Royal Weddings Questions and Discussion Past and Future

[cute_girl]

King Abdullah and queen Rania dancing in their wedding

 

[Dennism]

I learned that for the Danish Royal Family, they have to have a waltz before the stroke of midnight, I think. I forgot the name of the piece, but it's such a nice one to waltz to.

"One of the best parts of the wedding day was the waltz, Brudevalsen or Bridal Waltz, at the dinner ceremony. It was written by Niels Gade for the 1854 Ballet, A Folk Tale, which is about a nobleman who falls in love with a girl who was brought up by trolls. Anyway, it is a well-known waltz. And at this wedding as at the wedding of Joachim and Alexandra, the guests are placed into a heart around the dance floor. Then the bride and groom come out and while they are dancing, the guests slowly move closer and closer to the couple until they mess up or can not dance."

To hear a sample of this waltz, go to

http://www.mille-soeren.dk/11_Midi/...brudevalsen.mid

 

[micas]

Is some more from other royals dancing? And some letizia and Filipe?

 

[liv]

No,there are no pics of Felipe and Letizia dancing.They cancelled their wedding ball because of the March 11 attacks.

 

[Hannelore]

No,there are no pics of Felipe and Letizia dancing.They cancelled their wedding ball because of the March 11 attacks.

that was their prewedding ball they canceled, there was just a dinner. There was a ball after their wedding.

 

[Reina]

I learned that for the Danish Royal Family, they have to have a waltz before the stroke of midnight, I think. I forgot the name of the piece, but it's such a nice one to waltz to.

That is one of the most beautiful things I have seen in a wedding. I wish I could do that at my wedding, but I guess I would have to be a DRoyal for that.

 

[sara1981]

i understand for Spainsh Royal Wedding have special respective of attacks in March cant have big dances and lots of more includes pre-dinner but i would respect by those Royals and new married to Prince and Princess of Austria.

Sara Boyce

 

[Vicomtesse]

how about British Royal Family have reception? includes Prince and late Princess of Wales,Earl and Countess of Wessex

Sara Boyce

Here we go AGAIN.
Why does everything have to relate to the Prince and Princess of Wales or the Earl and Countess of Wessex???
You ask so much about them you'd think you'd be able to provide an answer to these questions.
Maybe some people just DON'T CARE about Charles and Edward and their wives.

 

[Ennyllorac]

Here we go AGAIN.
Why does everything have to relate to the Prince and Princess of Wales or the Earl and Countess of Wessex???
You ask so much about them you'd think you'd be able to provide an answer to these questions.
Maybe some people just DON'T CARE about Charles and Edward and their wives.

Some people may not be interested in the Wessexes or the Wales family but some others are. Everyone has the same right to post about their interests as long as they do it respectfully.

 

[laduchesse]

how about British Royal Family have reception? includes Prince and late Princess of Wales,Earl and Countess of Wessex

Sara Boyce

Here's a link to an article written on the Wessex's wedding. It describes different aspects of their wedding, but if you scroll down you'll find the section on wedding reception:

http://www.etoile.co.uk/Events/ESWedding.html#Rec

 

[Vik]

Marriage of a Crown Prince and a Crown Princess?

Hi All,

I had a question that I am hoping you can answer.

When a crown prince marrys a crown princess, how is it decided which nation they will be crown princess and crown princess of?

For example, if CP Frederick had not married Mary but had married CP Victoria of Sweden who is a crown princess, would they have become the CP couple of Denmark or Sweden? I am assuming that they could not be the CP couple of two nations as this would get messy when one had to take the throne. Would the male's country always be the country from whcih the couple took their title?

Looking forward to hearing what the answer is.

Vik

 

[Nathalian]

Someone is going to let go the title......Like, if Victoria got married with Frederik, she would be CP of Denmark, and Prince Carl Phillipe would become CP of Sweden.....please, correct me if I´m wrong....but, I think it´s like this...

 

[Idriel]

A crown prince CANNOT mary a crown princess as it would inevitably merge the two countries.

 

[Elspeth]

One of them would have to give up their right to the succession in their own country. I don't think it would necessarily be the female; I assume it would depend on which country had the more viable successors or which country was considered the more important or something.

