The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/)
-   -   Harry and Meghan: Wedding Suggestions and Musings (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/harry-and-meghan-wedding-suggestions-and-musings-43846.html)

Mirabel 11-28-2017 12:07 PM

Me too, they televise all the weddings.

But I have to admit a lot of the excitement and anticipation has gone out of the wedding (at least for me) now that I know it will be a more low-key event at Saint George's Chapel.

I'm sure it will be nice but I am really disappointed. :sad:

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2042848)
I'm chuffed Windsor will get a Royal Wedding tourism boost. Friends of mine run [respectively] a Pub and a restaurant there, and the town's economy could do with such an injection of interest.
For Americans who'd like to see the celebrations in person, there a great Hotels there, [Heathrow is but a few miles away] and London is easily accessible by both Rail and car...

DO come, you'd be so very welcome !

How long do you think we'd need to queue up in advance to get a decent spot along the processional/recessional route?

Skippy 11-28-2017 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FashionMaven (Post 2042838)
I'm working on it, :lol:

I really stupidly got my hopes up, lol.

I fear that you indeed got your hopes hung up on the "wrong man" :biggrin:
Harry doesn't seem to be the type for "pomp and circumstance".

princess carmen 11-28-2017 12:11 PM

I think Harry and Meghan wanted something simpler but romantic. The pomp and ceremony are nice but a lot goes into something like that maybe they just wanted everyone to be as comfortable as possible. I think it will be a beautiful wedding and we will see them since it will be televised.

Skippy 11-28-2017 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman (Post 2042842)
I knew St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, would be the place. It’s going to be televised and they can kiss on the Chapel’s steps.

Are we sure it's going to be televised? There are no camera's allowed in St George's Chapel.
To avoid mistakes or confusion: I'd love to watch their wedding on TV, it's just because of the general protocol there.

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy (Post 2042858)
Are we sure it's going to be televised? There are no camera's allowed in St George's Chapel.
To avoid mistakes or confusion: I'd love to watch his wedding on TV, it's just because of the general protocol there.

Edward and Sophie's wedding was televised.

Pranter 11-28-2017 12:13 PM

So exciting. Lots of rumors in the coming months though.


LaRae

O-H Anglophile 11-28-2017 12:13 PM

I think security and the disruption to traffic in London might have been a consideration to the decision--not the deciding factor but a consideration. Holding the wedding at Windsor is easier.

princess carmen 11-28-2017 12:13 PM

Sophie and Edward's wedding was televised so I would think this one would as well. I don't see them not showing it especially since this is a big event.

Skippy 11-28-2017 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FashionMaven (Post 2042860)
Edward and Sophie's wedding was televised.

Oh shoot, I totally forgot about them in all this chaos. You're right. Then we have nothing to worry about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by princess carmen (Post 2042865)
Sophie and Edward's wedding was televised so I would think this one would as well. I don't see them not showing it especially since this is a big event.

True, their wedding had not come up in my mind. I was thinking along the lines of Peter Phillips' wedding, but he is of course in a totally different league. But then this will be televised as well.

Hans-Rickard 11-28-2017 12:15 PM

Fantastic news. It will be a lovely wedding. No need to worry that the wedding won't be grand. Windsor is a perfect venue for any royal occassion. I'm happy that the Chapel is becoming more accosiated with weddings again and not only being the "Funeral and Burial chapel".

Sounds great that the couple is planning the ceremony themselves. Sounds like it will be a familiar wedding like the Wessex'es then ;)

Hans-Rickard 11-28-2017 12:15 PM

Maybe the wedding will be at the pentecost weekend (Saturday 19:th May).....

Anna Catherine 11-28-2017 12:16 PM

St. George’s seems so lovely and I’m not that surprised considering his position in the line of succession and their personalities. Also, May is great so that everyone can be there (i.e. Kate) and it’s not such a crowded months in terms of events. It’ll still be televised and I never saw Edward and Sophie’s wedding so I’m not as familiar with how it looks or what weddings are like there. So much fun ahead! I love royal weddings!!

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile (Post 2042863)
I think security and the disruption to traffic in London might have been a consideration to the decision--not the deciding factor but a consideration. Holding the wedding at Windsor is easier.

Yes I definitely think this was a consideration.

I'm sure the wedding itself will be beautiful. I actually like St. George's interior more than the Abbey - it's a beautiful church and will look so pretty with flowers, etc...

I'm just hoping we get to see the procession to the church with people lining the streets, etc...

I love that part. It feels like we only get that with London weddings.

jacqui24 11-28-2017 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy (Post 2042858)
Are we sure it's going to be televised? There are no camera's allowed in St George's Chapel.
To avoid mistakes or confusion: I'd love to watch their wedding on TV, it's just because of the general protocol there.

