Engagement of Prince William to Catherine Middleton: November 16, 2010


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fortunately it will be Friday night here and there are some good football games on that night - Swans are playing at the SCG for one thing. I know what I will be doing and it won't be watching a wedding on the other side of the world between the most boring couple I can remember for years. Maybe if they had married 5 years ago but now after they have been living together for years it is over the top. They should be having a quiet wedding not this as it isn't the start of anything but after they have been together for years - as Charles said 'they have been practising for long enough'. I also hope she doesn't have the gall to wear white.

I agree, Bertie. As I said many comments back, a registar's office is all they need. I find it an abuse of the Church.
 
Guys...these are the British tabloids.

When did we start believing everything they write about the royals?

Since the engagement they have written articles about Kate's lookalike, the Queens desire for the two to kiss on teh balcony because its a semi state occassion (so ridiculous I cant imagine who thought that up), Elton John singing at the wedding, the Beckhams coming to the wedding, news about Kate in the 6th grade, information of Kate's family since the beginnig of time, etc. And it goes ON AND ON.

And that doesn't count the articles that are based on facts: they are engaged, she is wearing Diana's ring, the wedding is on April 29th and in Westminister Abbey.
 
Last edited:
I agree, Bertie. As I said many comments back, a registar's office is all they need. I find it an abuse of the Church.

If it were just two private people marrying after years of shacking up together I'd agree, but this wedding has wider consequences, legal and historical. It signifies the entering into a contact that will affect the succession to the British throne. One of the children born of their marriage will be the future monarch. As well as that, the event has huge historical significance. Forget their own personal circumstances; on their wedding day William and Kate will not just be a couple publically committing themselves to each other before family and friends, they will be a future king marrying his future queen, and that side of it demands all the pomp and ceremony. I do hope she wears ivory, though, not white.
 
thats exactly what I meant. What is she doing in a sustainable sense - apart of preparing her wedding which she is of course doing with exitement I guess. But kataryn said before maybe she wants to be seen for her work and not for her looks. Well in that case she has a lot to prove yet. Maybe or hopefully she will surprise us all.

I don't see that she has anything to prove. She is William's choice to be his wife. Are you saying she is somehow worthy only if she works like a dog at some job while she is also involved in planning a huge royal wedding for only five months from now? I guess I just don't understand why there is this concern over whether she's "working hard enough".
 
Well, the "lottery" has now given the nuptials a slight air of the dog and pony show, IMHO. I have tried quite diligently to rub off the "common" of these two, but it just gets worse! I shall have to visit this site only once a week to maintain my sanity.
 
Well, the "lottery" has now given the nuptials a slight air of the dog and pony show, IMHO. I have tried quite diligently to rub off the "common" of these two, but it just gets worse! I shall have to visit this site only once a week to maintain my sanity.


Maybe you ought to quit believing everything you read. That might help. At this point if the Daily Mail or some other rag printed that Catherine was going to have Katie Price as a bridesmaid, you'd collapse from a fit of the vapors.
 
I read the Daily Mail for amusement. It's fun to see some of the stories they pick up from the American media and "twist" just a bit to give them that tabloid edge. ;)

...Also, someone up thread said they might have open carriage, Catherine is allergic to horses so my bet is they won't- she can be near them briefly on polo field but trys to keep away, so I doubt she'd want to take a chance on her wedding day.

I might have been one of the people who mentioned it. The story goes that Kate told an Australian author at a polo match that she was allergic to horses. It's hearsay that wouldn't be allowed as evidence in a court of law, but I had speculated that the allergy plus the need for modern security might mean that the traditional carriages would be replaced by bulletproof limousines.

I personally would like to see the carriages. It is tradition and an image that is certainly iconic for Great Britain. Plus we know that there are some closed carriages which should help minimize Kate's exposure to allergens.

And Kate is going to encounter a lot of other occasions in her public life where she has to ride in an horse-drawn carriage: Trooping of the Color, Royal Ascot, State Opening of Parliament, etc. On those occasions, I believe that she may seek out a good antihistamine to manage the symptoms, but that is only my speculation.
 
