sunbeam wrote: » 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.htmlhttp://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.ie/2016/08/a-royal-misnomer-anne-did-not-turn-down.htmlhttp://ukroyaltitles.tumblr.com/post/14512220408/dispelling-myths-the-phillips-realityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Princess_Royal
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".
Addle wrote: » I just think it was a pity that she was presented to him, and had to be given away.
RockDesk wrote: » 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!
Mrsmum wrote: » Think of it more like her being escorted to where he is and has being waiting for her.
Addle wrote: » No. That's a cop out. Why can't bride/groom, groom/groom and bride/bride be equals and enter a ceremony together. I know they do sometimes. It's just a trend that they don't. She couldn't promoted her feminist beliefs and they could've jointly entered the ceremony.
iamwhoiam wrote: » Maybe it only in your head that a bride and groom don't feel equal simply because they go with a bit of tradition . Sure its only a tradition and not a written signed document that says they are not equal .Just sit back and enjoy it and don't read too much into such things .
Oasis1974 wrote: » You wonder if behind closed doors the monarchy are reeling at the mixed race marriage. Even 20/30 years ago they'd be on the ground laughing at the thought of it. On the face of it the marriage modernized the Royal Family in the eyes of the world. I'm guessing the Queen Mum is turning in the grave? Liquorice Allsorts anyone?
Hector Bellend wrote: » I'd say Harry is piledriving her into the mattress as we speak
timthumbni wrote: » You should write for Mills and Boon.....
zell12 wrote: » I've never seen a black-ginger bebé
Mrsmum wrote: » 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.
Neyite wrote: I'd say most of them don't care. Harry is far enough down the line of succession now that it really doesn't matter who he marries. One more kid popped out by Kate and Harry won't need the queen's permission to divorce or (re)marry.
Appledreams15 wrote: » Edward and Sophie said that they requested that their children not be prince and princess also, so that they would have less scrutiny[/QUOTE Yes, as I said above that's the main reason why they requested only the lesser titles of earl and countess at marriage, so that their children would be styled as the son and daughter of an earl.
iamwhoiam wrote: » Was I the only one who only realised yesterday that Windsor Castle was not in London ? Its in of all places Windsor !!!
mcgiggles wrote: » Since the birth of Louis he's 6th in line so he'd no longer have had to ask her permission to marry, is it the same for divorce/remarriage? Or is one more baby required for that? Lol
Strazdas wrote: » It's nowhere near London! Windsor is a good 100 miles away and it's only a smallish town......you could tell as the procession wound through the streets yesterday that it's not that big, about the same size as Kilkenny or somewhere.
Mint Sauce wrote: » Bit off topic, but its not even an hours drive from the centre of London, its no way near 100miles. Just beyond the M25, and right under the Heathrow flight path depending on the approach. But you are correct about it being a small town.
Neyite wrote: » The law changed in 2013 that only the six in line to the throne need permission, so he still needed permission. Another baby from Kate would make him 7th in line so he wouldn't need permission to marry or divorce from her Maj. However the birth of Louis bumped Andrew off the list of those needing royal permission. The papers made some pointed articles about that because he gets on extremely well with his ex wife and they unofficially live together so it's been speculated that Andrew and her might remarry if allowed. Since their divorce neither have been linked with any other significant other.
Strazdas wrote: » Is it that near? I've always associated it with the royals and with the racecourse where they hold lots of evening meetings in the summer.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/284f2526e18ff7e4c08066f9ed850ed0.svg)
