The royal wedding who cares.(Maybe Meghan)(Lovers of Royal Wedding thread)

Appledreams15 · 20-05-2018 01:42AM

sunbeam wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

That is incorrect.
Princess Anne said that she chose not to give her children, Peter and Zara, Prince and Princeas titles, so that they could have a normal life.

Peter Philips said he was happy that she did this.

I believe Marks Philips may have been offered a title-I not sure exactly what-but even if he had had accepted it their kids would have been lords and ladies at best, as were Princess Margaret's children. They would not have been princes or princesses as in the UK one must be the son or daughter of a prince or King to be styled as such.

That is simply not true. The sons automatically inherit. The Queen has the honour to bestow whatever titles she wants on her daughter's children. It was reported that she offered the titles of Prince and Princess, and Anne said No, because she wanted them to have a normal life.

Peter Phillips has also said this.

_Dara_ · 20-05-2018 01:44AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not a fan of the suit style some of the Royals prefer. Perhaps it's due to protocol but rarely would Kate wear a lovely dress to a wedding. Instead it's 'mother of the bride' type of attire.

Yeah, Kate’s only 36. She should get to wear something more youthful.

Appledreams15 · 20-05-2018 01:46AM

http://people.com/royals/zara-tindall-says-she-s-lucky-she-wasnt-given-a-royal-title/

"Princess Anne famously turned down Queen Elizabeth's offer to make Zara a princess".

sunbeam · 20-05-2018 01:47AM

Actually I'm wrong, the children of a British monarch are always princes or princess regardless of the monarch's gender, but children of princesses generally are not. When Prince Charles was born George VI had to issue letters patent to allow him and any subsequent children of the then Princess Elizabeth to be styled as princes or princesses, otherwise they would not have been until Elizabeth had taken the throne.

http://www.royalhistorian.com/queen-elizabeth-decrees-that-all-of-the-duke-and-duchess-of-cambridges-children-will-be-princes-and-princesses/

_Dara_ · 20-05-2018 01:48AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

For whatever it matters I think the royal family handled the whole Meghan issue very well and seemed to treat her mother very well. I mean at the end prince Charles escorted meghans mother out of the church.

This felt a more natural wedding than prince Williams. Now maybe that was because she wasn't British and they wanted to make her feel at home. I don't know what prince Charles said to Meghan half way up but it looked like words of encouragement.

I think the fact that Harry won’t ever be King meant that they could go a bit more casual. Look at how much more fun Princess Margaret had in her lifetime than the Queen. Less responsibilities.

_Dara_ · 20-05-2018 02:00AM

Mena Mitty wrote: »

Do you know who the lady in the navy blue dress with the bell sleeves is, she appeared on screen quiet a lot as they entered the church.

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Was it actress Sarah Rafferty, Donna in Suits?

Yeah, that was Sarah Rafferty.

sunbeam · 20-05-2018 02:04AM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

http://people.com/royals/zara-tindall-says-she-s-lucky-she-wasnt-given-a-royal-title/

"Princess Anne famously turned down Queen Elizabeth's offer to make Zara a princess".

A quick Google suggests that Philips may have been offered the title of an earl. Zara and Peter would have been styled as Edwards and Sophie's children are, had he accepted, but not as a prince or princess.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f112/the-phillips-children-and-titles-15462.html

http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.ie/2016/08/a-royal-misnomer-anne-did-not-turn-down.html

http://ukroyaltitles.tumblr.com/post/14512220408/dispelling-myths-the-phillips-reality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Princess_Royal

Sile Na Gig · 20-05-2018 02:59AM

meeeeh wrote: »

I actually have very little interest in the whole thing except for the fashion. I switched off when the ceremony started.

Ah no, you missed the evangelical style preacher quoting MLK, talking about slavery, while Will tried not to piss himself laughing, Bea and Genie’s eyes popped and Zara Phillips wore an expression that looked like someone was passing a fresh turd under her nose...

I’m mainly there for the frocks and the pageantry. Wish they’d put out pics of the guests’ evening wear!

Gizmo55 · 20-05-2018 03:01AM

Missed it earlier, watching a re-run now on CNN. The preacher had the royals not knowing where to look.

RockDesk · 20-05-2018 07:12AM

ginandtonicsky wrote: »

Still think it's weird that Meghan's mother was literally her only family member there. I was totally enraptured by the ceremony but couldn't stop thinking about that.

To most people, family is an integral part of your wedding day. It's probably one of the main reasons why I would want to get married in the first place, if I ever do. To celebrate this new life with your family of all people. I'm sure Meghan was well-aware that this was a different type of wedding where the royal family would take priority, but to not have your own family there to celebrate with you? Her father for one, who seemed to play a fundamental role in raising her?

I feel like this has set a precedent where Meghan will be white-washed in the royal family and the Markles will be totally left behind and forgotten about as part of her history as she moves forward in her new life as a Duchess. Which is really sad when you think about it

Well the only person she could have invited was her father, which he was, but they couldn't delay it until he got out of hospital. And he attempted to make a deal with the press for photos!!

