Prince Harry: Future Wedding

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

I agree St MM is improbable but it is not impossible if they wanted a small intimate wedding without anyone but immediate family. It does seem highly unlikely.If there is a reason for a small wedding sooner rather than later (for instance, Philip's health) schedules can be adjusted for one day.

I personally think the smallest they will go is St George's Chapel. It helps that Edward had his (very lovely) wedding there, so it's not out-in-left-field as a possibility. However, you bring up an excellent point regarding the health of Harry's grandparents. This could impact the timing, sooner rather than later, and potentially location.

Will be interesting to see how it all goes.

[Hans-Rickard]

If there is any need for special arrangements if for example it suddenly becomes obvious that QEII or Philip's health is declining, St George's Chapel at their favourite residence Windsor Castle would be a great option. They barely have to go outside and can be helped in and out through a small shielded entrance like the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret was at the wedding of Edward and Sophie.
I have read that St George's Chapel has a seating capacity of 800 guests (please correct me if i'm wrong) so It's definitely not "too small".

I think Edward and Sophie's wedding was the perfect way to do it when you are not expected to become King. More low key than his elder siblings but yet royal and majestic, fewer guests, a simpler dresscode etc. A good royal occassion but not a state occassion.

I can imagine that Philip will leave similar instructions, that Queen Mary left for the coronation of QEII, that it should not be postponed in any circumstances, including that of his own death.

Should QEII pass away and they had planned to marry, they will probably have to postpone it anyway due to a longer court mourning.

[Lady Nimue]

I just watched the ending of William's and Kate's wedding, the exit from the church and carriage ride through the streets, and watching it the thought came to me that if they can, if it doesn't intrude upon some major sticking point for the couple, they should make Westminster Abbey the venue and have the drive through the streets. Yes. It's so much fun, so joyous and inclusive. It is going to be the last such (British Royal) wedding for 20 years (at least) and possibly longer.

But if it winds up being St George's Chapel, that's fine. But no smaller, I think. There were so many reasons why it made sense for Edward and Sophie to have the smaller venue at that time. I don't think any of those reasons back then apply in this instance. Let it be Westminster Abbey and let the celebrations begin!

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

If there is any need for special arrangements if for example it suddenly becomes obvious that QEII or Philip's health is declining, St George's Chapel at their favourite residence Windsor Castle would be a great option. They barely have to go outside and can be helped in and out through a small shielded entrance like the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret was at the wedding of Edward and Sophie.

I have read that St George's Chapel has a seating capacity of 800 guests (please correct me if i'm wrong) so It's definitely not "too small".

I think Edward and Sophie's wedding was the perfect way to do it when you are not expected to become King. More low key than his elder siblings but yet royal and majestic, fewer guests, a simpler dresscode etc. A good royal occassion but not a state occassion.

I can imagine that Philip will leave similar instructions, that Queen Mary left for the coronation of QEII, that it should not be postponed in any circumstances, including that of his own death.

Should QEII pass away and they had planned to marry, they will probably have to postpone it anyway due to a longer court mourning.

Good points, Hans-Rickard. Especially given that (apparently) William and Kate wanted St George's, though I'm glad they didn't get their wish because it was a wonderful wedding at Westminster Abbey.

Regarding the bolded text, I did notice something in the video of William's and Kates's wedding: leaving the Abbey, the Queen motions Philip to enter the carriage first. It's very revealing watching him trying to get into the carriage (the video cuts out just as the worst of the effort would have been revealed). Philip really was already infirm 7 years ago. The entire carriage actually lurches as Philip pulls to get in and it looks like he is falling back. I assume attendants rushed to steady the situation and avoided a fall.

So what you are saying about St George's discreet access points may be important. Both the Queen's and Philip's mobility issues need to be considered. JMO.

[Hans-Rickard]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

Good points, Hans-Rickard. Especially given that (apparently) William and Kate wanted St George's, though I'm glad they didn't get their wish because it was a wonderful wedding at Westminster Abbey.