 

[Vik]

Thanks for your replies.

I imagined that one of them would have to give up the right of succession in their own country too - it would be an interesting dilema if it ever had to happen.

Vik

 

[MoonlightRhapsody]

This is an interesting topic. Though it may not be relevant now, the future European prince and princesses might run into this dilemma. The royal houses are all experiencing a baby boom right now, so who knows?

 

[lashinka2002]

A crown prince CANNOT mary a crown princess as it would inevitably merge the two countries.

Are you sure that's right?
I thought that Queen Mary I (Tudor) married the CP Philip of Spain (Son of Charles V) and he did not give up his succesion rights and nor did she. Their child if they one had been born would have been heir to both countries. It looks like each sovereign & CP would have kept his/her duties related to each own country seperate. Please correct me if I am wrong. CP Philip eventually became King Philip II. I realize that was a long time ago and things may be handled differently now.

I found this under Wikipedia Queen Mary I
Mary married Philip on 25 July 1554 at Winchester Cathedral. Under the terms of the marriage treaty, Philip was to be styled "King of England", all official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were to be dated with both their names and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple. Philip's powers, however, were extremely limited; he and Mary were not true joint Sovereigns. Nonetheless, Philip was the only man to take the crown matrimonial upon his marriage to a reigning Queen of England; William III became jointly sovereign with his wife, Mary II, pursuant to Act of Parliament, rather than matrimonial right. Coins were to also show the head of both Mary and Philip. The marriage treaty further provided that England would not be obliged to provide military support to Philip's father, the Holy Roman Emperor, in any war. Mary fell in love with Philip and, thinking she was pregnant, had thanksgiving services at the diocese of London in November 1554. But Philip found his queen, who was eleven years his senior, to be physically unattractive and after only fourteen months left for Spain under a false excuse


I found this in Wikipedia under King Philip II
Another ostensible boost to Spanish hegemony and the Counter-Reformation achieved a clear boost when Philip married Mary Tudor — a Catholic — in 1554 (the older daughter of Henry VIII). However, they ended up childless (a child would have been heir to all but France) after Queen Mary or “bloody Mary” as she was known by English Protestants, died in 1558 before the union could revitalize the Catholic Church in England.

 

[Humera]

Are you sure that's right?
I thought that Queen Mary I (Tudor) married the CP Philip of Spain (Son of Charles V) and he did not give up his succesion rights and nor did she. Their child if they one had been born would have been heir to both countries. It looks like each sovereign & CP would have kept his/her duties related to each own country seperate. Please correct me if I am wrong. CP Philip eventually became King Philip II. I realize that was a long time ago and things may be handled differently now.

Yes that was quite a while ago. Things like that were done centuries ago to secure political alliances and power by bringing two countries together, atleast under the same ruler.
And in Mary and Philip's case it was Mary's desire to return England to Catholicism that also played a part.

 

[Humera]

Here's a link to the marriage act of Philip and Mary.
http://rbsche.people.wm.edu/H111_doc_marriageofqueenmary.html

It outlines their rights and duties among other things, as well as the inheritance and rights of their children.
There's also an analysis of the document at the end.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Historically, the British married commoners (or at least non-royals) earlier because the concept of morganatic marriage (an marriage of unequal social status) does not exist in English law (source: wikipedia), but was strictly enforced in other places such as the German states. Early English, non-royal wives: Elizabeth Woodville, Anne Neville, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Catherine Howard, Catherine Parr, Anne Hyde (first wife of James II).

 

[Alexandria]

Perhaps we can add actual numbers of some recent (or older) royal weddings to this thread as a comparison?

I think the Earl and Countess of Wessex had about 400-500 guests at their wedding but there were more than 1,000 guests at Infanta Cristina's wedding to handball player Inaki Urdangarin and about 1,00-1,200 guests at Felipe and Letizia's wedding.