Edward and Sophie's wedding was televised. And all royal reporters are reporting that it will be televised, but hasn't worked out the logistics yet and have said the couple wishes the public to join them in this celebration.

wyevale 11-28-2017 12:19 PM

Quote:

How long do you think we'd need to queue up in advance to get a decent spot along the processional/recessional route?
Much depends on how many Americans make the journey, but 6am should secure a decent spot [lots of places near for Coffee's, Brekkies and 'comfort breaks']...

wbenson 11-28-2017 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FashionMaven (Post 2042860)
Edward and Sophie's wedding was televised.

So was Charles and Camilla's blessing.

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 2042880)
So was Charles and Camilla's blessing.

Oh that's right - that was too.

I would eat my socks if this wedding wasn't televised.

jacqui24 11-28-2017 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile (Post 2042863)
I think security and the disruption to traffic in London might have been a consideration to the decision--not the deciding factor but a consideration. Holding the wedding at Windsor is easier.

I think there were many factors taken into consideration. I'm sure both WA and St. George were possibilities from a purely protocol standpoint. But I do think KP saying Windsor is close to the couple's heart is most significant.

Skippy 11-28-2017 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2042879)
Much depends on how many Americans make the journey, but 6am should secure a decent spot [lots of places near for Coffee's Brekkies and 'comfort breaks']...

Are you "happy" with this venue, wyevale? Do you think it is appropriate? Since you were so determined about it before the announcement.

Lady Nimue 11-28-2017 12:21 PM

I like that it will be a May wedding. :flowers: That is a lovely month. At least I was right on the venue, which I think will be quite festive (Edward's and Sophie's wedding was at a somber time). I've never understood the interest in the 'balcony kiss' myself. I suppose they will do one on the steps but it is so unnecessary imo. ;)

Jacknch 11-28-2017 12:21 PM

St George's Chapel Windsor is indeed a grand place for Harry and Meghan to get married in, although my hopes were for Westminster Abbey or some other location.

The only issue I have (I've probably said it before) is that the scale and design of the interior of St George's limits camera angles and lighting, plus the space immediately outside the chapel does not allow for a large crowd to be assembled.

However, a few things could be done to create a more spectacular visual as we are used to for an Abbey wedding that I don't think we got with the 1999 and 2005 weddings :

1) Improve the lighting inside
2) Technology nowadays should allow smaller camera use inside and therefore better angles
3) The use of a carpet down the steps of the Chapel outside
4) The use of more cameras along the route from Windsor castle - that huge long drive through the park to Windsor that Sophie used could allow for a procession

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2042879)
Much depends on how many Americans make the journey, but 6am should secure a decent spot [lots of places near for Coffee's Brekkies and 'comfort breaks']...

Hmmmm... seriously considering this now...

Although I could still do my sleepover... not sure who I could convince to fly over with me, though one of my besties' brother married a Londoner... so maybe they'd all be open to it? Then we could go to Italy and my fave place (Villa d'Este) after!

wartenberg7 11-28-2017 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24 (Post 2042796)
I know Andrew and Fergie definitely did.


Also Prcss Anne and Capt. Mark Philips in 1973

wbenson 11-28-2017 12:24 PM

I hope Harry receives the Garter before the wedding so that his banner can hang in the chapel at his wedding. (Although perhaps those aren't added until the installation. And Edward had to wait too. Sigh.)

Skippy 11-28-2017 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wartenberg7 (Post 2042888)
Also Prcss Anne and Capt. Mark Philips in 1973

They did not. Charles and Diana started the trend.

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue (Post 2042884)
I like that it will be a May wedding. :flowers: That is a lovely month. At least I was right on the venue, which I think will be quite festive (Edward's and Sophie's wedding was at a somber time). I've never understood the interest in the 'balcony kiss' myself. I suppose they will do one on the steps but it is so unnecessary imo. ;)

Speaking for myself - it's the drama of it. The glimpses behind the door - waiting for them to come out. The crowds filling the courtyard and traffic circle out front.... the throngs of people so far back like a sea... people cheering for them to kiss. Then they kiss and everyone goes nuts.

It's just such a spectacle.

Plus the flyover - though I don't know if anyone gets that but future monarchs.

It's just so grand and exciting.

I think I also just love the cheering - it gives me goosebumps.

jacqui24 11-28-2017 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 2042893)
I hope Harry receives the Garter before the wedding so that his banner can hang in the chapel at his wedding. (Although perhaps those aren't added until the installation. And Edward had to wait too. Sigh.)

It's unlikely he'll be getting it during the Queen's reign. William was an exception as it was the 1000th. His aunt and uncles didn't get theirs until they were in their 40s, I believe.

Stefan 11-28-2017 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 2042886)
St George's Chapel Windsor is indeed a grand place for Harry and Meghan to get married in, although my hopes were for Westminster Abbey or some other location.

The only issue I have (I've probably said it before) is that the scale and design of the interior of St George's limits camera angles and lighting, plus the space immediately outside the chapel does not allow for a large crowd to be assembled.

However, a few things could be done to create a more spectacular visual as we are used to for an Abbey wedding that I don't think we got with the 1999 and 2005 weddings :

1) Improve the lighting inside
2) Technology nowadays should allow smaller camera use inside and therefore better angles
3) The use of a carpet down the steps of the Chapel outside
4) The use of more cameras along the route from Windsor castle - that huge long drive through the park to Windsor that Sophie used could allow for a procession

Agree in the Issues you have mentioned.

W.Y.CII 11-28-2017 12:28 PM

Is it possible to have foreign guest? I expect no (or not many) but still I am hoping.

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 2042886)
St George's Chapel Windsor is indeed a grand place for Harry and Meghan to get married in, although my hopes were for Westminster Abbey or some other location.

The only issue I have (I've probably said it before) is that the scale and design of the interior of St George's limits camera angles and lighting, plus the space immediately outside the chapel does not allow for a large crowd to be assembled.

However, a few things could be done to create a more spectacular visual as we are used to for an Abbey wedding that I don't think we got with the 1999 and 2005 weddings :

1) Improve the lighting inside
2) Technology nowadays should allow smaller camera use inside and therefore better angles
3) The use of a carpet down the steps of the Chapel outside
4) The use of more cameras along the route from Windsor castle - that huge long drive through the park to Windsor that Sophie used could allow for a procession

I really hope they do these things - this would really help me feel better about Windsor - not that I'm the important one, lol - but I would love to see anything that would up the drama.

And can I just say - that visual of the park in front of Windsor Castle is simply one of the most epic things I have ever seen. I really hope they allow people to line that park on both sides and have cameras and crew there by the gate to watch people get in the cars on the way to the chapel.

*fingers crossed*

And thank you for this post - you've given me hope and a shred of my excitement back with your post and that gorgeous picture!

TLLK 11-28-2017 12:31 PM

Having recently visited St. George's Chapel I am thrilled that this will be the site for their wedding. IMO it is far lovelier than WA and has more historic ties to the Windsors too.

I agree Jacknch that new technology will help the television crews improve upon the filming and coverage that we had with Edward and Sophie's 1999 Wedding.

jacqui24 11-28-2017 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.Y.CII (Post 2042902)
Is it possible to have foreign guest? I expect no (or not many) but still I am hoping.

I don't see why not? Unless you are talking about current heads of state?

wyevale 11-28-2017 12:32 PM

I am 'happy' about it as the venue, Skippy.. it is a MASTERPIECE of Perpendicular Gothic Architecture [a subspecies of Gothic that is entirely English, and unknown elsewhere in the World].
It is light,airy, unencumbered with rather too many funeral monuments, and the Grooms Paternal Great-Grandparents all rest there, as well as some of our greatest Kings.

sophie25 11-28-2017 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 2042835)
But Princess Alexandra a cousin of the Queen also had a Abbey Wedding. And she was much further back in the line of succession then place 6.

But much of the that was already pulled down in 2011 when the choose cars for the arrivals at the Abbey and not a big carriage procession like in 1986.

The Duke of Kent was also supposed to have married in the abbey but his wife to be wanted to marry in her home city of York. In fact even non royals have had big weddings there, Diana's parents spring to mind.

sophie25 11-28-2017 12:33 PM

Windsor is lovely but I have been and it's rather small, it won't be able to accommodate the kind of crowds there would have been in London and no balcony is disappointing too.

Somebody 11-28-2017 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.Y.CII (Post 2042902)
Is it possible to have foreign guest? I expect no (or not many) but still I am hoping.

I am sure her parents are welcome at the wedding :biggrin:

Jacknch 11-28-2017 12:35 PM

Yes I think there will be some overseas guests from other royal families including non-reigning ones.

Skippy 11-28-2017 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2042915)
I am 'happy' about it as the venue, Skippy.. it is a MASTERPIECE of Perpendicular Gothic Architecture [a subspecies of Gothic that is entirely English, and unknown elsewhere in the World].
It is light,airy, unencumbered with rather too many funeral monuments, and the Grooms Paternal Great-Grandparents all rest there, as well as some of our greatest Kings.

I already thought you would be, since you indicated St George's as "appropriate" for Harry's position earlier on.

Thank you for answering my question.

wartenberg7 11-28-2017 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 2042849)
Me too, they televise all the weddings.

But I have to admit a lot of the excitement and anticipation has gone out of the wedding (at least for me) now that I know it will be a more low-key event at Saint George's Chapel.

I'm sure it will be nice but I am really disappointed. :sad:


This is a very important church for the RF! It´s located in the Queen´ s favourite Palace, and the chapel where the service for the most prestigious and noble of all orders in England, the Garter, takes place.

In 1863 the eldest son of Queen Victoria, the future Edward VII, married Alexandra of Denmark in St. George´s chapel - so, the chapel, which is in its scale rather a cathedral than a chapel, is not a church where only weddings of minor important Royals take place!

wartenberg7 11-28-2017 12:36 PM

I rather ask myself: Harry is hugely popular, and beyond british citizens, 1000s of foreigners will pour into the small town of Windsor.... How can the narrow streets contain all these spectators?!

wbenson 11-28-2017 12:37 PM

It would be very easy to have processions through the town, if that was wanted. The normal route for state visits goes very close by the gate closest to the chapel. And it could be easily extended by roughly a mile using Peascod, William, and Victoria streets IF they decided to. (I think the Queen's 90th birthday drive did something like that.)

jacqui24 11-28-2017 12:39 PM

In case there are any doubts, the Queen is confirmed to attend the wedding and it will be a full religious wedding.

I know there were doubts at the beginning of this relationship.

Moonmaiden23 11-28-2017 12:39 PM

Anyway, I am thrilled that it will be a St. George's as I always knew it would. I have a sentimental weak spot for the jewel of a church.;)

wyevale 11-28-2017 12:40 PM

Quote:

it won't be able to accommodate the kind of crowds there would have been in London
If they 'innovate' and wish to include the Public [as they have indicated] a carriage drive down the 'Long Mile' after the ceremony could be seen by MANY thousands of well-wishers...

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 2042926)
It would be very easy to have processions through the town, if that was wanted. The normal route for state visits goes very close by the gate closest to the chapel. And it could be easily extended by roughly a mile using Peascod, William, and Victoria streets IF they decided to. (I think the Queen's 90th birthday drive did something like that.)

If they did this it would be really awesome... otherwise - what would they do with the deluge of royal watchers descending on Windsor?

I hope they map out a long procession/recession route. A very, very long one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2042934)
If they 'innovate' and wish to include the Public [as they have indicated] a carriage drive down the 'Long Mile' after the ceremony could be seen by MANY thousands of well-wishers...

Could they do it both before and after the ceremony?

Oh and what's the long mile?

Missjersey 11-28-2017 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2042934)
If they 'innovate' and wish to include the Public [as they have indicated] a carriage drive down the 'Long Mile' after the ceremony could be seen by MANY thousands of well-wishers...

Wouldn’t that be nice.

Skippy 11-28-2017 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2042934)
If they 'innovate' and wish to include the Public [as they have indicated] a carriage drive down the 'Long Mile' after the ceremony could be seen by MANY thousands of well-wishers...

Quote:

Originally Posted by FashionMaven (Post 2042940)
Could they do it both before and after the ceremony?

Oh and what's the long mile?

I think this is meant:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7502/2...f8ccb848_h.jpg

W.Y.CII 11-28-2017 12:47 PM

Sorry I mean foreign royals. :biggrin:
Okay that's great, I am looking forward to the guest list. :flowers:

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 12:55 PM

That would be an awesome route... please let them do it pre and post ceremony!!

Nico 11-28-2017 01:00 PM

It's always a bit savourous to see the diferences between some wishful thinkings and the reality. Windsor has been called, on this very same forum, a "second rate venue" not less.
So despite some media pressure and let's some some enthusiastic fans, the BRF and the couple itself did not jump in the "Princess Diary III : Meghan goes to London" bandwagon and instead chose THEIR venue for THEIR wedding. I think it's just great and a credit to Harry and Meghan.
Besides, it's a clear and elegant reminder to everyone who they are in the order of succession and their position inside the Family (aka the younger son of the heir).
Windsor is an incredible place, it will be a wonderful wedding.

wyevale 11-28-2017 01:00 PM

Pre-Wedding may be 'too much', think of the implications for the Brides Maquillage, Hair and Gown, also she will be with her Father before the ceremony, and with her hubby only afterwards...

Lisele 11-28-2017 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph (Post 2042770)
#RoyalWedding update: It will be at St George's Chapel, Windsor in May. Meghan will be baptised, and confirmed in to church before service. She will become joint US-UK national in time. Royal family paying for core elements. First joint engagement this Friday in Nottingham! Via CNN


Called it!! :smile: I strongly believed it was going to be St. George's Chapel and I was right :) Looking forward to it - glad it's going to be televised :)

Pranter 11-28-2017 01:14 PM

I wonder...will they do something more relaxed and laid back like an English Country Wedding?


LaRae

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2042973)
Pre-Wedding may be 'too much', think of the implications for the Brides Maquillage, Hair and Gown, also she will be with her Father before the ceremony, and with her hubby only afterwards...

I don't understand why this would prevent them doing a longer procession?

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nico (Post 2042968)
It's always a bit savourous to see the diferences between some wishful thinkings and the reality. Windsor has been called, on this very same forum, a "second rate venue" not less.
So despite some media pressure and let's some some enthusiastic fans, the BRF and the couple itself did not jump in the "Princess Diary III : Meghan goes to London" bandwagon and instead chose THEIR venue for THEIR wedding. I think it's just great and a credit to Harry and Meghan.
Besides, it's a clear and elegant reminder to everyone who they are in the order of succession and their position inside the Family (aka the younger son of the heir).
Windsor is an incredible place, it will be a wonderful wedding.

This was unnecessary.

It's like you were unable to celebrate them choosing the venue without taking some really unnecessary shots at those of us who wished for something else. And the whole Princess Diary crack was very insulting.

Maybe I'm a wishful thinker, but at least I try to be nice.

loonytick 11-28-2017 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FashionMaven (Post 2042637)

Half the fun of watching those weddings was the procession and the pomp and circumstance of them. Watching the car waiting for Catherine to get in. People cheering madly as each senior BRF couple exited in a car/carriage for the Abbey/Cathedral.

There was none of that drama with E&S - even with the stairs there.

The arrivals of the main players at WA are always a big disappointment to me. You get a lot of crowd noise, yes, but that's it. The way they set up a canopy protecting the path to the door means a largely blocked view. It's not great. St. George's steps give a wide, expansive view that I much prefer.

wyevale 11-28-2017 01:26 PM

A LONG procession before the Ceremony might result in tangled Hair [it can be windy on that drive], and crumpled fabric...
A long Drive AFTER the Ceremony means these things would matter less, since the newly weds can freshen up privately before greeting their guests at the reception.

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loonytick (Post 2042994)
The arrivals of the main players at WA are always a big disappointment to me. You get a lot of crowd noise, yes, but that's it. The way they set up a canopy protecting the path to the door means a largely blocked view. It's not great. St. George's steps give a wide, expansive view that I much prefer.

Which wedding at the Abbey had a canopy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2042995)
A LONG procession before the Ceremony might result in tangled Hair [it can be windy on that drive], and crumpled fabric...
A long Drive AFTER the Ceremony means these things would matter less, since the newly weds can freshen up privately before greeting their guests at the reception.

Oh I guess I assumed the procession would have Meghan in the car with the glass top, and the recession would be in the carriage.

That's actually what Sophie did - she arrived in the car and left in the carriage. The only thing I'd like added is a longer route pre-post wedding.

Empress Merel 11-28-2017 01:38 PM

Good to know I was right about a May wedding at St. George's. Lovely choice.

St. George always made more sense to me. I imagine it will look extremely welcoming, airy and light in May.

Rhea6 11-28-2017 01:43 PM

Disappointed that there is no balcony appearance !!!

Even if he is pushed further down after baby Cambridge is born but he still is the 1 of the 2 sons of the future king .

Is Windsor too far from BP ? They can't make a balcony appearance ?

Blog Real 11-28-2017 01:46 PM

Full statement issued by Prince Harry's communication's secretary, regarding the wedding:

Quote:

"Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are extremely grateful for the warm public response following yesterday's announcement of their engagement. In a happy moment in their lives, it means a great deal to them that so many people throughout the UK, the Commonwealth, and around the world are celebrating with them.
The couple are delighted to be able to announce that their wedding will be held in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle in May next year. As with all members of the royal family, Windsor is a very special place for Prince Harry and he and Ms Markle have regularly spent time there over the last year and a half.
https://twitter.com/byEmilyAndrews/s...49162157944834

Dman 11-28-2017 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy (Post 2042858)
Are we sure it's going to be televised? There are no camera's allowed in St George's Chapel.
To avoid mistakes or confusion: I'd love to watch their wedding on TV, it's just because of the general protocol there.

Yes, it’s very likely going to be televised. We Americans watched both Edward and Charles’s weddings televised from Windsor. There are cameras allowed in, just not for the very private ceremonies like; Garter, Easter, and Victorian Order Service.

There’s likely going to be a carriage procession through Windsor like the Wessex’s had back in ‘99.’

This will be a both British and American Royal Celebration!

Fem 11-28-2017 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhea6 (Post 2043014)
Disappointed that there is no balcony appearance !!!

Even if he is pushed further down after baby Cambridge is born but he still is the 1 of the 2 sons of the future king .

Is Windsor too far from BP ? They can't make a balcony appearance ?

More than an hour drive, so not possible.

Why the balcony appearance is so important?

Hallo girl 11-28-2017 01:50 PM

Could it not be in relation to guest numbers, as 5th or 6th in line to the throne is there a requirement for the same number of official guests to be asked. If it is solely friends and family, the other venues could actually be too large.

eden_candy 11-28-2017 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter (Post 2042827)
That makes sense..I wondered where it was they were taking these long country walks without running into people (who might have cameras etc).

This, marrying at St George, ties into their sentimental/romantic take on things so far.


LaRae

:previous: I was thinking the same thing. Either staying in Windsor or going outside of London where people aren't expecting to see them.

jacqui24 11-28-2017 01:52 PM

Lainey's source is reporting that St. George is what Harry and Meghan wants, and other senior royals wanted all the pomp and circumstance if it had been up to them. Take it as what you will, but here is the link!

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will get married in May at St George’s Chapel in Windsor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2043021)
Could it not be in relation to guest numbers, as 5th or 6th in line to the throne is there a requirement for the same number of official guests to be asked. If it is solely friends and family, the other venues could actually be too large.

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.

Mirabel 11-28-2017 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter (Post 2042986)
I wonder...will they do something more relaxed and laid back like an English Country Wedding?


LaRae

More like Pippa's?
Could be.

What I am wondering is whether it will be televised in Times Square, like William's was?

caethi 11-28-2017 02:04 PM

I think St. George's is a lovely choice. It is smaller, somewhat more intimate, venue, and very beautiful. Harry's position does not "require" a large London spectacle, and he and Meghan may prefer the intimacy of St. George's and the possibility of a reception on the grounds, or in the castle. He doesn't owe the public a spectacle. Perhaps neither of them wants to be a spectacle. People cite his status as second son of the heir...in my view, he could be a King and choose to be married in the way that he and his fiancée choose. He has done and continues to do great work for the people of Britain and around the word. That is what is important. He is giving the people a reasonable glimpse of his private life and that's fine by me. So far they are controlling the agenda, and that is a good and healthy thing for both of them.

Curryong 11-28-2017 02:06 PM

Harry could easily fill 400 or so seats at St George's with family, friends, representatives of his charities, vets from IG etc. It could be rather awkward for Meghan to issue 400 invites to her wedding, especially as most of those she invited would have to travel long distances. Most of us don't have 400 or so close family and friends who would be available for a wedding in another country.

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blog Real (Post 2043018)
Full statement issued by Prince Harry's communication's secretary, regarding the wedding:
"Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are extremely grateful for the warm public response following yesterday's announcement of their engagement. In a happy moment in their lives, it means a great deal to them that so many people throughout the UK, the Commonwealth, and around the world are celebrating with them.
The couple are delighted to be able to announce that their wedding will be held in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle in May next year. As with all members of the royal family, Windsor is a very special place for Prince Harry and he and Ms Markle have regularly spent time there over the last year and a half.

I'm no longer having qualms about Windsor Castle/St. George's and am looking forward to the wedding. I'm thankful that they are figuring out ways to involve the public and that they are acknowledging that people will want to share in their special day with them.

Very excited about what Meghan and Harry will do together to help the world. Looks like Meghan is going to jump right in and get involved. Awesome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fem (Post 2043020)
More than an hour drive, so not possible.

Why the balcony appearance is so important?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24 (Post 2043023)
Lainey's source is reporting that St. George is what Harry and Meghan wants, and other senior royals wanted all the pomp and circumstance if it had been up to them. Take it as what you will, but here is the link!

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will get married in May at St George’s Chapel in Windsor

I'm warming up to St. George's - and hoping we still get some of the grand processional spectacle - just on a smaller scale than London.

But I'm sure the church will be absolutely gorgeous - hopefully with flowers instead of trees and some grand carpet on the stairs, etc..

Pranter 11-28-2017 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 2043028)
More like Pippa's?
Could be.

What I am wondering is whether it will be televised in Times Square, like William's was?

Yes more like Pippa's but on a larger scale.

I have no idea about the Times Square but seeing as how Meghan is American and Harry is who he is...I'd say there's a good chance!


LaRae

Rudolph 11-28-2017 02:19 PM

I doubt if Harry was given a choice. Supposedly William wanted to get married at Windsor but the government and The Queen told him it wasn’t befitting his place in the family.

I know some people are saying he chose Windsor for personal reasons but honestly I don’t think he had much choice. WA and ST Paul’s we’re out of the question.

loonytick 11-28-2017 02:22 PM

For those who've been concerned that Edward and Sophie's wedding indicates that the St. George's location means there will be no "pomp and circumstance," it's important to remember that E&S were specifically trying to set the tone for the fairly private life they had in mind for themselves at the time. They didn't intend to be working royals and so they didn't have a working royal's wedding. The lack of grand processions, arrivals, public kisses, etc. was a deliberate choice. Philip and Autumn's wedding at St. George's was also a private, family wedding rather than a royal one because they are not working royals.

Windsor can certainly handle as many layers of public ceremony as Meghan and Harry decide they want. I read their statement about involving the public to mean that they will find many ways to make St. George's a place for a festive public celebration. We're not going to see a repeat of Edward and Sophie's wedding, despite it being in the same church.

I'm excited about their choice. You just can't get more royal a location than the grounds of a big, historic castle, for goodness sake! St. George's is gorgeous and holds a lot of opportunity for a beautiful, romantic and, yes, overwhelmingly royal wedding.

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph (Post 2043043)
I doubt if Harry was given a choice. Supposedly William wanted to get married at Windsor but the government and The Queen told him it wasn’t befitting his place in the family.

I know some people are saying he chose Windsor for personal reasons but honestly I don’t think he had much choice. WA and ST Paul’s we’re out of the question.

