Peter Phillips Wedding 2008: the Royal Family, Hello! Magazine and "Freebies"

[ashelen]

Originally Posted by baguetteprincess

According to Emily Post, it is traditional for the bride's parents to pay for the wedding, but as this is a royal wedding, even though not a state affair, I would hazard a guess that most employed brides would be unable to afford the fees associated with a wedding of this stature. I think the couple also just purchased a home so with everything hitting them, it just was too much. Being a royal would also preclude an elopement, or a destination wedding. I think so many things commoners such as ourselves have opportunities to take advantage of would be frowned upon by this couple. Ultimately, which is worse....not be able to pay for the wedding and be in debt and have the Queen pick up the tab after bad press, or pay for the wedding on your own.

I understand why they did what they did.

is this is the case, i would do the smae, finding theway to pay it myself! i can't imaging the burden for her family!

[iowabelle]

I know I saw some complaints in the media that their invitations weren't grand enough...

Even a modest wedding for 350+ is going to cost a lot of money, and I can't see that the Queen would have enjoyed a buffet in the backyard like many regular people have to arrange.

[Duchess]

i don't see anything wrong with them selling their wedding to a magazine. how many of us wouldn't do the same if the opportunity to make a million dollars presented itself?

[LOSSEAN]

From the write ups, the tiara was lent by HRH The Princess Royal and not Her Majesty and we can all recognise it as being from Princess Anne's collection.

On the question of sponsorship, as much as we traditionalists might abhor it, it may be the way forward for royal families. With the Trumps, the Beckhams, the Cruises, the Winfreys and other celebrities inundating media coverage, the Royal families might slip from the radar totally if they do not receive financial revenue. The world will be deprived of being informed of the 'fairytale' side of Royal families.

Well we have got our fill from Peter and Autumn Phillips' wonderful wedding...after last week's low key American 'Royal' wedding of Jenna Bush...
and now for the next one from the Royal House of Denmark.

[sophie25]

Lady Helen Windsor had a big wedding at St. George's in 1992 without resorting to a magazine deal.

P.S. I had to laugh when I read that Prince Andrew is one of the Royals who refused to be photographed by Hello at this wedding. He wasn't so self rightous in 1991 when he allowed Hello into his home for a reported £250,000 whereupon the magazine published page upon page of intimate family photographs featuring himself; Sarah and their then infant daughters.

[Moonmaiden23]

Andrew is becoming quite "grand" with middle age...he is so much more stuffy now than he was in his carefree Randy Andy days and early in his marriage to Sarah.

Maybe he has grown leery of the press because of the coverage during his marital problems?

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by LOSSEAN

From the write ups, the tiara was lent by HRH The Princess Royal and not Her Majesty and we can all recognise it as being from Princess Anne's collection.

On the question of sponsorship, as much as we traditionalists might abhor it, it may be the way forward for royal families. With the Trumps, the Beckhams, the Cruises, the Winfreys and other celebrities inundating media coverage, the Royal families might slip from the radar totally if they do not receive financial revenue. The world will be deprived of being informed of the 'fairytale' side of Royal families.

Well we have got our fill from Peter and Autumn Phillips' wonderful wedding...after last week's low key American 'Royal' wedding of Jenna Bush...
and now for the next one from the Royal House of Denmark.

Thanks for clearing that up! When I heard on the news that the bride's tiara was from HM I wondered immediately why the Princess Royal didn't lend one of her own...and it turns out she indeed did. Perfect!

[Kezza]

Is this true according to the Royal Anecdotes Buckingham palace have stated this about the so called Hello deal.

Royal Anecdotes » Clarification of Hello! involvement in wedding

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by milla Ca

The job they do is one side their marriage another one, IMO.

Probably you give the explanation for this ´sponsoring´ the couple also would tell us, but it does not make it better for me.

I wasn´t delighted some years ago when Zara sold her ´story´ with her jockey boy friend to Hello, and now again i´m not happy to see Peter selling his wedding to the magazine.

The wedding at Windsor was a private matter but also a royal one.
Maybe i´m old fashioned, but i don´t think it´s good when royal events are ´sponsored ´ by the media.

The product that Peter is selling his connection to a 1000 year old monarchy that is currently in trouble and cannot benefit from the fact that its image is now being sold as a commodity by a family member. An institution that because of Peter's private and normal upbringing and through no fault of his own, he has done nothing so far in his life to contribute to its longevity and success. The prestige of the royal family is not his to sell or give away, and in my humble opinion, he should have respected his grandmother more and been more understanding of her difficulty in maintaining the relevance and dignity of the monarchy and refrained from selling the rights that only came about because of his relation to her.

I fear the monarchy is not strong enough to withstand acts like this. When family members are so keen to sell their royal connections so freely, it really makes a mockery of their protests of former servants like Paul Burrell who profit from their slim connections to royalty.

I cannot believe the Queen has given Peter no financial assistance in his life whatsoever. I suspect he did the wise thing and put the money away in savings rather than waste it on a big wedding.

But if he did that, he didn't need the big wedding. Peter is not royal; there was no constitutional need for him to have a big and expensive wedding.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by ysbel

. . . . . . Peter is not royal; there was no constitutional need for him to have a big and expensive wedding.

Once again, it was not a big wedding, it was a family wedding and the House of Winsor is a very large, very close family. Autumn's family is also not small and is blended in much the same way as Peter's. Add in a few friends and there you have it.