 

[Josefine]

what is the usal entering protocal for royals who comes first who comes last

 

[Aussie Princess]

Royal brides and their veils

I love looking at the June 2005 newsletter with all those wonderful pictures of royal weddings-so gorgeous!
My question is not strictly related to royalty, but I'd always assumed that brides like Princess Mary and Princess Letitzia who their veils behind their faces through the whole wedding were adopting a more modern tradition than brides who were their veil over their face but when I looked at these pictures I saw a lot of older photos of the same thing. I was just wondering if there is any tradition to do that, or if it depends on the culture, or is it just personal preference if they want their veil to cover their face?

 

[EmpressRouge]

I think what you're describing is the blusher (the part of the veil that will come forward to cover the face). I believe having a blusher is the bride's personal preference and depends on if the tiara and veil will hold it well. Early brides such as Queen Victoria, and Alexandra of Denmark did not have blushers. Queen Elizabeth did not in the 40s, but Diana, Sarah, and Sophie all did in the 80s and 90s. Grace Kelly had one in the 50s. So I guess the fashion era might influence the blusher, but it's purely personal preference.

 

[ElisaR]

I think what you're describing is the blusher (the part of the veil that will come forward to cover the face). I believe having a blusher is the bride's personal preference and depends on if the tiara and veil will hold it well. Early brides such as Queen Victoria, and Alexandra of Denmark did not have blushers. Queen Elizabeth did not in the 40s, but Diana, Sarah, and Sophie all did in the 80s and 90s. Grace Kelly had one in the 50s. So I guess the fashion era might influence the blusher, but it's purely personal preference.

I'm not sure, but I think that royals can't cover their face, so brides who are royal by birth don't have a blusher. All the brides with blusher you mentioned - Diana, Sarah, Sophie and Grace - weren't royals by birth.

But I'm waiting for an expert.

 

[Alexandria]

I'm not sure, but I think that royals can't cover their face, so brides who are royal by birth don't have a blusher. All the brides with blusher you mentioned - Diana, Sarah, Sophie and Grace - weren't royals by birth.

But I'm waiting for an expert.

No, I think it is as EmpressRouge suggested -- a personal preference by the bride.

Infanta Elena, who is royal born, wore a blusher at her 1995 wedding (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213587&postcount=32) but her sister, Infanta Cristina did not choose one for her 1997 wedding (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213596&postcount=33).

Princess Margriet of the Netherlands donned one for her 1967 wedding to Pieter van Vollenhoven. (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=214128&postcount=43)

Lady Helen Taylor (nee Windsor) also doned a blusher for her 1992 wedding to Tim Taylor. (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=212990&postcount=12)

The flip side is that plenty of non-royal born brides did not don blushers, too.

Among them Mette-Marit Hoiby (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213017&postcount=15), Marie-Chantal Miller (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=213127&postcount=30), Laurentien Brinkhorst (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=214121&postcount=41), Mabel Wisse Smit (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=214126&postcount=42), Marilene van den Broek (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=214130&postcount=44), Annette Sekreve (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=214136&postcount=45), and Angela Brown (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=220879&postcount=53).

Nothing I've ever read about royal weddings implies that non-royal brides must don blushers while royal-born brides do not. It's simply a matter of what one is comfortable with or how traditional one wants to be.

 

[EmmieLou]

I agree, I think it is a choice, depending on the look the bride is going for.

Personally I love them when they have a blusher (never knew it was called that!), it just looks so romantic.

I have never seen the wedding of Diana and Charles, what I mean is I have seen clips but not the whole service.

I have always wondered how Diana's tiara sat above her blusher on the way in, and on the way out even though the blusher was now off her face the tiara was still visable.

How was this done? Did they go off camera and someone fixed it around?

Just curious.

 

[Jackswife]

All the blushers I've seen can be lifted back from the bride's face for the kiss so I'm assuming that while Diana and Charles were off-camera signing the registry, that someone lifted it up and arrranged it beneath the Spencer tiara. Agreed, it's a nice touch.

 

[magnik]

I don't like veils like princesses Margriet or Elena with had. If I choose veil or not it will be depend of my weddingdress. Always I can choose a head-dress

 

[samgee]

modesty

i was just wondering: what is the rule when it comes to royal weddings about showing skin? How much of their shoulders could a royal bride show and still be seen as dressing appropriately??