I really sincerely doubt this - Prince Andrew married there. And Harry is still the 2nd son of the future King...

But it doesn't really matter now - they've chosen Windsor.

Missjersey 11-28-2017 02:23 PM

Seems they are doing it their way as much as possible and I applaud them for that. It will be lovely

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 02:29 PM

I wonder what colors Meghan will choose for her bridal party? Sophe/Edward had pages with these velvet blue capes... Kate had Pippa in white/cream... I wonder how Meghan will have her bridal party dressed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by loonytick (Post 2043046)
For those who've been concerned that Edward and Sophie's wedding indicates that the St. George's location means there will be no "pomp and circumstance," it's important to remember that E&S were specifically trying to set the tone for the fairly private life they had in mind for themselves at the time. They didn't intend to be working royals and so they didn't have a working royal's wedding. The lack of grand processions, arrivals, public kisses, etc. was a deliberate choice. Philip and Autumn's wedding at St. George's was also a private, family wedding rather than a royal one because they are not working royals.

Windsor can certainly handle as many layers of public ceremony as Meghan and Harry decide they want. I read their statement about involving the public to mean that they will find many ways to make St. George's a place for a festive public celebration. We're not going to see a repeat of Edward and Sophie's wedding, despite it being in the same church.

I'm excited about their choice. You just can't get more royal a location than the grounds of a big, historic castle, for goodness sake! St. George's is gorgeous and holds a lot of opportunity for a beautiful, romantic and, yes, overwhelmingly royal wedding.

Thanks! I'm getting more excited now - I really appreciate all of the nice comments helping me see St. George's as a lovely venue and capable of supporting the pomp and circumstance I crave.

Great point about the somber tone E+S made (because of the times).

Rudolph 11-28-2017 02:32 PM

I think people forget that Andrew is the second son of the reigning Queen. Harry is the second son of the Prince of Wales. Very different

So although Andrew Married at WA, Harry was only ever going to get married at Windsor.

Blog Real 11-28-2017 02:39 PM

I like the location, although prefer to Westminster Abbey. Security issues may also have weighed on the decision. But Windsor Castle is very beautiful and has a lot of history and moreover is one of the favorite residences of the Royal family. Will be a nice wedding for sure.

Ish 11-28-2017 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph (Post 2043056)
I think people forget that Andrew is the second son of the reigning Queen. Harry is the second son of the Prince of Wales. Very different

So although Andrew Married at WA, Harry was only ever going to get married at Windsor.



Princess Alexandra got married in WA. She was the cousin of the monarch at the time.

Rudolph 11-28-2017 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 2043069)
Princess Alexandra got married in WA. She was the cousin of the monarch at the time.

Anyone with permission is allowed to be married at WA even non royals. But when dealing with her immediate family , The Queen likes to go by the book as much as possible. I don’t think anyone on TRF really thought Harry would get married anywhere other than Windsor.

Nico 11-28-2017 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 2043069)
Princess Alexandra got married in WA. She was the cousin of the monarch at the time.

But she was the only princess of the Blood after the Queen's aunt, the Princess Royal, and Princess Margaret. Above all Princess Marina's connections impliying a huge turnout of foreign royals, the Abbey was at the time a logical choice.

Curryong 11-28-2017 02:53 PM

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.

Dman 11-28-2017 03:00 PM

Video:
People in Windsor reaction to the Windsor wedding news-
https://itnproductions.com/news/vide...dding?type=raw

Anna Catherine 11-28-2017 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2043076)
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, including Vicky who married the future Emperor of Germany there. 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.

Who is rejoicing? Queen Victoria was in mourning and the somber atmosphere played into the wedding of the Prince of Wales. It’s not been considered a model to go by. Prince Harry is the younger son of the Prince of Wales and a grandson of the reigning monarch. That’s why some thought St. George’s was more likely not because he’s less than anyone else. Not only that but Harry’s wedding was/is bound to be smaller than others who have married at Westminster although he could have still used that venue. Personally, I was 50/50 and thought it could either be Westminster Abbey or St. George’s Chapel. It seems the couple chose St. George’s which is what matters...their choice.

Denville 11-28-2017 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2043076)
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, including Vicky who married the future Emperor of Germany there. 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.

that was because Victoria was mourning Albert

Mbruno 11-28-2017 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2042779)
Yes it's St George's in May.

Fairly predictable as most of us in the TRF have forecast.

Anna Catherine 11-28-2017 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph (Post 2043078)
St George’s is lovely. William wanted to get married there but apparently it was vetoed by the government and The Queen. They said someone in William’s position needs to be married in the Abbey

I didn’t hear about that during the lead up to his wedding. Do you have a link to an article? Just out of curiousity.