The press release she put out made it seem like she wasn't that close with him - "I have always cared for my father".

It's odd that she didn't invite her mother's siblings, but I don't think anyone is surprised by the fact that she didn't invite the father's side!

I hope her mother was allowed bring someone to the evening reception. Otherwise it was a day of knowing no-one except her daughter's friends who were their with their own families.

metaoblivia · 20-05-2018 07:20AM

I didn't watch the ceremony live but did check out pictures later.
I wasn't a fan of the wedding dress. I wasn't expecting extravagant because that's not what royals do, but I was hoping for something along the lines of Kate's dress - elegant with a touch of glamour. Meghan's dress was just too plain for my tastes. I also felt that it wasn't tailored quite right. I did love her veil and all the detail in it, and the tiara was gorgeous. And perhaps those were meant to be the focal point, which could explain the plainness of the dress.
Her second dress was amazing and much more flattering.
I enjoyed all of the hats. I thought the Spencer women (Kitty and Karen) looked phenomenal as did Amal Clooney. And the Queen looked great in her signature stand out colors. Kate looked wonderful, especially for someone who gave birth a month ago.

sillysocks · 20-05-2018 07:37AM

RockDesk wrote: »

Well the only person she could have invited was her father, which he was, but they couldn't delay it until he got out of hospital. And he attempted to make a deal with the press for photos!!

The press release she put out made it seem like she wasn't that close with him - "I have always cared for my father".

It's odd that she didn't invite her mother's siblings, but I don't think anyone is surprised by the fact that she didn't invite the father's side!

I hope her mother was allowed bring someone to the evening reception. Otherwise it was a day of knowing no-one except her daughter's friends who were their with their own families.

I think everyone felt sorry for her mum. Meghan choose this royal life and knew what a wedding would be like etc, but her family have been thrust into it.
Does anyone know why she wasn’t sitting in the front row behind her?

_Dara_ · 20-05-2018 07:52AM

metaoblivia wrote: »

I didn't watch the ceremony live but did check out pictures later.
I wasn't a fan of the wedding dress. I wasn't expecting extravagant because that's not what royals do, but I was hoping for something along the lines of Kate's dress - elegant with a touch of glamour. Meghan's dress was just too plain for my tastes. I also felt that it wasn't tailored quite right. I did love her veil and all the detail in it, and the tiara was gorgeous. And perhaps those were meant to be the focal point, which could explain the plainness of the dress.
Her second dress was amazing and much more flattering.
I enjoyed all of the hats. I thought the Spencer women (Kitty and Karen) looked phenomenal as did Amal Clooney. And the Queen looked great in her signature stand out colors. Kate looked wonderful, especially for someone who gave birth a month ago.

I didn’t like Kate’s wedding dress. Far too fusty and quite dull. Like pretty much everything Kate wears. But then I don’t like lace really and Kate’s dress was lousy with the stuff so I was always going to struggle to like it.

I loved the clean lines and simple elegance of Meghan’s dress and the very elegant tiara and the veil give it the required oomph. I thought it was bold to go so simple. I usually don’t like tiaras - too childish and princessy - but that one managed to be simultaneously blingin’ and understated. Her evening dress was nicer again but that was very much an evening soirée outfit.

The varying views on Meghan’s dress just go to show that you really can’t please everyone so you should just please yourself (within the rules of appropriateness).

Amal did indeed look amazing. My favourite hat was the mother-of-the-bride’s. So chic and not too ridiculous or fussy.

LirW · 20-05-2018 08:37AM

It'll probably only take a few days from now and the first knock-offs of Meghan's dresses can be found online. The royal dresses are a huge fashion craze after all.
Honestly, after seeing Meghan yesterday, she played it so well with her first dress, she doesn't strike me as the person that would fit into lace (yes, it doesn't fit everyone and so many people nowadays still wear it).
It's quite ridiculous though, on some wedding pages across the board are big hate threads where the fashion police thinks that their opinion matters. You either like simple dresses or you don't, many Irish Now-brides live for the big drama and naturally can't find anything nice to say about a royal bride not going full on ball-gown with sparkles.

To the one saying that Meghan's family wasn't there: I think that her father had the last minute heart surgery was a huge downer. But it seems that he wanted that she's going ahead anyway, what choice do you have at the last second really? I wouldn't be too surprised if she's travelling out in the following days to see him.
And then there's her sister that made a complete show of herself, there's always this one dreaded family member that you don't want to invite, in Meghan's case it's the sister who has really absolutely nothing nice to say. Seems like a bit of a tool.

And yeah, girl crush on Amal absolutely confirmed, that lady is stunning, jesus.

Mrsmum · 20-05-2018 08:52AM

Think Meghan's overall look was beautiful, elegant, classy but the dress was undoubtedly pared back to the point of maybe boring. The veil and tiara were stunning and saved the day.

