Harry and Meghan: Wedding Suggestions and Musings

[FashionMaven]

I think a major factor was the age and health of Philip. WA has a long walk down the aisle that he would have to have made. At St George's if he, or the Queen, feel a bit down that day then they can use the same entrance that the Queen Mum used for Edward and Sophie's and so save them that very long walk as well as the stress of the ride through the streets in those uncomfortable carriages etc.

This is a really good point.

 

[FashionMaven]

Mabye it's not a canopy, but there's something they always set up there that makes it really frustrating to watch.

I think the most frustrating part for me is that the entrance with the stairs isn't out in the open really - it's almost in a courtyard, so not many folks can get back there.

Also - is the public even allowed in that part? Right outside of the staircase? It doesn't feel like with previous weddings that those people were the regular public. First of all, half appeared to be the press and the other half golf clapped for everything, lol.

 

[Hallo girl]

There will still be some must invites, but far less than William's. I don't think normal people can count 800 in family and close friends.

Just to point out I didn't say close friends I said friends.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It's just the drama and spectacle - plus way more of the public could see it. At St. George's, it looks like no more than 100-200 folks could fit around the chapel steps to see a kiss, unlike BP, where thousands upon thousands could see it. People fill up that circle in from of BP and then the entire road going back miles.

It's just so grand and amazing.

But I see why they chose St. George's - it's a very pretty venue and apparently Meghan and Harry have already spent time there.

FYI - The Mall (the entire road) is 930 metres long and from about half way back you can't really see the balcony anyway. You know it is there because there is some decoration on it when there is to be an appearance but in the normal course of events the people in the street don't actually 'see' anything if they are too far back - more sense it than see it.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Anne no - not done then.

Andrew yes.

The first balcony kiss was Charles and Diana so has only been by Andrew and William as they are the only two weddings with the opportunity since the first so there has only ever been three balcony kisses.

I realize it's unpopular to admit this and I've done so before, but I am extremely uncomfortable with this new expectation of a Balcony Kiss. It reminds me of the bride and groom being expected to perform like trained seals. What if they don't want to do it, and are very shy and private people?

Now if it's not done or done awkwardly, the mob will tsk tsk about how the Royal couple are not "in love" or my personal favorite it must be an "arranged marriage". The horror!

I've no doubt that the public kiss will not be an issue for Harry and his bride. They will be delighted to oblige the public. But the fact that it's now not only expected but demanded gives me pause.

 

[Dman]

I love the last woman mentioning the Obamas!

I loved that too. Hopefully the Obamas will get the chance to attend.

 

[Mbruno]

I realize it's unpopular to admit this and I've done so before, but I am extremely uncomfortable with this new expectation of a Balcony Kiss. It reminds me of the bride and groom being expected to perform like trained seals. What if they don't want to do it, and are very shy and private people?

Now if it's not done or done awkwardly, the mob will tsk tsk about how the Royal couple are not "in love" or my personal favorite it must be an "arranged marriage". The horror!

I've no doubt that the public kiss will not be an issue for Harry and his bride. They will be delighted to oblige the public. But the fact that it's now not only expected but demanded gives me pause.

If they really wanted to break with tradition, they could kiss in the chapel, after the wedding. I don't know if it has ever been done before in a British royal wedding, but it has happened in some other European royal weddings.

I'm pretty sure it won't happen though !

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well, Bertie, Prince of Wales married Princess Alexandra of Denmark in historic St George's. He was Queen Victoria's eldest son. Several of his siblings followed his example. I hardly think Victoria thought St George's was second rate.

So much for those who are apparently rejoicing that 'marrying at St George's shows how low Harry's stature is ' in the Royal family.

It should be remembered that before WWI royal weddings were largely private events anyway - even Queen Victoria's which was the wedding of the reigning monarch was at the Chapel Royal at St James' with very little pomp and circumstance.

George V changed that approach by having his children marry in very public ceremonies at WA which George VI and the Queen followed as the 'right thing' but the public then demanded less and less public displays of ostentation and so we are coming back to the way things were done pre-WWI almost with smaller more private royal weddings except for the direct heir.

Enjoy this one as it will be last televised British Royal wedding for a generation - so 25 - 35 years before there will be another.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

If they really wanted to break with tradition, they could kiss in the chapel, after the wedding. I don't know if it has ever been done before in a British royal wedding, but it has happened in some other European royal weddings.

I'm pretty sure it won't happen though !

Good point. This doesn't apply to Meghan and Harry but what if they don't want to kiss publicly at all? I don't think it should be expected of any couple to perform on queue, Royal or not.

However the entire basis of their union will be questioned if they do not.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I expect a fairly normal high church service with choir music only.

Andrew's wedding was attended by several guests from foreign royal families including several reigning monarchs. Somehow, I don't see that happening with Harry's wedding. What do you think ?

That would depend on how close he actually is to his German cousins.

Given that Philip's sisters children are now parents and grandparents themselves who have introduced their children to 'Uncle Philip and Aunt Lilibet' it is possible that Harry may be close to one or other of his German cousins and so invite them. I know Beatrice attends some of their weddings so maybe it is Andrew and his daughters who are the ones who are closest to Philip's family.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Crown Princely couples from Europe but not necessarily the reigning monarchs due to the age situations as again these families do socialise with the Brits - just not in public and again it might be more that they are friendly with the Queen and Charles but not so much Charles' sons.

 

[Fem]

It's just the drama and spectacle - plus way more of the public could see it. At St. George's, it looks like no more than 100-200 folks could fit around the chapel steps to see a kiss, unlike BP, where thousands upon thousands could see it. People fill up that circle in from of BP and then the entire road going back miles.

It's just so grand and amazing.

But I see why they chose St. George's - it's a very pretty venue and apparently Meghan and Harry have already spent time there.

Now at least I know why I don't get the need of it, since drama and spectacle and frankly the kiss is something that I don't like in royal weddings ?

 

[Pranter]

I don't mind if they kiss at the altar...but geez some folks just get a bit over the top with it. Just a nice kiss..not the whole clutching and gagging each other type.


LaRae

 

[Nico]

I expect a fairly normal high church service with choir music only.

Andrew's wedding was attended by several guests from foreign royal families including several reigning monarchs. Somehow, I don't see that happening with Harry's wedding. What do you think ?

At least the Greeks will be there i guess, maybe some Danes as well due to Harry's recent trip.
But i agree i don't see a huge turnout either.

 

[principessa]

For all those who are disappointed that there could be no balcony scene. Remind on the wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill. There was no balcony to kiss, but they went outside the church and kissed while standing on a small podium.

This could a possibility for Henry and Meghan.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I loved that too. Hopefully the Obamas will get the chance to attend.

I am almost certain that at least one of them (the Obamas) will be invited. But I doubt if protocol or HM the queen will allow the bride and groom to invite the Obamas and not invite the current President of the US and/or his First Lady. It would be considered a major diplomatic faux pas.

Which brings us to a sticky problem. Rumor is that both Harry and Meghan have gone on record as stating that they are not fans of Trump. In fact, did President Trump or Mrs Trump even offer a public congratulations yesterday as the Obamas did?

In any case if the Obamas are invited at least one of the Trumps must be as well.

One couple will be invited out of necessity and courtesy, the other because of friendship and affection.

 

[FashionMaven]

I am almost certain that at least one of them (the Obamas) will be invited. But I doubt if protocol or HM the queen will allow the bride and groom to invite the Obamas and not invite the current President of the US and/or his First Lady. It would be considered a major diplomatic faux pas.

Which brings us to a sticky problem. Rumor is that both Harry and Meghan have gone on record as stating that they are not fans of Trump. In fact, did President Trump or Mrs Trump even offer a public congratulations yesterday as the Obamas did?

In any case if the Obamas are invited at least one of the Trumps must be as well.

One couple will be invited out of necessity and courtesy, the other because of friendship and affection.

Hmmm... I don't understand why? It's well known that the Obamas are close friends of Harry - so they would be invited simply because of that friendship - not because of any political position. It has nothing to do with Trump at all.

In fact, I'd say that it's going to be far easier for Harry to invite the Obamas than William. And it's going to be easier for Harry not to invite the Trumps because he has no friendly connection with them.

 

[Mbruno]

For all those who are disappointed that there could be no balcony scene. Remind on the wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill. There was no balcony to kiss, but they went outside the church and kissed while standing on a small podium.

