Princess Elizabeth & the Duke of Edinburgh, 20 November 1947


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Thank you for the video ladybelline. :)
It's the first time I actually saw the wedding, the bride & groom, especially the bride, looked so wonderful and so happy. :wub:
 
I love her wedding dress. My favorite royal Wedding dresses are definitely Princess Elizabeth, Grace Kelly, and CP Mette-Marit.
 
Thanks for wonderful photos. Beautiful Bride and beautiful bridal dress.
Royal Wedding ceremony excellence.
 
Fantastic - I love the dress and the bride was beautiful.
 
A Love that still burns Bright 61 years later!
 
Some engagement pictures
Getty Images - Royal Family
http://pro.corbis.com/images/BE072620.jpg?size=67&uid={EB10B57E-1008-4CA1-A157-873CC1127AD5}
Getty Images - Royalty, London, England, 10th July, 1947, Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth II) and Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten leave Buckingham Palace in a car after the announcement of their engagement
http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/760...75963FC567DB16223BC576C69A1A2284831B75F48EF45
http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/760...75963FC567DB1561AB69995D74EB4284831B75F48EF45
http://pro.corbis.com/images/HU005922.jpg?size=67&uid={12127632-73BE-4F9D-8E20-7E49FE8ADC6D}
[img=http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/2148/10july47bp0.th.jpg]
[img=http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8125/10thjuly1947princesselixj8.th.jpg]
[img=http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3305/53261354wl7.th.jpg]
[img=http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3655/ukd601inpjt2.th.jpg]
 
I was always struck by how matronly Elizabeth appeared in the engagement photos, although I did love her shoes.

But I think she was one of the most gorgeous royal brides, even if most of the photos are B&W.
 
I think it's remarkable that Queen Elizabeth only had one intended her entire life. I can see many people having only one love, but for her, there was never a doubt that Philip was the one since age 13. I doubt that she ever had even a crush on any other man.
 
mgrant said:
The second photo is from left to right: King George VI, Princess Margaret Rose, Lady Mary Cambridge (behind Princess Margaret), the Princess Bride, the groom, Queen Elizabeth, and her mother Queen Mary.
Click to expand...


This (from post #7) has probably been corrected by now, so please forgive the nit-pick. Queen Mary was not the mother of Queen Elizabeth (Queen Mum), but rather of King George VI.
 
I think she was one of the most beautiful royal brides I've ever seen. (I think the dress is one of the best too, one of the most timeless.)

And it must have been a true joy to participate in this wedding, after the horrors of World War II.
 
Elsa M. said:
The official portrait of the bride:

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x63/belerma/ebride.jpg
Click to expand...

She looks SO happy here. :wub:

iowabelle said:
And it must have been a true joy to participate in this wedding, after the horrors of World War II.
Click to expand...

And especially after they had both had to wait so long because her parents thought she was too young. Philip first asked King George for Elizabeth's hand in marriage when she was 17. (They married when she was 21.)
 
Does anyone know why Prince Phillip renounced his Greek titles prior to his mariage? I can understand why he renounced his succesion rights to the Greek and the Danish throne, but why did he chose to become a commoner? And after all, wouldn't it be more "prestigious" if the heiress presumptive to the British Throne would marry a man of equal rank?
 
snowflower said:
Does anyone know why Prince Phillip renounced his Greek titles prior to his mariage? I can understand why he renounced his succesion rights to the Greek and the Danish throne, but why did he chose to become a commoner? And after all, wouldn't it be more "prestigious" if the heiress presumptive to the British Throne would marry a man of equal rank?
Click to expand...
Even though he was born and titled a Greek prince, Philip never felt Greek. His family was exiled shortly after his birth and he spent his childhood in France, with his married sisters in Germany, and finally, naval college in Britain. Like his grandfather and uncles, he was essentially British, despite his paternal lineage. Princess Andrew, who embraced her new Greek homeland upon marriage, wrote to her son, displease that he was forgetting his Greek heritage. He didn't even speak Greek.