I’ve never seen the inside of St. George’s except in pictures so I’m exciting to see Harry and Meghan’s wedding. Is there a link to Edward and Sophie’s wedding?

rmay286 11-28-2017 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLLK (Post 2042910)
Having recently visited St. George's Chapel I am thrilled that this will be the site for their wedding. IMO it is far lovelier than WA and has more historic ties to the Windsors too.

I agree Jacknch that new technology will help the television crews improve upon the filming and coverage that we had with Edward and Sophie's 1999 Wedding.

I visited St. George's Chapel last year, too, and it is absolutely beautiful and very historic. Unfortunately I can't remember the visit well enough now to picture where the guests will be arriving!

I do remember being disappointed by Edward and Sophie's wedding being a bit simpler. Theirs was the first royal wedding I was old enough to watch, and I was used to reading about Charles and Diana's/Andrew and Sarah's. However, Harry and Meghan seem to want to keep their relationship understated and private, so this definitely fits their personality - and after all, it's their day!

O-H Anglophile 11-28-2017 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 2043069)
Princess Alexandra got married in WA. She was the cousin of the monarch at the time.

That was also 1963. A lot has changed since then.

FashionMaven 11-28-2017 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman (Post 2043082)
Video:
People in Windsor reaction to the Windsor wedding news-
https://itnproductions.com/news/vide...dding?type=raw

:lol: I love the last woman mentioning the Obamas!

Erin9 11-28-2017 03:16 PM

I love St. George’s. It’s beautiful. I had to drag myself out the door, I enjoyed looking around so much.

It certainly has plenty of ties to the Windsor family. I’m sure this wedding will be more elaborate than Edward and Sophie’s. They planned on a more private life than Harry and Meghan are.

jacqui24 11-28-2017 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph (Post 2043043)
I doubt if Harry was given a choice. Supposedly William wanted to get married at Windsor but the government and The Queen told him it wasn’t befitting his place in the family.

I know some people are saying he chose Windsor for personal reasons but honestly I don’t think he had much choice. WA and ST Paul’s we’re out of the question.

St. Paul was out of question for Harry. However, I think St. George was out of question for William as he is the future monarch. I don't think WA was out of question for Harry as the spares have married there before. In fact, all the recent royal weddings at St. George, with the exception of PoW and DoC, has been for royals not expected to keep their jobs outside of the Firm. PoW and DoC obviously had a different issue. I don't think anyone would've denied Harry a wedding at the Abbey if he really wanted to marry there, but he certainly had St. George as a realistic choice (obviously) whereas William didn't even if William would've preferred it.

Iluvbertie 11-28-2017 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biri (Post 2042793)
Did Harry's aunt and uncles and their respective spouses have "balcony kisses"?


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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy (Post 2042858)
Are we sure it's going to be televised? There are no camera's allowed in St George's Chapel.
To avoid mistakes or confusion: I'd love to watch their wedding on TV, it's just because of the general protocol there.

Edward and Sophie's wedding and Charles and Camilla's blessing were both televised from St George's Chapel.

They don't allow television cameras to film the internment when a person dies - hence no coverage there of the Queen Mum's final internment on the day of her funeral but they do allow weddings to be televised in there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24 (Post 2042882)
I think there were many factors taken into consideration. I'm sure both WA and St. George were possibilities from a purely protocol standpoint. But I do think KP saying Windsor is close to the couple's heart is most significant.

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.

jacqui24 11-28-2017 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FashionMaven (Post 2043040)
I'm warming up to St. George's - and hoping we still get some of the grand processional spectacle - just on a smaller scale than London.

But I'm sure the church will be absolutely gorgeous - hopefully with flowers instead of trees and some grand carpet on the stairs, etc..

Honestly, regardless of the church and anything else, the most I'm moved by is the couple. It was REALLY amazing to see them in that interview together. I was a fan before, but WOW. Given the confirmation that the couple has spent time at Windsor regularly and how it's close to their heart, I can be happy with the choice.

Hallo girl 11-28-2017 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24 (Post 2043026)
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.

I was trying to make the point that the difference in capacity could have been one of the deciding factors. Has it been made clear whether it is a family wedding or a state occasion, that then reflects on the must invites. There is no need to be all picky about how many friends and family they might have.

Iluvbertie 11-28-2017 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 2042893)
I hope Harry receives the Garter before the wedding so that his banner can hang in the chapel at his wedding. (Although perhaps those aren't added until the installation. And Edward had to wait too. Sigh.)

Banners don't go up until they are installed and that is done on Garter Day.

loonytick 11-28-2017 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FashionMaven (Post 2042997)
Which wedding at the Abbey had a canopy?

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

Mbruno 11-28-2017 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 2043114)
Edward and Sophie's wedding and Charles and Camilla's blessing were both televised from St George's Chapel.

They don't allow television cameras to film the internment when a person dies - hence no coverage there of the Queen Mum's final internment on the day of her funeral but they do allow weddings to be televised in there.

I would be surprised if the wedding were not televised.

Mbruno 11-28-2017 03:36 PM

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 ?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises