Beatrice and Edoardo: Wedding Suggestions and Musings Thread

[Alison H]

There's the church at Parliament, which is near Westminster Abbey. Viscount Linley got married there.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Thats St. Margaret's Westminster, no?

 

[tommy100]

Yes, St Margaret's. It's effectively part of Westminster Abbey, personally if they are going down that route I suspect its a strong possibility.

https://www.westminster-abbey.org/st-margarets-church

 

[Countessmeout]

The issue again being its not that large. It was discussed before Eugenie and I think even Harry weddings. It's smaller then the guard chapel which would be a tight fit for a wedding like she likely will have.

At this point outside WA which I don't think has a shot, the largest option in London is the guards chapel which is about 600.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I know they're not popular but I've always liked them.

 

[Mirabel]

Yes, St Margaret's. It's effectively part of Westminster Abbey, personally if they are going down that route I suspect its a strong possibility.

https://www.westminster-abbey.org/st-margarets-church

But security for St. Margaret's will be the same as for the Abbey!
So what would be accomplished by cramming everyone into the smaller church?

 

[Leopoldine]

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!

Well, the corporate entities who decide on these things may decide not to broadcast. It is not a fairy tale wedding situation.

 

[miss whirley]

But security for St. Margaret's will be the same as for the Abbey!
So what would be accomplished by cramming everyone into the smaller church?

It wouldn't be the same, the Abbey is much larger. So it would need much more personal to secure it, more resources to look for bombs etc. Not to mention an iconic location like the Abbey would be a better target, for a double-whammy incident.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Well, the corporate entities who decide on these things may decide not to broadcast. It is not a fairy tale wedding situation.

I think it is VERY much a fairy tale wedding..just as much as William/Kate and Harry/Meghan.

Beatrice is an underdog princess who has finally found her prince in a handsome and wealthy young Count.

It doesn't get more fairy tale than that, imo.

 

[Leopoldine]

The issue again being its not that large. It was discussed before Eugenie and I think even Harry weddings. It's smaller then the guard chapel which would be a tight fit for a wedding like she likely will have.

At this point outside WA which I don't think has a shot, the largest option in London is the guards chapel which is about 600.

Beatrice might like an excuse to not invite her Dad's gun-runner pals and her mom's scented-candle cronies.

 

[stunking]

I know Buckingham Palace's chapel is to small, can't they be married by a religious person marry them in a state room at BP?

 

[Countessmeout]

I know Buckingham Palace's chapel is to small, can't they be married by a religious person marry them in a state room at BP?

No they can not. A vicar can’t perform a wedding outside the church.

He can perform a blessing but not an actual legal wedding.

And if they went the civil route they would have the same issue as Charles and Camilla had. They had to marry at registrar office. If they married at Windsor the castle would have to be open to public weddings for three years. The same would apply to Buckingham palace.

Beatrice might like an excuse to not invite her Dad's gun-runner pals and her mom's scented-candle cronies.

More room for all her posh and aristocratic friends. She has plenty just like her cousins.

 

[miss whirley]

If I was Bea, trying to keep the wolves at bay, I'd have a small wedding ceremony (just family) at Chapel Royal, St. James. With the excuse that it's the couple's home church since they live at St. James Palace. Also Fergie and Bea are both Queen Victoria fans so sharing a marriage location with her might be sentimental. After they'd have a big reception at BP for (500+ people).

Then maybe later in the year have a second, less formal, wedding ceremony for friends in either Italy or Switzerland. Kind of like how the Princely family of Monaco has two weddings (civil and church). Have the small formal one in the UK for the royals, in a location that keeps the security costs almost null and void. Then have the glitzier and fun ceremony overseas without the senior royals present. It's the only real way to avoid as much media venom as possible.

Beatrice seems like a thoughtful young woman, she knows that the BRF and her father in particular, are going through a rough time right now. I don't think she could fully enjoy a grandiose London wedding if she thought she was putting her father and grandmother in further crosshairs.

That'd be my way of having a fancy wedding yet still protecting my family from further criticism.

 

[Helen.CH]

In Roman Catholic churches the banns use to be read.

Maybe at your church, I never heard one in decades.

 

[Countessmeout]

Maybe at your church, I never heard one in decades.