Regarding the bolded text, I did notice something in the video of William's and Kates's wedding: leaving the Abbey, the Queen motions Philip to enter the carriage first. It's very revealing watching him trying to get into the carriage (the video cuts out just as the worst of the effort would have been revealed). Philip really was already infirm 7 years ago. The entire carriage actually lurches as Philip pulls to get in and it looks like he is falling back. I assume attendants rushed to steady the situation and avoided a fall.

So what you are saying about St George's discreet access points may be important. Both the Queen's and Philip's mobility issue need to be considered. JMO.

Yes i have also read that William initially wanted St George's Chapel but they choosed Westminster Abbey instead. I think most people expected William to have a big wedding in either Westminster Abbey or St Pauls' Cathedral in London (though S P C would probably have triggered painful media coverages of his parents ill fated marriage) as he is expected to become King wich Harry isn't so i think Harry is more free to choose than William ever was.

It would be lovely if Harry married in Westminster Abbey too but i think St George's Chapel is more likely for him. He was baptized there (and i belive confirmed too ?) It would also be easier for QEII and Philip as they aren't getting younger and they'll be very close to their private apartment at Windsor Castle during the whole day and can return trough a shielded entrance should they feel that they need to go back immediately. Ofcourse special arrangements can be made for them in London too and they both travel to and return by car from the church but it will be more obvious and eye-catching for everyone if they need to leave Westminster Abbey and travel back immediately trough central London.

Yes Philip had difficulties to enter the Scottish State Coach. The Queen has also struggled to get in and out of the coaches and landau's during recent years. Can't be a very comfortable way of travelling for people in their age.

[Countessmeout]

Harry was indeed baptized there. But unlike William, he didn't have his confirmation at St. George's. He actually chose to have his confirmation at Eton with his classmates.

Even more athletic than his brother, 5’11” Harry—who captains Eton’s under-15 rugby team—”is only an average pupil,” says Brian Hoey, author of 14 books on the royal family, “but he’s perfectly happy.” And one of the guys: Harry recently nixed special treatment by opting to be confirmed into the Church of England on March 19 at Eton, not Windsor Castle, the usual royal venue. “He wanted to be with the other boys from Manor House [his and William’s dorm],” says a pal. The brothers, who share meals with their 28 housemates, “have got much closer” since Harry joined William at Eton in 1998, says a family friend. “William looks after Harry.”

Princes Charming | PEOPLE.com

There were rumors that William wanted to marry at St George's but not sure they were really anything more then that. And as unrealistic as St Paul's. St Paul's may have been way too large, but St George's is the opposite end, too small. William and Kate would never have gotten away with 700 guests or less. Their wedding was considered a semi state occasion and that came with a large number of guests needing to be invited, not just personal guests.

Harry is in a far more enviable state. He can choose a much smaller venue. Of course there will be people from both their work and charity days, as well as friends and family. But there wont be the large contingent of foreign royals, heads of commonwealth countries, and religious and military figures (other then those Harry has a link to).

I don't mind St George's. There is still the opportunity for a carriage ride for the bride and groom. They have for the other couples married there. And little doubt it will be filmed as well.

[Hans-Rickard]

I remembered that now, that he was not confirmed there. I knew Harry was christened there but i mixed him up with William about the confirmation :)

Yes i can also see a St George wedding for Harry and with an arrangement like Edward and Sophie's wedding with no politicians or heads of states invited and no military (except Harrys regiments maybe), formal evening dress and the wedding not conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to mark that it's not a state occassion but by a priest they know well like the Bishop emeritus of London Richard Chartres or the Dean of Windsor and former Bishop to the forces David Conner for example. Edward and Sophie's wedding was conducted by the former Bishop of Norwich Peter Nott. And a simple carriage ride trough Windsor afterwards. Windsor is beautiful and gives a lot of good oportunities for those who wants to see the bridal couple.

Though i wouldn't mind a Scottish wedding. Very unlikely, i know, but imagine a traditional Scottish wedding and the drums and bagpipes playing while the bride enters the Church and when the bridal couple leaves

[tommy100]

i think when they eventually marry (i'm not so convinced it will be as soon as others think) it will be on the scale of Edwards or Peter Phillips'. It wouldn't wholly surprise me if they choose somewhere else but I really don't know where else there is that is big enough (I imagine Sandringham and Balmoral churches to be smaller than the guests they would want).

St George's works well logistically - its close to London but out of it, its the place the Queen considers "home" and has plenty of room to accommodate guests and is already use to important events so can handle the security.

For me the question is tv coverage, would it be broadcast live?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by LauraS3514

The location of a putative marriage is irrelevant. Theoretically he can marry wherever he wants. However, as a member of the Royal Family covered by the Royal Marriages Act Prince Harry needs to request the permission of The Sovereign to marry. If permission is refused he can ask Parliament for permission and then wait one year. If Parliament doesn't object he can marry. If both Sovereign and Parliament object, any marriage he attempts to contract will be invalid and any children not in line to the throne.

That is no longer the case since the Royal Marriages Act was repealed by the Succession to the Crowm Act 2013. Under the Succession to the Crown Act, if Harry marries without the Queen's consent given in a meeting of the Privy Council, the marriage is still legally valid and any future children from that marriage would be legitimate, However, they would be excluded from the line of succession together with Harry himself.

[MARG]

Harry has been surrounded by Deans, Bishops and Archbishops all his life. And then there are the Queen's Chaplains, local clergy at Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral, more, way more than there ever were corgies and dorgies! And then there were Military Chaplains, so he certainly knows more than a few men of the cloth.

As to Harry not seeming that religious, neither does the Archbishop of Canterbury when he is in his civvies.

But I have to laugh at a popular royal forum who insist that Harry may decide not to have a big wedding like William's at WA but rather a smaller, more intimate wedding in St Pauls where his parents, Charles and Diana were married.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by MARG

Harry has been surrounded by Deans, Bishops and Archbishops all his life. And then there are the Queen's Chaplains, local clergy at Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral, more, way more than there ever were corgies and dorgies! And then there were Military Chaplains, so he certainly knows more than a few men of the cloth.

As to Harry not seeming that religious, neither does the Archbishop of Canterbury when he is in his civvies.

But I have to laugh at a popular royal forum who insist that Harry may decide not to have a big wedding like William's at WA but rather a smaller, more intimate wedding in St Pauls where his parents, Charles and Diana were married.

True he is surrounded by them. But that doesn't mean he has a 'personal connection' to any of them as suggested. It was suggested he would choose to be married by one he has a 'personal connection' to instead of the Archbishop. We aren't talking a couple who goes to Sunday service weekly and has their preacher who they look to. I don't see how he has any more connection to one preacher then another that he is surrounded by.

Pretty sure the archbishop, even in his skivvies, is pretty darn religious.

i think when they eventually marry (i'm not so convinced it will be as soon as others think) it will be on the scale of Edwards or Peter Phillips'. It wouldn't wholly surprise me if they choose somewhere else but I really don't know where else there is that is big enough (I imagine Sandringham and Balmoral churches to be smaller than the guests they would want).

St George's works well logistically - its close to London but out of it, its the place the Queen considers "home" and has plenty of room to accommodate guests and is already use to important events so can handle the security.

For me the question is tv coverage, would it be broadcast live?

I don't see why not. It doesn't need to be in London to be broadcasted. Edward's was. Peter and Zara were private citizens, weddings different matter.

The churches at Sandringham and Balmoral are quite small, not likely more then maybe 200 people by the size. Even by aristocratic and not simply royal standards, that would be small. Considering family, friends, and charity connections, the 800 people at St George's would be a stretch.

The point of marrying in London or St George's is the security and use of a royal estate for the reception. The only real other option would be the cathedral near High Grove and using High Grove. But while I love the cathedral, I don't see a royal wedding being held there.


Or pull a Zara and marry in Scotland, but using Holyrood instead of Balmoral. And mary at St Mary's Cathedral in Edinburgh, which would be larger then Craithie, but I don't know if large enough.

http://www.cathedral.net/worship/baptisms-and-weddings/

[Hans-Rickard]

Originally Posted by tommy100

i think when they eventually marry (i'm not so convinced it will be as soon as others think) it will be on the scale of Edwards or Peter Phillips'. It wouldn't wholly surprise me if they choose somewhere else but I really don't know where else there is that is big enough (I imagine Sandringham and Balmoral churches to be smaller than the guests they would want).

