Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: BRF Weddings  (Read 39878 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
CyrilSebastian

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 492

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3783





Ignore
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2019, 09:42:02 PM »

Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha married Queen Victoria on February 10, 1840. Albert had two supporters. They were his father, Duke Ernest I of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and his brother, Prince Ernest, The Hereditary Prince.
Logged
CyrilSebastian

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 492

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3783





Ignore
« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2019, 02:23:26 AM »

A lady and I were discussing the 1999 wedding of Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones. The lady wondered if there was a specific reason they did not have their wedding at Westminster Abbey?
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1015

Offline Offline

Posts: 3951





Ignore
« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2019, 02:30:54 AM »

A lady and I were discussing the 1999 wedding of Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones. The lady wondered if there was a specific reason they did not have their wedding at Westminster Abbey?

Low support for the monarchy in the late 90s.  He was 7th in line at the time...Anne and Andrew had each been 4th at the time of their weddings.  The couples desire for it to be a family event rather than a state occasion.  At the time they were not going to be working royals but lead private lives.  Etc.
Logged
A Citizen not a Subject

Warned
Large Member
******

Reputation: 538

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1199





Ignore
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2019, 01:54:21 PM »

A lady and I were discussing the 1999 wedding of Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones. The lady wondered if there was a specific reason they did not have their wedding at Westminster Abbey?

Low support for the monarchy in the late 90s.  He was 7th in line at the time...Anne and Andrew had each been 4th at the time of their weddings.  The couples desire for it to be a family event rather than a state occasion.  At the time they were not going to be working royals but lead private lives.  Etc.
Hopefully this is the new norm.  Westminster Abbey for the direct heir only.
Logged

I live in hope that one day I will be able to elect my Head of State.
ralf103

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 955

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2042





Ignore
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2019, 02:44:32 PM »

I think that seems to be the way it is atm, in recent times only William has married at Westminster Abbey and that was a more formal official wedding.

I would suspect that in future only George will marry at Westminster and his siblings at Windsor (or of course maybe elsewhere)
Logged
Princess MS

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 503

Online Online

Australia Australia

Posts: 2338





Ignore
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2019, 02:57:43 PM »

A lady and I were discussing the 1999 wedding of Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones. The lady wondered if there was a specific reason they did not have their wedding at Westminster Abbey?

Charles got married at St Paul's first time I think ??

Low support for the monarchy in the late 90s.  He was 7th in line at the time...Anne and Andrew had each been 4th at the time of their weddings.  The couples desire for it to be a family event rather than a state occasion.  At the time they were not going to be working royals but lead private lives.  Etc.
Hopefully this is the new norm.  Westminster Abbey for the direct heir only.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1015

Offline Offline

Posts: 3951





Ignore
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2019, 03:23:04 PM »

A lady and I were discussing the 1999 wedding of Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones. The lady wondered if there was a specific reason they did not have their wedding at Westminster Abbey?

Low support for the monarchy in the late 90s.  He was 7th in line at the time...Anne and Andrew had each been 4th at the time of their weddings.  The couples desire for it to be a family event rather than a state occasion.  At the time they were not going to be working royals but lead private lives.  Etc.
Hopefully this is the new norm.  Westminster Abbey for the direct heir only.

Charles got married at St Paul's first time I think ??

Right but he was the heir apparent and the monarchy was in a much different place in the early 80s.  George will likely be 2nd in line when he marries (he'll be 35 when/if Charles hits 100)...so the same as William who got Westminster.  I agree that only direct heirs need London (Westminster Abbey), with children of monarch or heir getting Windsor with carriage ride, and then grandchildren who are not children of the heir getting Windsor without a carriage ride.  More remote people can do whatever but nothing (ie. security) should come from taxpayer monies.