My theory is that, after WWII, there was a lot of patriotism anything that would make Philip look more British (in addition to his service British navy) was good. By that time, marrying other royals wasn't that important to the British monarchy (i.e. the future Queen Mum and the Duchess of Gloucester). Remember that none of Philip's sisters were invited to the wedding because they had all married German princes, si anything to disassociate Philip's German or foreign connections was a good move. Also, Earl Mountbatten encouraged his nephew to do this, no doubt hoping to get the Mountbatten name onto the royal house.
 
:previous:oh I see. Thank you for the explanations Empress Rouge.
 
Botticelli

Queen Elizabeth's wedding gown was designed by Norman Hartnell who was inspired by Botticelli's Flora or Springtime motifs throughout the embroidery.For a long time her gown was not mentioned or carefully scrutinized. Now I see it is appreciated for the masterpiece that it is and the royal young lady who even then had the inspired sense to wear it.
 
Beautiful wedding although the partners don't have equally important royal lineage Lily's mother was a commoner Never forget that Some members said she was a beautiful bride Ok, she looked pretty but not sexy I have seen much more stunning brides
 
What difference does it make that Elizabeth's mother is a commoner?

And what does sexy have to do with it. Please consider the time when you make comments like sexy.....sexy wasnt something that was common in wedding pictures in 1947.
 
The shoes are a very intimate item for us to see - too personal. They shouldnt be displayed. It would be preferable if future royal weddings are not filmed inside the church. It is a special occasion for those physically present only. A photograph or 2 is fine but the meaning of the ceremony is lost when its all geared to intrusive cameras. Filming the arrival, street procession, departure and a balcony appearance is all that is needed. Radio broadcast might be acceptable but please let's allow the couple to celebrate the service in private with friends and family only. We'll see the dress in the official photographs.
 
I think filming in the church is okay but not at the reception, when we compare the current Swedish Wedding to the British weddings, you basically see nothing personal at British Weddings. In a way it's nice to see the speeches, the dinner, the cake cutting and the dancing but then you think about if it was your wedding would you want all that on TV? So I think filming the church service is okay as long as the camera isn't right in your face, like at the Spanish royal wedding of 2004 the camera was right in front of the bride & groom walking down the aisle. Plus since the taxpayers are paying for this they have the right to see. :) :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You make a good point. The Bernadotte wedding was excessively TV oriented. I think they were mistakenly emulating the experience of Diana's wedding. Victoria will have greatly enjoyed being the star on TV but it's just not the correct direction - or a sustainable direction - for royalty in the 21st C. Its not dignified for royals to behave like tv actors. I dont believe its too late to draw back. On one hand, Peter Philips had a 'royal wedding' without tv and the tantalising glimpses of pretty bridesmaids, cute little children etc were a llittle sparse for the public spectacle. Victoria was too far in the other direction with nothing excluded from the show.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The dress looked quite simple but yet elegant. The train was not that long, it was made differently but still cute.
 
I imagine the then princess's shoes, along with the rest of her bridal attire, generated great interest around the world and probably was a joyful distraction from the aftermath of the war. I assume they will be in a museum one day (if not already) so I hardly see why it is considered too personal and intimate to photograph. It's not as if they showed a garter or undergarments.

I agree with you regarding the church service being captured on camera. It is a religious ceremony and the majesty can be captured at the church door, both before and after, as well as along the processional route to and from the church. No need to film the actual ceremony.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't believe that the Queen and Prince Philip have now been married for 63 years. Where does the time go?
 
If future royal weddings should not be televised for religious reasons, then it follows that ALL religious ceremonies and services should not be broadcast or recorded (which would include those carried out by the Pope in the open air) and I cannot imagine most people of a religious nature would be too happy wiuth that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Tatoi Royal Cemetery
Replies
0
Views
230
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
Kings Ferdinand I, Francis I, Ferdinand II, Francis II & Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
Replies
3
Views
624
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
King Henry VI (1421-1471) and Queen Margaret of Anjou
Replies
7
Views
994
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Y
"A Royal Life" by HRH The Duke of Kent and Hugo Vickers (2022)
Replies
1
Views
1K
Somebody
Somebody
B
Future Edinburgh weddings
2 3
Replies
63
Views
10K
Claire
Claire

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom