in the UK a Lord/Lady), in the second case, you are only a royal if your mother happens to be in the direct line to the throne. Peter and Zara's mother isn't as she has 3 brothers.

Louise and James are outliers in that they should have been princess and prince but instead, it was decided they would be known as a mere Lady and Lord (Viscount); nonetheless, even they are treated differently than their cousins Peter and Zara who never rode in a carriage during Trooping, while Louise did (so, she was treated as if she were a royal highness).

I don't think you understood what I said. I'm well aware of the difference between Mrs. Zara Tindall and HRH Princess Beatrice of York. I'm not stupid.

For the last time (hopefully) — My point is that William and Harry are different from the Queen's other grandchildren, whether they have a title/style or they don't. They're the sons of the direct heir. Peter, Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James...their comings and goings are of no real interest to people, outside of people like us who like to gossip and talk about these things. None of them, outside of Eugenie, had or will have a televised wedding. It has nothing to do with titles or who's a lord and who isn't. It has to do with public interest, and I can't imagine there's a lot of public interest in Beatrice or the Earl of Wessex's children. We'll get photos I'm sure, but that's it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In the case of duchies it no longer matters - if your parent IS the rightful holder of a duchy the eldest child will inherit. And while until not that long ago brothers had preference over daughters that no longer is the case.

However, in the casa real it's Juan Carlos and now Felipe who were/are kings and their children who are infantas (or prince(ss)); none of the children of Pilar, Margarita, Elena or Cristina are royals. So, so far, it did matter whether it was their father (Juan Carlos/Felipe) or their mother (Pilar/Margarita/Elena/Cristina) who was the infante/a.

As you said, Juan Carlos and Felipe were prince/king rather than infante. The children of Pilar, Margarita, Elena and Cristina were styled in the same way they would have been if their father had been the infante.

Had Juan Carlos' younger brother still been alive, I would think that his children would have been styled differently than their cousins by their aunts but I am not 100% sure.

Edit: Had to go back many generations: but children of younger sons indeed were infantes/infantas whereas children of daughters were not.

But that is incorrect.

Up until 1987, the children of sons and the children of daughters from dynastic, equal marriages were infantes/infantas.

Decrees giving the title of Infante to members of the royal family.

Since 1987, under the new Royal Decree, neither the children of younger sons nor the children of younger daughters are entitled to be infantes/infantas.

https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1987-25284

 

[Osipi]

It doesn't matter if it is or if it isn't, as far as my argument goes. I used it to differentiate between the Princess Royal's children and Prince Andrew's. That one can be a member of the royal family and be included in all the royal family goings-on, yet not be a member of the royal house (aka a male-line descendant).

You're correct Sister Morphine. In letters patent that have referenced the royal house, its stated as the House of Windsor. This came up with the letters patent issued to state that descendants of the House of Windsor that do not carry the HRH, would have the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor.

So there is a difference between the royal family that works and supports the "Firm" and those family members that are of the House of Windsor. The Windsors are a royal family so... where's the beef?

 

[Somebody]

I think we can agree that the family of the heir is different from the familiy of his siblings. Nonetheless, it is also true that male-line grandchildren are different than female-line grandchildren as they are royal while female-line grandchildren are not. So, I would say BOTH distinctions are relevant. Where the line is drawn in terms of televised weddings can be debated. For this generation, the line so far was drawn at the second distinction but if I understand you correctly you argue it should be drawn at the first distinction.

However, in your earlier post you started with the claim that:

Considering that Charles has talked about streamlining the monarchy when he becomes King, this could be a portent of things to come. William's children will have televised weddings, but Harry's children might not. I doubt either Lady Louise or Viscount Severn will have televised weddings, and after Beatrice marries, they're the last unmarried grandchildren. Peter and Zara Philips certainly didn't have televised weddings, even though they're just as royal as Beatrice and Eugenie are.

As I and others have pointed out. They are not. The queen's grandchildren can actually be divided in 4 categories:
1. Children of the heir: royal dukes
2. Children of the second son: royal princesses
3. Children of the third son: treated as children of a peer (would normally have been one category with number 2: children of younger sons)
4. Children of daughter(s): untitled commoners

Actually, there's a difference between the Royal House and the Royal Family. As grandchildren of the sovereign in the female line, Peter and Zara are members of the royal family, but not the royal house. They're invited to all formal events like weddings, funerals, Trooping the Colour, etc., and they'll no doubt be invited to Charles's coronation one day, but they don't undertake any official duties, and they don't receive an allowance from the Privy Purse. That sets them apart from William, Harry, and their wives.

My point was that, like Beatrice and Eugenie, they have one royal and non-royal parent. They're coming from a similar position — grandchildren of the sovereign. As I also pointed out, Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, grandchildren of the sovereign as well, probably won't have televised weddings either, not because they aren't members of the Royal House (they are), but because outside of people like us who post on message boards like these, who really cares?

All true, but not relevant to the difference to who is royal and who is not.

It doesn't matter if it is or if it isn't, as far as my argument goes. I used it to differentiate between the Princess Royal's children and Prince Andrew's. That one can be a member of the royal family and be included in all the royal family goings-on, yet not be a member of the royal house (aka a male-line descendant).

Not sure that I understand what you are trying to say here: I had the impression that you wanted to lump them in to one category - instead of differentiating them. The difference is clear: prince Andrew's children are male-line descendants, so members of the royal house in your perspective; while Princess Anne's children are members of the royal family as all descendants of George VI, the queen's HRH-cousins and Sarah, Duchess of York for some reason (only the Harewoods are treated distinctively different: the descendants of all princess Mary's brothers are all on the balcony with royal family events/Trooping the Colour; while here descendants aren't; nor is Sarah...). They are also 'the same' in that neither Andrew's nor Anne's children are expected to be children of a future monarch while being a grandchild of the current monarch.

I don't think you understood what I said. I'm well aware of the difference between Mrs. Zara Tindall and HRH Princess Beatrice of York. I'm not stupid.

For the last time (hopefully) — My point is that William and Harry are different from the Queen's other grandchildren, whether they have a title/style or they don't. They're the sons of the direct heir. Peter, Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James...their comings and goings are of no real interest to people, outside of people like us who like to gossip and talk about these things. None of them, outside of Eugenie, had or will have a televised wedding. It has nothing to do with titles or who's a lord and who isn't. It has to do with public interest, and I can't imagine there's a lot of public interest in Beatrice or the Earl of Wessex's children. We'll get photos I'm sure, but that's it.

As I started this post with: in my opinion both distinctions are relevant. The misunderstanding came from your claim about both groups of cousins being 'just as royal'. Other than that: of course Beatrice and Eugenie are not comparable to William and Harry - but I don't think anyone claimed that. Personally I still think that a royal princess' wedding should be televised (like all - I am biased, in this case because I've seen it work out that way in the Netherlands and while fewer people watched than for the future king's wedding - there are many other programmes with far fewer people watching, so that's no reason not to have those who'd like to share in the joy of a royal wedding, in such a wedding) but others might think differently (and they have the BBC on their side ) and that's totally fine too.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Considering that Charles has talked about streamlining the monarchy when he becomes King, this could be a portent of things to come. William's children will have televised weddings, but Harry's children might not. I doubt either Lady Louise or Viscount Severn will have televised weddings, and after Beatrice marries, they're the last unmarried grandchildren. Peter and Zara Philips certainly didn't have televised weddings, even though they're just as royal as Beatrice and Eugenie are.

I understand why people like us enjoy watching them, we get to gossip about the dresses and tiaras and guest lists...but I think we're an increasingly shrinking minority. I don't think the UK will suddenly become a republic, but if other European monarchies can cut down on the number of people considered members of the royal house, and thus entitled to all the panoply that brings with it, so can they.

Peter and Zara are NOT royal. Royal requires the style His/Her ROYAL Highness and they don't have that - nor were they entitled to it as the children of a daughter of the monarch.

Princess Margaret said it first and then Anne paraphrased - 'My children aren't royal - they just happen to have the Queen as an aunt'. Anne, of course, changed 'aunt' to 'grandmother'. Margaret's children are also the grandchildren of a monarch and no one classes them as royal. No one ever classed the Harewoods as royal and the late Earl and his brother were the eldest two grandchildren of George V.

Title makes a person royal, not their relationship to the monarch.

 

[Sister Morphine]

*bashes head against wall*

When I said Peter and Zara were just as royal as Beatrice and Eugenie, I meant it in the context that they're all grandchildren of the Queen. They have royal blood flowing through their veins too, even if they carry no titles or styles. That's it. That's all it meant. I don't need another 5,000-word treatise on how pedantically incorrect that may or may not be.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I was surprised that ITV broadcasted Eugenie's wedding to be honest - I expected a short YouTube coverage from the BRF's YouTube channel and Instagram coverage, but that's about it. I didn't expect Beatrice's to be broadcasted so this isn't surprising.

I think what triggered the ITV decision was that Channel 7 in Australia had been saying they were going to have the 'exclusive' cameras inside the chapel. It didn't seem right that Aussies could watch the wedding in full but in the UK they couldn't.

 

[Pranter]

No worries; there are still sufficient other royal families around to provide you with royal weddings until George and Charlotte (and Louis I assume) are ready to get married

You might need to wait some more years for the big affairs as the older ones of the future queens and king just reached or are getting closer to reaching adulthood. But most of them will most likely get married before George - as they are about 10 years his senior.

James/Louise aren't likely to have anything televised...they will be more like Gabriella's wedding...pics of them coming/going.

Yes other Monarchies have older kids but I was looking at the BRF since it's a Beatrice/Edo thread.

Well maybe one of the Lux children will be soon!


LaRae

 

[stunking]

Hmmmmmm

Actually, there's a difference between the Royal House and the Royal Family. As grandchildren of the sovereign in the female line, Peter and Zara are members of the royal family, but not the royal house. They're invited to all formal events like weddings, funerals, Trooping the Colour, etc., and they'll no doubt be invited to Charles's coronation one day, but they don't undertake any official duties, and they don't receive an allowance from the Privy Purse. That sets them apart from William, Harry, and their wives.