I briefly thought it would be nice to travel in the Golden Carriage (Like The Prince of Orange and Maxima). However, this fantastical thought quickly and rightly passed as this is the British sovereign's coach only. There are plenty of other nice landaus, berlins etc. People will want to look at the people and the carriage shouldnt upstage them.
 
Honestly planning a wedding is not easy whether your royalty or a commoner especially if your the type of person who like to get involved with the whole process. Trust me I'm always certain both Kate and William are very busy with this wedding. Even if they aren't the ones going out to buy the invitations and such there's still alot to do when planning a wedding especially one of such scale. I don't think the designer will always go to Kate's place just because I think there would be too much of a risk of some sort of leak. Even if they cover the dress there's still a risk which is why I'd assume that it'd be easier for Kate to go to the designer herself for fittings. I remember the Emmanuels stressed how important it was to them for the dress to not be seen prior to the wedding day and I'm sure it'll be the same case for Kate.
 
The church isn't for the "righteous", it's for anyone who wants God's blessing on their marriage and not just the "say so" of the state.


I agree, Bertie. As I said many comments back, a registar's office is all they need. I find it an abuse of the Church.
 
I agree, Bertie. As I said many comments back, a registar's office is all they need. I find it an abuse of the Church.

Seriously? So in your opinion, anyone that has had sex prior to marriage isn't allowed to be married in a Church? :eek:
 
Well, the "lottery" has now given the nuptials a slight air of the dog and pony show, IMHO. I have tried quite diligently to rub off the "common" of these two, but it just gets worse! I shall have to visit this site only once a week to maintain my sanity.

Good idea. You never have anything pleasant to say about these two anyway.
 
Last edited:
KittyAtlanta- what do you have against William and Kate? Is because she's a commoner and you believe he should marry someone who comes from an aristocratic, blue-blooded background? Is William not allowed to marry someone he loves & cares for?

The Kings of Norway, Jordan, Sweden, Grand Duke of Luxembourg and Emperor of Japan are married to commoners. The CP's of Spain, Norway, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands and Victoria of Sweden are married to commoners. They're well received by their respective countries.
 
Well, the "lottery" has now given the nuptials a slight air of the dog and pony show, IMHO. I have tried quite diligently to rub off the "common" of these two, but it just gets worse! I shall have to visit this site only once a week to maintain my sanity.


I agree.

The monarchy used to have standards but William and Kate are continuing the lowering of it to mere celebrity status that started in 1969 with the documentary that was done that year and which now the Queen regrets doing.
 
I've seen some pretty angry posts on OTHER sites, one fashion site, about William marrying a "commoner." I wonder, where in the world are these people living? lmao. Do the people that make these comments live in some sort of castle, and have titles and long lines of royalty themselves? Its just odd to think that way. The days of second, third cousins marrying each other and keeping it all royal blood died a long time ago. Thankfully.
 
I've seen some pretty angry posts on OTHER sites, one fashion site, about William marrying a "commoner." I wonder, where in the world are these people living? lmao. Do the people that make these comments live in some sort of castle, and have titles and long lines of royalty themselves? Its just odd to think that way. The days of second, third cousins marrying each other and keeping it all royal blood died a long time ago. Thankfully.


However as royals are supposed to be different as long as they keep marrying every Jane, Sue or Betty then they cease to be different so why should they have special privileges etc.

I have no problem with them marrying commoners so long as they realise that that is making them commoners as well - if they can make a person royal then the commoner is also making the royal a commoner.
 
I've seen some pretty angry posts on OTHER sites, one fashion site, about William marrying a "commoner." I wonder, where in the world are these people living? lmao. Do the people that make these comments live in some sort of castle, and have titles and long lines of royalty themselves? Its just odd to think that way. The days of second, third cousins marrying each other and keeping it all royal blood died a long time ago. Thankfully.

I don't get it either. Why come to a forum for discussing a Royal Marriage and just post nothing but negative comments about the couple.
 
I don't get it either. Why come to a forum for discussing a Royal Marriage and just post nothing but negative comments about the couple.


Because the forum is a place to discuss things and if a person holds negative views they have a right to express them equally with those who hold positive views.

You don't have to read them or say anything in response to that view but the person has the right to express their opinion.
 
However as royals are supposed to be different as long as they keep marrying every Jane, Sue or Betty then they cease to be different so why should they have special privileges etc.

I have no problem with them marrying commoners so long as they realise that that is making them commoners as well - if they can make a person royal then the commoner is also making the royal a commoner.

Because they are Royal, they are not allowed to fall in love and marry someone who doesn't have Royal blood? The practice of arranging marriages within Royal Families is over, thank GOD. You have a seriously archaic way of thinking about Royalty that doesn't fit into the current century.
 
Because the forum is a place to discuss things and if a person holds negative views they have a right to express them equally with those who hold positive views.

You don't have to read them or say anything in response to that view but the person has the right to express their opinion.

That's fine. And we all have a right to respond to others opinions that we don't agree with by expressing our frustrations with the negativity. ;)
 
Oddly enough, I was picking my dad up from the airport the other day when he made some remark about Prince William making a commoner. I didn't realize he cared, because 1) we're American and 2) he gets annoyed with me for being interested in royalty.

There really aren't a lot of princess left in the world, and technically, William's mother was a commoner before marrying into the family. So was the Queen's mother, for that matter.

Edited to add: Hahaha, I see the Daily Mail continues to be an endless source of amusement! Speculating about Camilla curtseying to her stepson's wife and throwing in a Photoshopped picture to boot?
 
Last edited:
It makes me wonder if royal families even attempt to marry off their princes and princesses to each other nowadays. The practice was so common just a generation or two ago, but we've often questioned on this site whether, for example, Prince William and Princess Madeleine have even met. It's not a surprise to me that it's not that important to most of us anymore, but the royal families don't seem to care either. Times have certainly changed!
 

Although we are discussing this issue (order of precedence) this is actually another inane article from the Daily Mail. First of all, this "list" didn't include the Duchess of Kent and Gloucester. How can the Gloucester daughters , Lady Helen Taylor and Lady Louise Windsor (she is what 5?) rate a mention but the Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester and Princess Michael of Kent are not even on the list.

And they make it seem like if Beatrice and/or Eugenie don't curtesy to Kate...William will get upset. And they know this how? Cause William talks to them on a regular?

Which just proves my point that until this wedding is over, the articles are just going to keep coming and become more and more ridiculous. Of course, if its printed in the Mail it must be true.
 
Last edited:
Although we are discussing this issue (order of precedence) this is actually another inane article from the Daily Mail. First of all, this "list" didn't include the Duchess of Kent and Gloucester. How can the Gloucester daughters , Lady Helen Taylor and Lady Louise Windsor (she is what 5?) rate a mention but the Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester and Princess Michael of Kent are not even on the list.

And they make it seem like if Beatrice and/or Eugenie don't curtesy to Kate...William will get upset. And they know this how? Cause William talks to them on a regular?

Which just proves my point that until this wedding is over, the articles are just going to keep coming and become more and more ridiculous. Of course, if its printed in the Mail it must be true.

That article made me wonder if it is possible that the gov will change the rules to allow firstborn daughters inherit the throne as they do in Sweden and if so, would Anne and her children move ahead of Charles.
 
Why would Anne move before Charles....Charles was born in 1948 and Anne in 1950? If anything, Anne and her children would move ahead of Andrew and Edward and their kids.

No...if anything changes with the succession it will affect the children of William and Harry.
 
:previous: Any such change would be of no consequence to the current line of succession. It would only effect future generations.

(posted the same time as Zonk)
 
Kate will go to the church in the Glass Coach. It's closed. It was use by Sarah, Diana, Anne...even the Queen I think. That way she won't arrive wind-blown.

On the way home, I'm sure she could manage a ride in an open landeau.

I would think that she would go to the designer for fittings. The design will be more secure that way. The less you move the dress about, the better. When Diana's dress was being done, they didn't even through out the trimmings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom