Have Royal Weddings Changed?

[ladyfizzle101]

Is it just me or are royl wedding getting to be a lil bit too plain. For an example...Royal Weddings of Queen Elizabeth, Princess Grace, Princess Diana and The Duchess of York were huge events with a catherdral or an abbey filled with loads of flowers and huge ball gown dresses with long trains. Weddings then were filled with the glamour that many brides still copy today if they want that "fairytale" feeling. But the royal weddings of recent times such as, The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Peter and Autumn Philips are low key affairs with (in my opinion) Wedding gowns that i could buy off the rack at davids bridal and no pagentry at all. Maybe im living in the old times when i say "i wish for more formal royal weddings"

 

[sneeuwklokje]

Maybe that's because there haven't been any mayor royal weddings (crownprince/crownprincess) lately. Prince Joachim married for the second time, so that had to be a somewhat smaller afair (although still lovely). I guess you have to wait for Princess Victoria or Prince William. I'm sure theirs will be weddings with al the pump and splendour.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I agree, but it's probably because Royals are not as glamorous as they once were, not even close.

They are more and more like the couple next door or a run of the mill Hollywood/celeb couple so that is the way their weddings are too, in my opinion.

 

[ghost_night554]

I'm going to wait for something like Prince William's wedding before I say anything hopefully I won't be dissapointed. I just think since someone like Autumn and Peter aren't at the rank of some other royals maybe that's why it wasn't as huge as past weddings and as for the Earl and Countess of Wessex seem very low key to begin with.

 

[Odette]

Ladyfizzle, I understand your disappointment and share it. However now some brides make arrangements to sell the wedding photos to Hello, others walk down the aisle very pregnant or come out on the balcony holding the child they had from a previous relationship. Times are changing...........

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Well, since Peter Phillips isn't actually royal, he doesn't really count.

 

[crm2317]

Well, since Peter Phillips isn't actually royal, he doesn't really count.

He may not hold a royal title but he is the grandson of the monarch and 11th in the line of succession to a royal throne so I feel that he does count

 

[Odette]

I was going to say the same thing yesterday crm2317 but chose not to start a row about it.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Oh it's hardly a row. He is related to royalty, but he is not himself royal. There really isn't any dispute about that.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Or, to put it in perhaps a better way.. Peter is royal, but not Royal.

 

[Odette]

Oh it's hardly a row. He is related to royalty, but he is not himself royal. There really isn't any dispute about that.

Actually Prince I have lost track of who is Royal, royal or royal. LOL
The row reference was written as a joke. But Master Phillips has royal blood and he is very close to the Palace. Still, they have bills to pay like all of us.

 

[pamk]

I also remember the says when the ladies wore long dresses and hats to royal weddings but, I am sure, that those days are gone forever. Even at the
Charles/Diana wedding the ladies wore regular length dresses and suits with an appropriate hat.
Maybe an evening wedding will command a more formal type of dress.
But, everything has become much too casual. In the days of Queen Mary and King George V, she dressed for dinner every evening in a long gown and tiara. No wonder Queen Elizabeth has so many tiaras!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Ladyfizzle, I understand your disappointment and share it. However now some brides make arrangements to sell the wedding photos to Hello, others walk down the aisle very pregnant or come out on the balcony holding the child they had from a previous relationship. Times are changing...........

Oh my God...how right you are! In fact there are some very recent "Royal" brides who have done exactly what you described.

Is there any wonder little girls don't seem to dream about becoming a Princess anymore?? They dream of being Miley Ray Cyrus or Angelina Jolie instead.

So, so sad.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Angelina Jolie was merely a convenient example. My point about dreaming of making it on your own merits being superior to dreaming of being a princess remains.

There is something to be said for both! There are perhaps more young girls now who DON'T dream about wanting to be a Princess than ever before. There are no really glamorous high profile Princesses now that Grace of Monaco and Diana are gone.

It's just that during the time I was a little girl in the Sixties and early Seventies, my idols were Grace and Caroline of Monaco. There wasn't the out of control Hollywood celeb worship culture there is now.

Maybe if there had been, I would have made an actress the focus of my fantasies and dreams. But there was no one in Hollywood I wanted to be like.

Come to think of it there still isn't....

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Please...they are not married because either one or both of them simply doesn't want to commit. PERIOD! Gay marriage has been legalized in California and is on it's way to becoming the law of the land. I wonder what the excuse will be then?

I seriously doubt that. They have children together; it seems they are both quite committed to the relationship. As for gay marriage becoming the law of the land in the USA, I won't hold my breath. Expanding on the West Coast? Probably. A few other pockets on the East? Sure. Texas? HA! Not likely in the foreseeable future.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I seriously doubt that. They have children together; it seems they are both quite committed to the relationship. As for gay marriage becoming the law of the land in the USA, I won't hold my breath. Expanding on the West Coast? Probably. A few other pockets on the East? Sure. Texas? HA! Not likely in the foreseeable future.

I stand corrected...I think they are both committed to their relationship...for now.

But I am not convinced that they are not married because of the gay marriage thing. Angelina in particular simply seems to have lost faith in either the institution or her ability to remain in it, or both.

Brad would marry her tomorrow if she agreed.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Eh, we'll have to agree to disagree. Since they've stated it publicly, we should--given other public statements they've made--presume that they said it in good faith.

All of this is orthogonal to the point of the thread, though.

Thinking more, I think that the recent trend towards smaller royal weddings has two contributing factors:

1) Royals in general (Morocco and of course the Sultan of Brunei being glaring exceptions) have been much, much more cognizant of how the appearance of throwing away money makes them look.

2) Given that they all live lives in such transparent fishbowls, a smaller wedding means (generally) less press and less intrusion. (The recent Philips wedding being an exception, naturally).

 

[Winnie]

I thought this was about ROYAL weddings. Since when is Angelina and Brad Royal -- in anyone's book?

I think that the last Royal weddings I truly enjoyed watching (and rewatching videos of) were W-A & Maxima; Mary & Fred & of course Felipe and Letizia. They were close to "picture book" types.

I believe that Victoria will outdo them all if her mother has a lot of imput -- should be just wonderful.

 

[Odette]

Oh my God...how right you are! In fact there are some very recent "Royal" brides who have done exactly what you described.

Is there any wonder little girls don't seem to dream about becoming a Princess anymore?? They dream of being Miley Ray Cyrus or Angelina Jolie instead.

So, so sad.

LOL Don't get me going...........LOL
For someone who woke up at 2am to watch the Diana/Charles wedding on TV and stood in line to see the Bavarian Princess marry the heir of the Prince of Liechtenstein, I weep when I see and hear the latest.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

LOL Don't get me going...........LOL
For someone who woke up at 2am to watch the Diana/Charles wedding on TV and stood in line to see the Bavarian Princess marry the heir of the Prince of Liechtenstein, I weep when I see and hear the latest.

I weep too. Partly because I think if this current trend continues(among the Royals and their choices of partners) monarchy as an institution is going to become obsolete and irrelevant within the next 20-25 years.)

The lack of any real interest(outside their native lands) of any of the current Royals really breaks my heart. I remember when EVERYONE knew who Princess Margaret was and wanted to read about her...my Mom and all her friends followed the heartbreak of Princess Soraya, the Shah's wife who had her marriage annulled because she couldn't give him a son.

And of course Princess Grace and Princess Diana were global icons.

Now, very few people know who the current Crown Princes and their spouses are and even fewer care. They would rather read about.....Hollywood.

 

[R_Bee]

Or, there are some of us who don't feel the need to look up to anybody, royalty or celebrity. Why should I? Being a commoner without titles, money, or fame has served me quiet well, and I don't think that will change anytime soon. I do pay more attention to royals than to celebs, but that's because I think they are interesting from a historical perspective. Yes, there are a few royals that I like better than others, and I don't deny that they may have some admirable qualities about them, but I don't really look at royals as examples of how I should want to be. Same for celebrities.

Back to the weddings...I think most the ones I have seen recently are grand enough. Than again, I've only been paying attention to royalty for the past three years or so (so, after the most recent boomlet of crown princely weddings) and wasn't even alive when Charles and Diana married. So, I don't really have the basis for comparison that some of the other posters have.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Or, there are some of us who don't feel the need to look up to anybody, royalty or celebrity. Why should I? Being a commoner without titles, money, or fame has served me quiet well, and I don't think that will change anytime soon. I do pay more attention to royals than to celebs, but that's because I think they are interesting from a historical perspective. Yes, there are a few royals that I like better than others, and I don't deny that they may have some admirable qualities about them, but I don't really look at royals as examples of how I should want to be. Same for celebrities.