This could a possibility for Henry and Meghan.

Here is the moment you alluded to. And, if you allow me a side comment, I am always mesmerized by how beautiful Princess Madeleine is and, as a nostalgist of inter-dynastic marriages, I will always regret that she and William, by her own admission, never even got to meet each other before they both got married to other people.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I disagree FashionMaven.

Unless this is going to be a strictly private wedding with NO heads of state invited at all, Harry and Meghan simply cannot snub a sitting President in favor of a former one as much as they would like to.

This would be considered quite a faux pas, and one doesn't need to be a diplomat to understand that.

I am not saying they should invite the Trumps, just saying it's unlikely to go down the way they prefer simply due to protocol.

 

[Osipi]

Personally, I'm over the moon with the St. George's Chapel choice for the wedding venue. I can't explain it but Windsor just seems so much more romantic and magical than London. Probably because of the long, long history associated with Windsor. I think we'll not be disappointed by the crowds either that will gather. Windsor knows how to throw pomp and circumstance very well as we see the Garter Ceremony there each year along with the very traditional event known as the Ascot Races.

 

[Osipi]

I am almost certain that at least one of them (the Obamas) will be invited. But I doubt if protocol or HM the queen will allow the bride and groom to invite the Obamas and not invite the current President of the US and/or his First Lady. It would be considered a major diplomatic faux pas.

Which brings us to a sticky problem. Rumor is that both Harry and Meghan have gone on record as stating that they are not fans of Trump. In fact, did President Trump or Mrs Trump even offer a public congratulations yesterday as the Obamas did?

In any case if the Obamas are invited at least one of the Trumps must be as well.

One couple will be invited out of necessity and courtesy, the other because of friendship and affection.

I think we're treading into sticky, muddy waters when discussing the political aspects of a potential guest list. To be honest, I have no clue if there even will be a "diplomatic" protocol attached to anyone invited to Harry and Meghan's wedding.

If people are invited to the wedding as personal guests out of friendships, its illogical to me to have to "set things right" by attaching a "must invite" to it so it "looks better". When it comes to a personal wedding, politics shouldn't play any part of it even if the one getting married is a public and royal figure.

We'll find out what happens in due course but to be honest, taking up discussion room centered on the Obamas and the Trumps and the Reagans and the Bushes and Felix the Cat (he'd bring his magic bag o' tricks to the wedding and magically transport the newlyweds to BP's balcony for that magical kiss) is just going to give our moderators a huge headache.

I disagree FashionMaven.

Unless this is going to be a strictly private wedding with NO heads of state invited at all, Harry and Meghan simply cannot snub a sitting President in favor of a former one as much as they would like to.

This would be considered quite a faux pas, and one doesn't need to be a diplomat to understand that.

I am not saying they should invite the Trumps, just saying it's unlikely to go down the way they prefer simply due to protocol.

Harry's wedding will not be a state wedding or even a semi-state wedding so the guest list will not have the "must invite" diplomatic invitations to heads of state. If a political figure such as Justin Trudeau is invited, it will be because he and his wife are personal friends of the bride.

 

[tommy100]

I'm not at all surprised it is St George's. I honestly don't see it as "second rate" or more lowly compared to Westminster Abby. The RF all seem to consider Windsor home more than London and the Royal Palaces there. St George's has seen its fair share of important national and private family events. Harry doesn't seem one for a fuss and getting married at WA means a fuss, let's be honest its a big national day, whereas at Windsor it can still be a big public day seen by all who want to but without quite as much pomp and ceremony. That works perfect for someone who is only ever going to go down the line of succession. Also, if my sibling married in a location only a few years before me I would probably deliberately choose not to marry there to avoid comparisons.

I absolutely don't think its a less than best choice its just a different choice.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I totally agree about Windsor...so much more romantic and intimate than St Paul's or Westminster Abbey! ?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I think we're treading into sticky, muddy waters when discussing the political aspects of a potential guest list. To be honest, I have no clue if there even will be a "diplomatic" protocol attached to anyone invited to Harry and Meghan's wedding.

If people are invited to the wedding as personal guests out of friendships, its illogical to me to have to "set things right" by attaching a "must invite" to it so it "looks better". When it comes to a personal wedding, politics shouldn't play any part of it even if the one getting married is a public and royal figure.