Depends on the country. In Canada wedding Banns are only required in Quebec. In the other provinces you simply apply for a marriage license instead. In some countries wedding bans are a civil matter and not announced in church just within the community. It’s not simply about the denomination but the laws of the country in question.

If I was Bea, trying to keep the wolves at bay, I'd have a small wedding ceremony (just family) at Chapel Royal, St. James. With the excuse that it's the couple's home church since they live at St. James Palace. Also Fergie and Bea are both Queen Victoria fans so sharing a marriage location with her might be sentimental. After they'd have a big reception at BP for (500+ people).

Then maybe later in the year have a second, less formal, wedding ceremony for friends in either Italy or Switzerland. Kind of like how the Princely family of Monaco has two weddings (civil and church). Have the small formal one in the UK for the royals, in a location that keeps the security costs almost null and void. Then have the glitzier and fun ceremony overseas without the senior royals present. It's the only real way to avoid as much media venom as possible.

Beatrice seems like a thoughtful young woman, she knows that the BRF and her father in particular, are going through a rough time right now. I don't think she could fully enjoy a grandiose London wedding if she thought she was putting her father and grandmother in further crosshairs.

That'd be my way of having a fancy wedding yet still protecting my family from further criticism.

Security costs can easily be nill and still have a huge wedding.

The only reason Eugenie and Harry weddings were expensive security was the public plain and simple. If they hadn’t done the carriage route through the town and had public outside there would have been no added cost. Drop the carriage ride and public viewers and there goes the cost.

No need for an exiled wedding for security cost.

It’s not the same as Monaco. They are required to have the two ceremonies. A religious and civil. If they opt to have those in different countries that is their choice. UK doesn’t require two ceremonies.

It would be one thing if the couple was from two different countries. Like Pierre and Beatrice having weddings in Monaco and Italy. But for all of Edo having an Italian title he is 100% British born and raised. His mother is as well. His father didn’t grow up in Italy either.

 

[miss whirley]

Depends on the country. In Canada wedding Banns are only required in Quebec. In the other provinces you simply apply for a marriage license instead. In some countries wedding bans are a civil matter and not announced in church just within the community. It’s not simply about the denomination but the laws of the country in question.



Security costs can easily be nill and still have a huge wedding.

The only reason Eugenie and Harry weddings were expensive security was the public plain and simple. If they hadn’t done the carriage route through the town and had public outside there would have been no added cost. Drop the carriage ride and public viewers and there goes the cost.

No need for an exiled wedding for security cost.

It’s not the same as Monaco. They are required to have the two ceremonies. A religious and civil. If they opt to have those in different countries that is their choice. UK doesn’t require two ceremonies.

It would be one thing if the couple was from two different countries. Like Pierre and Beatrice having weddings in Monaco and Italy. But for all of Edo having an Italian title he is 100% British born and raised. His mother is as well. His father didn’t grow up in Italy either.

It still cost a lot of security to secure a large church. And if they have the wedding in London they have to pay the police to close off traffic to allow the royals' cars to proceed through the city safely. Look at how much Zara's wedding cost and there were no carriages, and I'd have to imagine traffic management would be cheaper for Edinburgh than London. That's why you won't get minimal security cost unless you marry at a royal chapel like at St. James, right across the street from BP.

And I never said the UK required two wedding. I just used Monaco as an example where two wedding (of different styles, and usually in different cities) occur. To show a blueprint, taste-wise, of what Beatrice could choose to do.

 

[muriel]

It still cost a lot of security to secure a large church. And if they have the wedding in London they have to pay the police to close off traffic to allow the royals' cars to proceed through the city safely. Look at how much Zara's wedding cost and there were no carriages, and I'd have to imagine traffic management would be cheaper for Edinburgh than London. That's why you won't get minimal security cost unless you marry at a royal chapel like at St. James, right across the street from BP.

One cannot hold the costs of security of members of the BRF being present against the bride and groom, it is just what it is. The roads are not closed, merely cleared when senior members of the BRF move through London, so to that extent, I do not think St Margaret's is a problem at all. There will be no carriage rides or anything like that, so there ought not to be any public inconvenience or incremental costs of securing the route.