St George's works well logistically - its close to London but out of it, its the place the Queen considers "home" and has plenty of room to accommodate guests and is already use to important events so can handle the security.

For me the question is tv coverage, would it be broadcast live?

That's a question for the bridal couple if they want it to be broadcasted live. Edward and Sophie's wedding and Charles and Camilla's blessing was so there is a good chance i think. They don't have to have tv there at all if they don't want to but i can't imagine that QEII or The Prince of Wales would accept it being totally private. QE II's motto is said to be "We have to be seen to be belived".

[Hans-Rickard]

I meant if Harry knew and liked a certain priest more than others. None of us here knows that ! You can know a priest better than others without having to socialize with him or her in your private life or having to run to Church every Sunday !

[Jacknch]

Please note that this thread relates to a future wedding for Prince Harry in terms technical details such as venue, size and scale of the wedding - i.e. details relating solely to him.

Since Prince Harry is not yet engaged, posts relating to a wedding date and details on a future bride's wedding dress, flowers, jewels, bridesmaid etc etc have been deleted as off-topic.

[M. Payton]

I would hope that they who have to this date thought outside the *box* in all that they do, that perhaps they would consider a gorgeous wedding in Scotland around the time that HM is at Balmoral. Recently there was a video posted in the other thread about Harry and Meghan, it showed a winter at Balmoral and was so beautiful. I am not saying that they should stand in the snow or anything but Scotland on the estate with all the security would be safer then London, it would be more private and less crowded.....more of a family wedding instead of the pomp that William had.

So far this couple are doing their own thing and being more secretive then ever with what they do now and in the future it seems. As Meghan said, *It is their time* well I hope that is very true and they they go with their way of doing things, we'll just have to wait and see.

[Missjersey]

No matter where or when, we’ll all hopefully get to enjoy watching something very special. Balmoral would be lovely as are so many other places. When it’s announced we’ll all be saying “ah”.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by M. Payton

I would hope that they who have to this date thought outside the *box* in all that they do, that perhaps they would consider a gorgeous wedding in Scotland around the time that HM is at Balmoral. Recently there was a video posted in the other thread about Harry and Meghan, it showed a winter at Balmoral and was so beautiful. I am not saying that they should stand in the snow or anything but Scotland on the estate with all the security would be safer then London, it would be more private and less crowded.....more of a family wedding instead of the pomp that William had.

So far this couple are doing their own thing and being more secretive then ever with what they do now and in the future it seems. As Meghan said, *It is their time* well I hope that is very true and they they go with their way of doing things, we'll just have to wait and see.

As we discussed before, they cannot hold a wedding at the castle-weddings in Britain can only be performed in venues open to any wedding. Balmoral Castle and the grounds are not open for weddings. The church there, Crathie Kirk, (where Anne married Tim) is very small and only suitable for a small private family wedding.

[M. Payton]

Are you saying that a wedding can not be held at Balmoral because then the public would have to have their weddings there also? I thought the estate was privately owned by the family, HM. It is her private home right, so can't a wedding be held in one's private home with all the public wanting the same. And no I did not see those comments......no argument here, just wanting facts!

[Pranter]

I still think it highly unlikely Harry will marry outside of London. I'm expecting The Abbey or St Georges. I suppose St Paul's is an outside chance.



LaRae

[MARG]

I think we can pretty much scratch Scotland off the list of venues. The London and Windsor options are well-sorted security wise. They have a template for all sorts of events in WA and St Georges and moving the wedding would require a whole new playbook. And that's just security. Then their is suitable accommodation to be found and transport and . . .

It doesn't matter whether it is a thanksgiving service or a wedding, the security forces know every manhole and rooftop between BP and WA. They have done it so many times it is a well-oiled machine. The same goes for St Georges to a lesser degree, but not such a big deal to up the security there.

But having large numbers of the good and the great not to mention the very odd celebrity would be a nightmare on the roads and Harry is pretty laid back and isn't into causing extra work for people. Unless you are a professional Polo player going for you 15 minutes of fame dissing Harry for a game played several years ago but using Harry's high profile over his engagement to have a shot and brag about telling him to f*** off. What a tosser!