I am getting a feeling that a lot of women were underwhelmed and won't be copying Meghan's choice of dress. I think that might be because while Meghan has endless opportunities to wear fab gunas, jewels etc so it's all very well for her to go simple, for most mortal women their wedding day is among few enough occasions where they are Cinderella going to the ball so they want a few more sparkles for their own choice.

Regarding Kate's wedding dress, I though she looked very regal on her own big day which of course suits her role.

Mena Mitty · 20-05-2018 08:58AM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Was it actress Sarah Rafferty, Donna in Suits?

Thanks I just googled the name you gave me and up she came in the dress. I've not seen Suits....yet.

appledrop · 20-05-2018 09:03AM

Her second dress was amazing. It was the cut that made the difference and neck line. It actually made me dislike her wedding dress even more. Those long sleeves were awful + dress didn't fit her properly.

iamwhoiam · 20-05-2018 09:06AM

Was I the only one who only realised yesterday that Windsor Castle was not in London ?

Its in of all places Windsor !!!

Addle · 20-05-2018 09:14AM

In fairness, I don't think a lot of women could carry off Megan's dress.

The (apparent) lack of her family there does seem strange. Her mother only arrived in England on Wednesday/Thursday? You'd think she'd be around a bit more. Like the Middletons.

Fergie is divorced from Andrew and so the family. So I found it odd that she was there.

Also, I thought it was telling that Earl Spencer's children were with their mother, and not him.

I loved the romance and the fashion.
I think it was a missed opportunity for a supposed feminist to shake up the traditional wedding routine.

elperello · 20-05-2018 09:35AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Was I the only one who only realised yesterday that Windsor Castle was not in London ?

Its in of all places Windsor !!!

And Windsor is in Royal Berkshire which is handy for a Royal Wedding

dxhound2005 · 20-05-2018 09:41AM

It's just a pity that they built it so close to Heathrow Airport.

RockDesk · 20-05-2018 09:47AM

One of my favourite bits was the reaction of the boy who was holding her train when he heard the fanfare as they were about to walk in. He was adorable!

AudreyHepburn · 20-05-2018 09:53AM

It was a beautiful wedding and Meghan looked stunning - simple, understated but so elegant.

And Harry’s reaction on seeing her - so sweet.

Diana would be so proud of both her sons.

_Dara_ · 20-05-2018 10:13AM

Addle wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think a lot of women could carry off Megan's dress.

The (apparent) lack of her family there does seem strange. Her mother only arrived in England on Wednesday/Thursday? You'd think she'd be around a bit more. Like the Middletons.

Fergie is divorced from Andrew and so the family. So I found it odd that she was there.

Also, I thought it was telling that Earl Spencer's children were with their mother, and not him.

I loved the romance and the fashion.
I think it was a missed opportunity for a supposed feminist to shake up the traditional wedding routine.

I think it was pretty shaken up with the elements of African-American culture. I mean, there’s not a whole lot more you can do to make the vows more equal. The word ‘obey’ has been jettisoned and now the vows tend to mirror each other.

Mrsmum · 20-05-2018 10:18AM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It was a beautiful wedding and Meghan looked stunning - simple, understated but so elegant.

And Harry’s reaction on seeing her - so sweet.

Diana would be so proud of both her sons.

Harry was the most besotted groom I think I have ever seen. He is just in total awe of her.

Regarding Diana, this might seem like a terrible thing to say but I think life for William and Harry and maybe especially for their wives is less complicated with Diana not being around. She can remain on a pedestal whereas if she was around and eliciting stories in the press etc things would likely be far messier imho. As they say everyone is a saint in a graveyard. Even yesterday would not be as nice with tensions between Diana (maybe new husband) and the rest of the Royal family. When your dearest and dearest have to be together in a small space yet can't stand each other/ are avoiding each other, it's stressful for all concerned.

20-05-2018 10:21AM

I thought Meghan looked stunning and the dress was so beautiful in it's simplicity. I'm a big of lace though. Pippa Middleton's dress is one of my favourites.

zell12 · 20-05-2018 10:28AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It's just a pity that they built it so close to Heathrow Airport.

Exactly how on earth did they get planning permission (LHR I mean)

Addle · 20-05-2018 10:33AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

I think it was pretty shaken up with the elements of African-American culture. I mean, there’s not a whole lot more you can do to make the vows more equal. The word ‘obey’ has been jettisoned and now the vows tend to mirror each other.

I just think it was a pity that she was presented to him, and had to be given away.

20-05-2018 10:36AM

Addle wrote: »

I just think it was a pity that she was presented to him, and had to be given away.

Ah jaysus

It's a very old tradition and no matter how modern the new Royals seem to be they are suckers for tradition. Sometimes there are things which don't need altering.

zell12 · 20-05-2018 10:38AM

https://twitter.com/rosiebeard/status/997801860382822400

The royal wedding who cares.(Maybe Meghan)(Lovers of Royal Wedding thread)

Comments