My point was that, like Beatrice and Eugenie, they have one royal and non-royal parent. They're coming from a similar position — grandchildren of the sovereign. As I also pointed out, Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, grandchildren of the sovereign as well, probably won't have televised weddings either, not because they aren't members of the Royal House (they are), but because outside of people like us who post on message boards like these, who really cares?

Very interesting thank you. I hope Beatrice gets the wedding she wants and is happy with everything.

 

[Tarlita]

I am sure Prss Beatrice will have her wedding professionally recorded and it may be released for sale on DVD. Perhaps. That might satisfy the avid royal watchers in Britain.

 

[WillVictoria]

I am sure Prss Beatrice will have her wedding professionally recorded and it may be released for sale on DVD. Perhaps. That might satisfy the avid royal watchers in Britain.

Personally, I think to release the wedding ceremony for sale would be a PR nightmare. There was controversy from Autumn and Peter selling photos of their wedding to Hello, so I can't imagine the blowback if people thought Beatrice was "cashing in" on her wedding (particularly if anyone thought Fergie and Andrew were behind the decision).

 

[Claire]

ITV have confirmed that they will not broadcast Beatrice's wedding. Since they were the only channel who bothered to broadcast Eugenie's I guess it's definate now that we won't get to see this one.

Is it possible that the Palace might film some of it themselves and place it online ?
Or even stream it?

 

[MaiaMia_53]

In the interest of what is an historic royal family occasion, that would be nice, but is unlikely purely due to Andrew's involvement.

I agree with Marengo it's sad, albeit unsurprising, that royalty watchers won't get the opportunity to see Beatrice's wedding. At least we stlll have Eugenie's wedding to remember and to view again. And Beatrice gave a wonderful reading on behalf of Eugenie and Jack.

The media announcing they won't cover Beatrice's wedding is surely a formality, since no one in the royal family was likely asking them to, nor would the royals allow coverage to take place this time due to Andrew's circumstances.

It's sad because I was really looking forward to seeing Beatrice (not Andrew) walk down the aisle in all her glory. She deserves to have a lovely and special day. It's such a shame that this cloud is hanging over her nuptials, purely due to her father's poor decisions.

Beatrice has such a handsome and adorable fiance in Edo too. I'm very curious about Beatrice's plans and her dress and tiara selections. It's true that very little will likely be revealed about their plans, and probably only one photo will be released of just Bea and Edo. It must be upsetting for Fergie that Beatrice won't have the same kind of celebration that Eugenie enjoyed.

Moreover, Beatrice has a very close resemblance to her namesake, QV's youngest daughter. They share not only the same name, but similar big eyes. Royal weddings are historic and this will be the last one for the immediate family for quite some time (until Louise & James Wessex, and later the Phillips, Tindall, Cambridge and Sussex children marry). The connection for Beatrice extending all the way back to Queen Victoria, who popularized the wearing of white for weddings, has great meaning IMO. It is sad that what is an historic, albeit also an intimate family occasion, can't be more widely shared with great celebration.

We will surely hear about Sarah's and David Linley/now 2nd Earl of Snowden's offspring eventually marrying, but they are not direct line descendants of QE-II, nor will there be any fanfare or wide public interest, since the Chattos and Snowdens are low key, discreet private citizens.

 

[Princess Larisa]

I saw one of the royal reporters saying on twitter that Beatrice’s wedding date will be announced in the next two weeks.
I assume the church and perhaps the best man and maid of honour would also be announced at the same time.

 

[Sister Morphine]

In the interest of what is a historic royal family occasion, that would be nice, but is unlikely purely due to Andrew's involvement.

I wouldn't class Beatrice's wedding as "historic." Much like "iconic," I think that word gets used far too often for the wrong things. It's important to her family of course, but is it important to the whole of the UK? I think not.

 

[ACO]

I am sure there will be footage of the entrance and departures like it usually is. She will have her dream wedding, no doubt. All will be fine.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I wouldn't class Beatrice's wedding as "historic." Much like "iconic," I think that word gets used far too often for the wrong things. It's important to her family of course, but is it important to the whole of the UK? I think not.

Sure, your view is perfectly reasonable and understandable. But for me, as a lover of and a student of history, especially British royal history and British cultural influences on world history, the Victorian era has particular significance. And, as I said, Beatrice's connection to her namesake and the whole provenance and iconography of royal weddings, with Beatrice being one of the last British royal blood princesses to marry in modern times, her wedding does have historical significance.

Of course, in the current modern day, we tend to throw history, culture and everything else out the window for the latest fad or the next trend and headline of the moment that grabs the public's restless attention span. Sigh...

Also, of course, royalty and royal wealth amassed and built upon past colonial aggression and dominance is considered problematic and passe in today's world. That view is sadly coupled with Andrew's very troubling relationship with Epstein, along with Andrews's clueless non-regret and out-of-touch arrogance surrounding the circumstances of his former association... And that leads to his oldest daughter's wedding being impacted by his poor choices.