 |
|
03-22-2018, 01:07 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,309
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale
ONLY the Queen 'commands'...She did so then, since the Cambridge wedding was a State occasion.. this one isn't.
|
Yes quite right...just pointing out the differences in the two invitations, it wasn't a negative point.
LaRae
|
03-22-2018, 01:18 PM
|
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 9,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph
|
which highlights that Harry's weddings is not as "official" as William's was. If it were not for the media interest in it, I doubt it would be even televised.
|
03-22-2018, 01:22 PM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 4,011
|
|
|
It would be televised just like Edward's. It being televised was never really a debate. Same as the interviews and photoshoot, etc. He a senior working royal and 5th in line. It was never going to be the big wedding like William and Kate though I am sure they could have had the Abbey if wanted it just like Andrew did.
|
03-22-2018, 01:38 PM
|
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,895
|
|
|
Seems odd for the invitations to go out in The Queen’s names for William only to send the invitations out in The Queen’s name for Harry.
|
03-22-2018, 01:42 PM
|
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,309
|
|
|
Not really...William is a future King. His wedding is a different level.
LaRae
|
03-22-2018, 01:47 PM
|
|
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 311
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno
which highlights that Harry's weddings is not as "official" as William's was. If it were not for the media interest in it, I doubt it would be even televised.
|
It will be televised.
|
03-22-2018, 01:49 PM
|
 |
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
|
|
|
Maybe the invitations are in the queen's name for the future monarch.
|
03-22-2018, 01:49 PM
|
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 9,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter
Not really...William is a future King. His wedding is a different level.
LaRae
|
In Sweden, the invitations to the weddings not only of CP Victoria, but also of Princess Madeleine and Prince Carl Philip were sent out by the Swedish equivalent to the King's Lord Chamberlain, but all 3 of them are children of the King, even though only Victoria is the heir.
William and Harry, on the other hand, are both the PoW's sons, not the Queen's. The fact that invitations to William's wedding were sent out by the Queen's Lord Chamberlain signifies to me that Buckingham Palace, rather than Clarence House, was in charge, probably because William is in direct line to the throne. What do you think ?
|
03-22-2018, 02:03 PM
|
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,309
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno
In Sweden, the invitations for the weddings not only of CP Victoria, but also of Princess Madeleine and Prince Carl Philip were sent out by the Swedish equivalent to the King's Lord Chamberlain, but all 3 of them are children of the King, even though only Victoria is the heir.
William and Harry, on the other hand, are both the PoW's sons, not the Queen's. The fact that invitations to William's wedding were sent out by the Queen's Lord Chamberlain signifies to me that Buckingham Palace, rather than Clarence House, was in charge, probably because William is in direct line to the throne. What do you think ?
|
Yes that's what I think the difference is. William's wedding was a semi-state event from what I understand because he is a future heir so the Queen was very involved ..remember too William talking about how he went to the Queen when he was given a list of people he had to invite and she said no tear it up invite who you want etc.
I wonder...when Edward and Andrew got married how were their invitations worded?
LaRae
|
03-22-2018, 02:24 PM
|
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,571
|
|
|
ISeriously, it's now less than two months away. The gold and white invitations look marvellous, and this is getting exciting. I'm going to be sitting with friends in front of the TV into the night here in Australia, watching this wedding and toasting this lovely couple with champagne.
|
03-22-2018, 02:53 PM
|
|
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Columbus, United States
Posts: 563
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale
ONLY the Queen 'commands'...She did so then, since the Cambridge wedding was a State occasion.. this one isn't.
|
I re-read it and it doesn't seem to say the queen was commanding the person to attend; it said she was commanding her Lord Chamberlain to invite them.
|
03-22-2018, 02:58 PM
|
 |
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prosper, TX, United States
Posts: 617
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter
Are we sure it's Frogmore? The invitation says Windsor Castle...
LaRae
|
I don't know if this has been answered yet, but the afternoon reception immediately following the ceremony is at Windsor Castle and hosted by The Queen. Then there is a smaller evening reception at Frogmore House hosted by The Prince of Wales. I believe this is similar to William's wedding day.
|
03-22-2018, 02:58 PM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
|
|
Quote:
|
said she was commanding her Lord Chamberlain to invite them.
|
Indeed, but my point is unchanged.. ONLY HMQ 'commands'.
|
03-22-2018, 03:18 PM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 3,323
|
|
|
Here’s something new:
“Ms Meghan Markle” instead of “Miss”....Is Ms in wide use in the UK?
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”
Abraham Lincoln
|
03-22-2018, 03:21 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,422
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno
Why is the Prince of Wales referred to in the invitation only as KG and KT instead of listing all his British orders ?
IT is also significant that neither the Duchess of Cornwall nor Meghan’s parents are mentioned in the invitation .
|
I imagine it would become quite a long invitation if they included all his orders  
It's not really significant, as the DOC is not Henry's mother. As previously mentioned Charles is footing the bill, and it comes down to the "higher figure". Traditionally the parents of the bride invite people to the wedding, but in all cases The Queen or Charles has invited respectfully. 
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
|
03-22-2018, 04:15 PM
|
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,309
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas
Here’s something new:
“Ms Meghan Markle” instead of “Miss”....Is Ms in wide use in the UK?
|
IME Ms can be used for divorced women.
LaRae
|
03-22-2018, 04:21 PM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
|
|
Quite, but [i've noticed] Ms being used increasingly for young unmarried Women, whilst 'Miss' is now usually employed in relation to pre-teenage girls.
|
03-22-2018, 04:32 PM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 4,011
|
|
I mostly see "Ms." used for anyone over the age of 21 who is not married.
It seems the official site has added a section for the wedding.
https://www.royal.uk/royalwedding
|
03-22-2018, 04:34 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 11,263
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter
It's more informal IMO. Charles is issuing the request to folks on behalf of everyone (and he's paying for it all so..) ..and not all of Harry's names are used either, only Meghan's first name.
LaRae
|
The invitation is coming from Prince Charles, the father of the groom. In regards to Prince William's invitation coming from The Queen, please keep in mind that William is the heir to the heir apparent.
In regards to the name of Meghan on the invitation and not Rachel Meghan, when it is time for the religious vows, Rachel Meghan will be used.
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