The Bride and bridesmaids wore affordable gowns much to the chagrin of the stylish elite, the church was no big ticket item and the carriage that drove them away was curtesy of Granny. Hell my nephew and his new bride left the church in a carriage, it's romantic but no big deal.

A lot of expense would have involved mundane things like transport for security, I mean let's face it, how many people have to hire buses.

Originally Posted by menarue

In case you haven´t seen this, it is a description of the people in the royal wedding group, their occupations and diversity.
The picture that reveals the changing face of the Royal Family... and families everywhere | Mail Online

That photo says it all.

[lady_windsor]

is it today that the new issue of hello comes out?? has anyone bought it yet??? i have to wait for a week for it to get to where i am :(

[Lemon Lyman]

I can normally buy Hello on a Tuesday but it isn't in shops around here today. May be a delay due to wedding

[lady_windsor]

its quite worrying because on the hello website, they havent even got the preview of the magazine!!!! argh when will we know?? when will all the rumours be settled???

[bekalc]

Originally Posted by ysbel

The product that Peter is selling his connection to a 1000 year old monarchy that is currently in trouble and cannot benefit from the fact that its image is now being sold as a commodity by a family member. An institution that because of Peter's private and normal upbringing and through no fault of his own, he has done nothing so far in his life to contribute to its longevity and success. The prestige of the royal family is not his to sell or give away, and in my humble opinion, he should have respected his grandmother more and been more understanding of her difficulty in maintaining the relevance and dignity of the monarchy and refrained from selling the rights that only came about because of his relation to her.

I fear the monarchy is not strong enough to withstand acts like this. When family members are so keen to sell their royal connections so freely, it really makes a mockery of their protests of former servants like Paul Burrell who profit from their slim connections to royalty.

I cannot believe the Queen has given Peter no financial assistance in his life whatsoever. I suspect he did the wise thing and put the money away in savings rather than waste it on a big wedding.

But if he did that, he didn't need the big wedding. Peter is not royal; there was no constitutional need for him to have a big and expensive wedding.

I think your being a bit judgemental here. Because of Peter's relation with his grandmother, his wedding required a lot of things that other weddings do not... Her family is not rich, his mother it appears may not be rich, so how were they suppose to pay for things? Are they just suppose to not invite his own Grandmother to the wedding?

The fact is a lot of celebrities do exactly what Peter did.. They sell their rights to pictures of their weddings, so that they can control what photographers are there, and what pictures go out...Many then donate the proceeds to charity, but in Peter's case if he needed it to fund his wedding so what? And honestly, what the British perfer it went things went back to the old days where the tax payers would more than likely pay for the Queen's grandson's wedding? Because those may have been the two options (or Granny paying)

The point is I don't think this is the royal family really selling out, but I could be wrong...

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by MARG

Once again, it was not a big wedding, it was a family wedding and the House of Winsor is a very large, very close family. Autumn's family is also not small and is blended in much the same way as Peter's. Add in a few friends and there you have it.

The Bride and bridesmaids wore affordable gowns much to the chagrin of the stylish elite, the church was no big ticket item and the carriage that drove them away was curtesy of Granny. Hell my nephew and his new bride left the church in a carriage, it's romantic but no big deal..

I don't know, Marg, if the wedding was that affordable, I'm thinking that Peter and Autumn hardly needed the money from Hello magazine. To be honest with you, I don't know for a fact that Peter cut the deal with Hello because of lack of money to fund his own wedding but whatever reason he decided to do the deal, I suspect it wasn't a good enough reason and I fear it can have reprecussions for the royal family in the future.

I understand bekalc's point of the celebrity angle of selling rights to your wedding but celebrities are in the business of marketing their image and their lives for money and these days the normal celebrities aren't seen in too good a light which tends to prove the point that the celebritization of royalty can't be good for the reputation of royals.

I somehow imagine that if Peter had presented the Queen with two alternatives: a style wedding that he couldn't afford with the Hello deal paying for it and a smaller more private affair in one of the Queen's chapels then the Queen would have opted for the latter choice. They might not have been able to squeeze in both of the families in a small chapel; however, they wouldn't have been the first couple that had to drastically cut down the guest list because they couldn't afford to host a large wedding and invite everbody. Again, I don't know whether lack of money was really the only reason Peter decided to do the Hello deal.

But enough of that. It looked like a beautiful wedding and I simply wish that Peter hadn't paid for it the way he did.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Hello! is out this morning and it includes lots of lovely pictures. However what strikes me is that apart from the coverage about the couple, Peter and Autumn, it's more or less a promotion for Kate becoming the next royal bride as there are lots of pictures and close ups of her included. Hello! usually does a lot of sugary coverage in this direction but I found it a bit bold on this occasion.

[Isana]

I know that you probably can't post a scan because of copyright but could you describe the pictures, please, and summarise the article? I don't think I can get my hands on a Hello magazine here.

[PrincessofEurope]

its a 100 page special in hello and there is also some in hola as well this week

link to what is in the report
Peter and Autumn share their royal wedding exclusively with HELLO!

[Kezza]

The daily mail are still going on about the Hello deal.

It's a royal sell-out: Anger over Hello! pictures of Queen at Peter Phillips' wedding | Mail Online

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Kezza

The daily mail are still going on about the Hello deal.

It's a royal sell-out: Anger over Hello! pictures of Queen at Peter Phillips' wedding | Mail Online

Was it not the Mail telling us that all the senior Royals had refused to be photographed, that HM was furious at the deal, that NO Hello photographers were allowed in the chapel...... Does this mean their original rants and stories were, wrong?