And I never said the UK required two wedding. I just used Monaco as an example where two wedding (of different styles, and usually in different cities) occur. To show a blueprint, taste-wise, of what Beatrice could choose to do.

We tend not to go down the two wedding route in this country.

One potential option could be a very quite ceremony for close family only, followed by a larger reception (at Windsor, Frogmore or BP) where more people are invited.

 

[Alison H]

I know Buckingham Palace's chapel is to small, can't they be married by a religious person marry them in a state room at BP?

No - the law is that a building has to have a licence for marriages, otherwise the marriage isn't legal. They could have a religious service, but they'd then also have to have a legal marriage elsewhere. The snag is that, if Buckingham Palace got a marriage licence, any other couple would also be entitled to ask to get married there.

When Charles and Camilla got married, the powers that be looked into the idea of getting Windsor Castle licensed for weddings, to avoid the awkward issue of a divorcee remarrying in church, but they then realised that members of the public would be rushing to try to book weddings there too! So the idea had to be scrapped.

They could keep the actual marriage service small, and then have a big party somewhere else, either on the same day or later. A lot of people only ask a small number of guests to the ceremony and the meal, and then ask more people to come on in the evening, although that's usually to keep costs down. But I hope she doesn't feel pressurised into having a hole-in-the-corner service somewhere because of her father. It's not her fault.

 

[miss whirley]

We tend not to go down the two wedding route in this country.

It's a little more common for the wealthy. (what a surprise ) Off the top of my head Spencer Matthews and Sam Branson both had two weddings in different countries. I'm just presenting it as an option. One that I would consider if I was in their shoes, if I wanted things low-key for my family yet still wanted a big celebration.

 

[Helen.CH]

Confused. Countessmeout says, the Uk does not require 2 while
Alison H. says if the service is religious there needs to be another legal wedding.

Can someone who is British explain, please? Thank you.

In most countries only a religious service is not enough, one needs to get a legal service aswell, if the marriage should be registered.
Is this really different in the Uk? I doubt this, but would like to learn��

 

[Lilyflo]

Confused. Countessmeout says, the Uk does not require 2 while
Alison H. says if the service is religious there needs to be another legal wedding.

Can someone who is British explain, please? Thank you.

In most countries only a religious service is not enough, one needs to get a legal service aswell, if the marriage should be registered.
Is this really different in the Uk? I doubt this, but would like to learn��

Church of England vicars are authorised to register the marriage so you don't need 2 ceremonies. In some other churches (eg a Baptist one I attended a while ago), you can have the religious ceremony conducted by the preacher & attended by an authorised registrar who does the legal bit, again dispensing with the need for 2 separate ceremonies.

Edited to add that yes, the building must also be licensed to conduct weddings.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Confused. Countessmeout says, the Uk does not require 2 while
Alison H. says if the service is religious there needs to be another legal wedding.

Can someone who is British explain, please? Thank you.

In most countries only a religious service is not enough, one needs to get a legal service aswell, if the marriage should be registered.
Is this really different in the Uk? I doubt this, but would like to learn��

No, one service is all that is needed normally.
Alison H was talking about a religious ceremony in a non-licensed venue, like a room at Buckingham Palace. Since BP isn’t licensed for weddings, the marriage couldn’t be registered., a legal service would need to be held elsewhere.

 

[Helen.CH]

Church of England vicars are authorised to register the marriage so you don't need 2 ceremonies. In some other churches (eg a Baptist one I attended a while ago), you can have the religious ceremony conducted by the preacher & attended by an authorised registrar who does the legal bit, again dispensing with the need for 2 separate ceremonies.

Edited to add that yes, the building must also be licensed to conduct weddings.

Thank you very much! ?
I hope others who carry on with different information read this, too.

 

[Alison H]

Sorry, didn't mean to cause confusion! You definitely only "need" one wedding - I just meant that they could have a religious blessing at Buckingham Palace, but that they'd then need a legal ceremony somewhere else. I very much doubt that they'd do that.

The idea of having a civil wedding and a religious wedding mainly comes from the Code Napoleon. Napoleon wasn't keen on the Catholic church having too much power, so he said that a civil marriage was necessary in order for a wedding to be legal. The law was introduced into most of the countries occupied by Napoleonic France, but obviously that didn't include the UK.

When civil registration of births, marriages and deaths was introduced in the UK in the 1830s, it was agreed that Church of England, Jewish and Quaker ministers could act as registrars, so a religious marriage carried out in any of those denominations was legally binding. That was then extended to other denominations in the 1880s.

However, it only "works" if the wedding is in a licensed premises. So they could have a religious blessing at Buckingham Palace, but it wouldn't be legally binding. That's very unusual in the Church of England, though - although it does happen with some religions whose ministers aren't authorised to act as registrars. A more usual thing would be to have a civil ceremony and then a religious blessing, as Charles and Camilla did, which people sometimes do if they can't officially marry at a place of worship, e.g. if there are issues with divorce or if the two partners are different religions.

I've known people have two weddings if they're from different countries, and close relatives and friends aren't able to travel because of health or financial reasons, but only one of the weddings would be the legal one.

 

[sophie25]

It still cost a lot of security to secure a large church. And if they have the wedding in London they have to pay the police to close off traffic to allow the royals' cars to proceed through the city safely. Look at how much Zara's wedding cost and there were no carriages, and I'd have to imagine traffic management would be cheaper for Edinburgh than London. That's why you won't get minimal security cost unless you marry at a royal chapel like at St. James, right across the street from BP.

And I never said the UK required two wedding. I just used Monaco as an example where two wedding (of different styles, and usually in different cities) occur. To show a blueprint, taste-wise, of what Beatrice could choose to do.

St. George's didn't have to be 'secured' for the weddings of Peter Phillips or Ella Windsor as it's within the precincts of Windsor Castle. The security part of those weddings would have taken place at the entrances where the guests were admitted as only those with security passes would have been allowed into the castle by the police. There was no need for extra security as no unauthorised persons were present anywhere near the church.

 

[JGio]

Some magazines say it’s confirmed May 29.
Anyway, I really hope they won’t choose Guards’ chapel as it is so ugly and modern, doesn’t fit RF events. It isn’t any bride’s dream to marry there.
I hope they choose Westminster Abbey: they could just marry in the choir part of the abbey, entering from the South Door, walking past St Margaret’s church. That area could fit 700-800 people at least and it’s in London. Guests could enter from a secondary entrance inside the precincts keeping it private and low-key. But I think it wouldn’t be seen as posh or showy. Her bff Ellie Goulding married at the quire of York Minster few months ago.
It’s wouldn’t be that costly.

 

[sophie25]

Some magazines say it’s confirmed May 29.
Anyway, I really hope they won’t choose Guards’ chapel as it is so ugly and modern, doesn’t fit RF events. It isn’t any bride’s dream to marry there.
I hope they choose Westminster Abbey: they could just marry in the choir part of the abbey, entering from the South Door, walking past St Margaret’s church. That area could fit 700-800 people at least and it’s in London. Guests could enter from a secondary entrance inside the precincts keeping it private and low-key. But I think it wouldn’t be seen as posh or showy. Her bff Ellie Goulding married at the quire of York Minster few months ago.
It’s wouldn’t be that costly.

I agree, the Guards chapel is a horrible looking church, at least on the outside.

 

[JGio]

However, at this points for her would better to marry at Windsor just like Eugenie with no carriage ride in town, instead of a wedding in a common unknown church in London where everyone can marry just to accept a BP reception.. go big or go home (=Windsor). As far as it’s not publicly paid (Brits would be angry), she can have whatever like all royal Princesses since ever.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

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

Marriage banns were made binding for all Catholics worldwide in 1908.
http://www.simplycatholic.com/what-are-marriage-banns

 

[sophie25]

However, at this points for her would better to marry at Windsor just like Eugenie with no carriage ride in town, instead of a wedding in a common unknown church in London where everyone can marry just to accept a BP reception.. go big or go home (=Windsor). As far as it’s not publicly paid (Brits would be angry), she can have whatever like all royal Princesses since ever.

I also don't see the point in marrying in London at all costs just to get a reception at BP (if that is indeed true). Windsor Castle and St. George's are stunning and I actually regard Windsor as even more prestigious than BP. Still, it's B's wedding so it's up to her what she does.