We'll find out what happens in due course but to be honest, taking up discussion room centered on the Obamas and the Trumps and the Reagans and the Bushes and Felix the Cat (he'd bring his magic bag o' tricks to the wedding and magically transport the newlyweds to BP's balcony for that magical kiss) is just going to give our moderators a huge headache.

Harry's wedding will not be a state wedding or even a semi-state wedding so the guest list will not have the "must invite" diplomatic invitations to heads of state. If a political figure such as Justin Trudeau is invited, it will be because he and his wife are personal friends of the bride.

I stand by my comments and my observations. I guess we will just have to wait and see as you stated.

 

[Dman]

I am almost certain that at least one of them (the Obamas) will be invited. But I doubt if protocol or HM the queen will allow the bride and groom to invite the Obamas and not invite the current President of the US and/or his First Lady. It would be considered a major diplomatic faux pas.

Which brings us to a sticky problem. Rumor is that both Harry and Meghan have gone on record as stating that they are not fans of Trump. In fact, did President Trump or Mrs Trump even offer a public congratulations yesterday as the Obamas did?

In any case if the Obamas are invited at least one of the Trumps must be as well.

One couple will be invited out of necessity and courtesy, the other because of friendship and affection.

The US will likely be represented by the Ambassador. The likely Obamas invite would be personal from the royal couple. Two different things.

 

[Fem]

I am almost certain that at least one of them (the Obamas) will be invited. But I doubt if protocol or HM the queen will allow the bride and groom to invite the Obamas and not invite the current President of the US and/or his First Lady. It would be considered a major diplomatic faux pas.

Which brings us to a sticky problem. Rumor is that both Harry and Meghan have gone on record as stating that they are not fans of Trump. In fact, did President Trump or Mrs Trump even offer a public congratulations yesterday as the Obamas did?

In any case if the Obamas are invited at least one of the Trumps must be as well.

One couple will be invited out of necessity and courtesy, the other because of friendship and affection.

Neither Trump nor his wife can be invited in any official capacity (as a head of state), because the wedding isn't a state affair.

 

[FashionMaven]

Here is the moment you alluded to. And, if you allow me a side comment, I am always mesmerized by how beautiful Princess Madeleine is and, as a nostalgist of inter-dynastic marriages, I will always regret that she and William, by her own admission, never even got to meet each other before they both got married to other people.

Princess Madeline is stunning. Wow.

 

[Mbruno]

I stand by my comments and my observations. I guess we will just have to wait and see as you stated.

I totally agree about Windsor...so much more romantic and intimate than St Paul's or Westminster Abbey! ?

I don't think Harry and Meghan have to invite Trump or Melania to the wedding if they invite the Obamas as it won't be a state event and all invitations are extended on a personal basis only. However, knowing Trump's personality, I think he might take it badly if that happens, especially if the American media make a big deal out of it.

 

[FashionMaven]

I don't think Harry and Meghan have to invite Trump or Melania to the wedding if they invite the Obamas as it won't be a state event and all invitations are extended on a personal basis only. However, knowing Trump's personality, I think he might take it badly if that happens, especially if the American media make a big deal out of it.

What protocol would they be breaching by inviting one (who are now private citizens) and not the other since this is not a state wedding?

 

[Stefan]

I expect a fairly normal high church service with choir music only.

Andrew's wedding was attended by several guests from foreign royal families including several reigning monarchs. Somehow, I don't see that happening with Harry's wedding. What do you think ?

That Wikipedia page seems incorrect to me. As far as i remembbger there wehere no reigning monarchs at the Wedding of pricne Andrew. The guests listed there where however at the Wedding of Charles and Diana.

 

[Mbruno]

That Wikipedia page seems incorrect to me. As far as i remembbger there wehere no reigning monarchs at the Wedding of pricne Andrew. The guests listed there where however at the Wedding of Charles and Diana.

Maybe it is wrong. I don't remember the wedding ceremony myself and I didn't check if the infornation is accurate. It is Wikipedia after all, so it's not always reliable. For Charles and Diana, a longer list of guests is mentioned (including the Queen of Denmark, the King of the Belgians, etc.), so the two lists are not the same.