So thinking of the next generation...George--Westminster, Charlotte and Louis--Windsor w/ carriage, Archie and siblings--Windsor without carriage, Brooksbank/Phillips/Tindall/etc--whatever as long as they pay for EVERYTHING including security.
Logged
Lady Liebe

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 568

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2861





Ignore
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2019, 06:35:31 PM »

I think much will depend on the mood of the country, and the role and popularity the of the monarchy at the time. I don't think the rules should be written in stone, at least in this case. While I cannot say for sure about Louis, Princess Charlotte may well rank enough to have a Westminster wedding. Or she may not want one. Nonetheless, it would be great to see her arrive at the church in the same Cinderella like coach used for royal brides - I've looked but I can't fine the name for it - someone here will know, I am sure.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2019, 07:22:27 PM by Lady Liebe » Logged

Compassion without truth isn't love, it's flattery. Love not only weeps, it also speaks.   Reagan Rose
Kristallinchen

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 711

Offline Offline

Austria Austria

Posts: 5398





Ignore
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2019, 02:44:55 AM »

Charlotte IMO will always be special as she's most likely going to be the only royal princess of her generation.
Logged
Athena

Small Member
****

Reputation: 203

Offline Offline

Posts: 649





Ignore
« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2019, 02:50:39 AM »

I recall reading at the time that Prince Charles' wedding was in St Paul's because there was more room for guests and spectators than in Westminster Abbey.
Logged
emtishell

Large Member
******

Reputation: 387

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1357





Ignore
« Reply #25 on: May 26, 2019, 09:24:26 AM »

I recall reading at the time that Prince Charles' wedding was in St Paul's because there was more room for guests and spectators than in Westminster Abbey.

Yes, St Paul’s had more room, and apparently it also meant a longer ride through London. Their wedding was a HUGE deal, as the heir, it was a full state affair.
Logged
emtishell

Large Member
******

Reputation: 387

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1357





Ignore
« Reply #26 on: May 26, 2019, 09:29:24 AM »

I think much will depend on the mood of the country, and the role and popularity the of the monarchy at the time. I don't think the rules should be written in stone, at least in this case. While I cannot say for sure about Louis, Princess Charlotte may well rank enough to have a Westminster wedding. Or she may not want one. Nonetheless, it would be great to see her arrive at the church in the same Cinderella like coach used for royal brides - I've looked but I can't fine the name for it - someone here will know, I am sure.

Diana arrived in a glass coach, and they left in a State Landau (which is the open one I think you are thinking of?). The enclosed glass coach helped keep her dress “hidden” until she emerged at the cathedral.
Logged
luvcharles

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 975

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2614





Ignore
« Reply #27 on: May 26, 2019, 09:48:32 AM »

A lady and I were discussing the 1999 wedding of Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones. The lady wondered if there was a specific reason they did not have their wedding at Westminster Abbey?

Low support for the monarchy in the late 90s.  He was 7th in line at the time...Anne and Andrew had each been 4th at the time of their weddings.  The couples desire for it to be a family event rather than a state occasion.  At the time they were not going to be working royals but lead private lives.  Etc.
Hopefully this is the new norm.  Westminster Abbey for the direct heir only.

Charles got married at St Paul's first time I think ??

Right but he was the heir apparent and the monarchy was in a much different place in the early 80s.  George will likely be 2nd in line when he marries (he'll be 35 when/if Charles hits 100)...so the same as William who got Westminster.  I agree that only direct heirs need London (Westminster Abbey), with children of monarch or heir getting Windsor with carriage ride, and then grandchildren who are not children of the heir getting Windsor without a carriage ride.  More remote people can do whatever but nothing (ie. security) should come from taxpayer monies.

So thinking of the next generation...George--Westminster, Charlotte and Louis--Windsor w/ carriage, Archie and siblings--Windsor without carriage, Brooksbank/Phillips/Tindall/etc--whatever as long as they pay for EVERYTHING including security.

Security is provided 24/7 for senior royals no matter where in the world they are and that would be the same at a wedding like this e.g. for Lady Gabriella's wedding there was security there as part of the security for the Queen and other senior royals who attended.