Back to the weddings...I think most the ones I have seen recently are grand enough. Than again, I've only been paying attention to royalty for the past three years or so (so, after the most recent boomlet of crown princely weddings) and wasn't even alive when Charles and Diana married. So, I don't really have the basis for comparison that some of the other posters have.

I don't "feel a need" to look up to anybody either, I just do look up to and admire certain people(the late John Paul II, Nelson Mandela, Ingrid Betancourt) I admire and look up to people who are courageous, spiritual and principled because those are qualities I strive for in my own life.

I prefer Royals to Hollywood celebs because like yourself, I am in interested in history and in their links to it. Celebrity is more of a transitory thing...for example in about 20 years I doubt if anyone will remember Scarlett Johanson or Brittany Spears.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Really? I think poor Britney (I do pity her) will vanish into the dustbin of history, but Scarlett will be known.

OOOH.

There's a fun thought. The last Hollywood 'princess' to marry into royalty was Grace. Imagine if someone like Wills (or Harry, or maybe Philippos or Amadeo) married Scarlett? Now that would be a wedding to watch...

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Really? I think poor Britney (I do pity her) will vanish into the dustbin of history, but Scarlett will be known.

OOOH.

There's a fun thought. The last Hollywood 'princess' to marry into royalty was Grace. Imagine if someone like Wills (or Harry, or maybe Philippos or Amadeo) married Scarlett? Now that would be a wedding to watch...

PoC...almost as soon as I typed Scarlett's name I regretted. Along with Nathalie Portmann, I think she is one of the exceptional young actresses who have staying power.

I am trying to think of a current actress who could marry Royalty and be considered "acceptable" as a Princess like Grace was...

Give me a few minutes cause this will take some time!

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Scarlett, certainly, and Nathalie. Precious few others, I should think. Perhaps, hmmm... Nicole Kidman might have been.

 

[Odette]

Well Angie Everhard tried twice (Prince Albert & Prince Anrew) Claudia Schiffer came close (Prince Albert) Scarlett is currently engaged but she is an Obama girl so I doubt any Royal family will rush to claim her. Gwyneth Paltrow came close (Prince Felipe) Elle McPherson (Pr Nikolaos) who knows who else came close and we did not catch wind of it..........LOL

 

[Odette]

I weep too. Partly because I think if this current trend continues(among the Royals and their choices of partners) monarchy as an institution is going to become obsolete and irrelevant within the next 20-25 years.)

Now, very few people know who the current Crown Princes and their spouses are and even fewer care. They would rather read about.....Hollywood.

Just look at these boards. The voices are being raised when Letizia,Mary and Kate are talked about. Either the rest of the families are uninteresting or their supporters less excitable. Interest will wane in the next few years when the currently unattached will find their matches and if they get more commoners into the fold there will be less and less regard and more curiosity about them.
Princess Soraya's drama, Q Anne Marie getting engaged at 16, then Princess Elizabeth falling in love with P Philip and P Margaret's love for Peter Townsend are what fairy tales are made of.
I do not expect people to "look up" to the Royals, I just hope they rescpect them but even that is falling by the waysides

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Just look at these boards. The voices are being raised when Letizia,Mary and Kate are talked about. Either the rest of the families are uninteresting or their supporters less excitable. Interest will wane in the next few years when the currently unattached will find their matches and if they get more commoners into the fold there will be less and less regard and more curiosity about them.
Princess Soraya's drama, Q Anne Marie getting engaged at 16, then Princess Elizabeth falling in love with P Philip and P Margaret's love for Peter Townsend are what fairy tales are made of.
I do not expect people to "look up" to the Royals, I just hope they rescpect them but even that is falling by the waysides

I hate to be crude, but Letizia, Mary and Kate bore my a-- off. Not one of them has anything about them that fascinates me, and off of these boards I have never once heard any of them discussed.

Kate Middleton makes the odd appearance here in People Magazine, but none of my co-workers has a clue who she is, let alone Letizia or Mary.

And I don't live in some little obscure burg somewhere. I live in a major metropolitan city with a large Hispanic population. Folks should at least know who Letizia is!

About the "respect" issue...well truer words have never been spoken. And the more and more they continue to act like the next door neighbors or the latest fly by night Hollywood celebs, the more that respect is going to be lost.

 

[Zonk]

Okay..I am not the moderator of this Forum but we are totally going off topic.

I also think there are a variety of reasons that royal weddings have changed recently. First of all, Diana/Charles and Andrew/Sarah were married 30 years ago. The world economy was different and considering that now we are in the midst of a world recession. I think the royal households are more considerate of how the money is spent. Also, royalty has changed a lot (in my opinion) in the last 30 years.....many people no longer hold royal families with "reverence" and as a result, I think that some royals (and their households) try to remain under the radar so to speak. And as a result, many weddings are not as flashy as they might have been.

In addition, let's look at the most recent weddings and the households. Yes, Fred/Mary, Willem/Maxima and Felipe/Letizia all had big weddings....but not to be mean....but the weddings of Joachim/Alexandra/Marie, Cristina/Inaki, Martha/Ari, etc. were not the same and really they shouldn't be. They are not heirs to the throne and while they have a little something, it shouldn't be the same production. An excellent example are the weddings of Anne/Mark, Andrew/Sarah, and Edward/Sophie (also Charles/Camilla)...they are not heirs to the throne so do they really need to get married in St. Paul's? Nope they don't. But I think Sarah/Andrew's was just as lovely. But then Edward/Sophie was really low key...a good reason are the divorces of those mentioned above and the fact Edward wants to just fade as much as possile into the background. Just like Beatrice and Eugenie's wont be the same as Harry's. And Harry's wont be as grand as Williams.

In regards to the most recent royal weddings...I would say Marie and Joachim had a really nice wedding. It wasn't as flashy as his first...but it was his second (and not bad for her first and hopefully only!). Either way....most second hand royal weddings are better than any weddings (in terms of presentation only) that I have attended.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Okay..I am not the moderator of this Forum but we are totally going off topic.

I also think there are a variety of reasons that royal weddings have changed recently. First of all, Diana/Charles and Andrew/Sarah were married 30 years ago. The world economy was different and considering that now we are in the midst of a world recession. I think the royal households are more considerate of how the money is spent. Also, royalty has changed a lot (in my opinion) in the last 30 years.....many people no longer hold royal families with "reverence" and as a result, I think that some royals (and their households) try to remain under the radar so to speak. And as a result, many weddings are not as flashy as they might have been.

In addition, let's look at the most recent weddings and the households. Yes, Fred/Mary, Willem/Maxima and Felipe/Letizia all had big weddings....but not to be mean....but the weddings of Joachim/Alexandra/Marie, Cristina/Inaki, Martha/Ari, etc. were not the same and really they shouldn't be. They are not heirs to the throne and while they have a little something, it shouldn't be the same production. An excellent example are the weddings of Anne/Mark, Andrew/Sarah, and Edward/Sophie (also Charles/Camilla)...they are not heirs to the throne so do they really need to get married in St. Paul's? Nope they don't. But I think Sarah/Andrew's was just as lovely. But then Edward/Sophie was really low key...a good reason are the divorces of those mentioned above and the fact Edward wants to just fade as much as possile into the background. Just like Beatrice and Eugenie's wont be the same as Harry's. And Harry's wont be as grand as Williams.

In regards to the most recent royal weddings...I would say Marie and Joachim had a really nice wedding. It wasn't as flashy as his first...but it was his second (and not bad for her first and hopefully only!). Either way....most second hand royal weddings are better than any weddings (in terms of presentation only) that I have attended.

Excellent, excellent comments! Let's not forget Charles-Philippe d'Orleans and Diane, Duchesse de Cadaval which took place a few weeks ago. If that is not a Royal/noble couple then no one is, but even though it was an elegant, beautiful affair it came no where near to the high profile Gotha event I thought it would be. There were more Serene Highnesses present than Royal Highnesses. As a matter of that the only Royals present outside of the d'Orleans of France was King Juan Carlos's sister Dona Pilar.

It surprised me