It is also decided by the local police force as they are in charge of the security ... not private companies, especially in the streets around places like Windsor. If they had to pay for the security they would end up doing one of two things ... putting senior royals at risk or having effectively two police forces in place on the day.

If Thames Valley doesn't believe that more security is needed beyond what they already do 24/7 they won't do it.

For instance Harry and Meghan need more security due to the actual threats to them. Security is judged on a person by person basis and at the moment they have almost the highest level of security in the family.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1015

Offline Offline

Posts: 3951





Ignore
« Reply #28 on: May 26, 2019, 12:43:56 PM »

A lady and I were discussing the 1999 wedding of Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones. The lady wondered if there was a specific reason they did not have their wedding at Westminster Abbey?

Low support for the monarchy in the late 90s.  He was 7th in line at the time...Anne and Andrew had each been 4th at the time of their weddings.  The couples desire for it to be a family event rather than a state occasion.  At the time they were not going to be working royals but lead private lives.  Etc.
Hopefully this is the new norm.  Westminster Abbey for the direct heir only.

Charles got married at St Paul's first time I think ??

Right but he was the heir apparent and the monarchy was in a much different place in the early 80s.  George will likely be 2nd in line when he marries (he'll be 35 when/if Charles hits 100)...so the same as William who got Westminster.  I agree that only direct heirs need London (Westminster Abbey), with children of monarch or heir getting Windsor with carriage ride, and then grandchildren who are not children of the heir getting Windsor without a carriage ride.  More remote people can do whatever but nothing (ie. security) should come from taxpayer monies.

So thinking of the next generation...George--Westminster, Charlotte and Louis--Windsor w/ carriage, Archie and siblings--Windsor without carriage, Brooksbank/Phillips/Tindall/etc--whatever as long as they pay for EVERYTHING including security.

Security is provided 24/7 for senior royals no matter where in the world they are and that would be the same at a wedding like this e.g. for Lady Gabriella's wedding there was security there as part of the security for the Queen and other senior royals who attended.

It is also decided by the local police force as they are in charge of the security ... not private companies, especially in the streets around places like Windsor. If they had to pay for the security they would end up doing one of two things ... putting senior royals at risk or having effectively two police forces in place on the day.

If Thames Valley doesn't believe that more security is needed beyond what they already do 24/7 they won't do it.

For instance Harry and Meghan need more security due to the actual threats to them. Security is judged on a person by person basis and at the moment they have almost the highest level of security in the family.

I know but there’s nothing stopping them from reimbursing the police for the cost of things outside of the operational norm...weddings, vacations, and the like.
Logged
Lady Liebe

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 568

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2861





Ignore
« Reply #29 on: May 26, 2019, 04:59:25 PM »

I think much will depend on the mood of the country, and the role and popularity the of the monarchy at the time. I don't think the rules should be written in stone, at least in this case. While I cannot say for sure about Louis, Princess Charlotte may well rank enough to have a Westminster wedding. Or she may not want one. Nonetheless, it would be great to see her arrive at the church in the same Cinderella like coach used for royal brides - I've looked but I can't fine the name for it - someone here will know, I am sure.

Diana arrived in a glass coach, and they left in a State Landau (which is the open one I think you are thinking of?). The enclosed glass coach helped keep her dress “hidden” until she emerged at the cathedral.

Diana arrived in what is the aptly named Glass Coach. Which was the one I was thinking of. They have grander enclosed ones, the Gold State Coach and the much newer Diamond Jubilee Coach too. But those are used for state occasions like the opening of Parliament. Any of them would lend a fairy tale air to any wedding.
Charlotte has personality plus already, and if they do not have another daughter she will probably be very popular. I have a feeling William may want Westminster for her too.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2019, 05:29:35 PM by Lady Liebe » Logged

Compassion without truth isn't love, it's flattery. Love not only weeps, it also speaks.   Reagan Rose
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: