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

jojofizzio · 12-05-2018 8:07pm

sunbeam wrote: »

The rules were changed with the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act, which also stipulates that a younger brother can no longer outrank older sister in the order of succession. Now marrying a Catholic won't you make you lose your place or prevent you from becoming monarch. However, if you convert to Catholicism you cannot be monarch as the monarch is also symbolically head of the Church of England.

Didn’t know that...thanks for that update....so the monarch’s spouse can now be a Catholic ?

sunbeam · 12-05-2018 8:13pm

Yes they can. I don't think Meghan was a Catholic but there was no need for her to convert at all.

12-05-2018 8:23pm

splinter65 wrote: »

No. Aoife and Conor’s wedding in Portumna at 1.30 next Saturday featuring all the horrible bits of a modern Irish wedding is strangely of little interest to people compared to a beautiful Hollywood actress marrying a member of one of the most famous families in history in a fabulous church with fabulous guests and horse drawn carriages and a completely over the top display of pageantry pomp and circumstances.
I have no idea why.

Just Irish weddings? I'm sure most weddings in whatever country are a little less lavish than the 'Royal' shenanigans next weekend.

splinter65 · 12-05-2018 8:29pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just Irish weddings? I'm sure most weddings in whatever country are a little less lavish than the 'Royal' shenanigans next weekend.

The poster I was replying to wondered if there were no Irish weddings that day that we could watch on the Telly for 6 hours.

12-05-2018 9:38pm

splinter65 wrote: »

The poster I was replying to wondered if there were no Irish weddings that day that we could watch on the Telly for 6 hours.

That was me.

Jesus, watching ANY wedding for 6 hours on d telly would be as boring as f**k no?

jojofizzio · 12-05-2018 9:42pm

sunbeam wrote: »

Yes they can. I don't think Meghan was a Catholic but there was no need for her to convert at all.

Think she had to be baptized into the church of England, just so, I suppose to decrease the complexity of the whole thing for the ceremony (or some such)

demanufactured · 12-05-2018 9:43pm

Mutant z wrote: »

I have seen lots of ads about the upcoming royal wedding of Harry and Meghan and i really couldn't care less i dont know why so many Irish people have such a fascination with the British royal family. People get married all the time i dont see this one as being any different just because it happens to involves royals who cares they are just people like everyone else at the end of the day but all i hear is never ending fawning over it. I didnt watch William and Kates wedding and i sure as hell wont be watching this one either because i have far better things to be doing.

What?

sunbeam · 12-05-2018 10:08pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That was me.

Jesus, watching ANY wedding for 6 hours on d telly would be as boring as f**k no?

There's eight and a half hours of the last Swedish one up on Youtube if anyone feels like they are up to the challenge...

sunbeam · 12-05-2018 10:14pm

jojofizzio wrote: »

Think she had to be baptized into the church of England, just so, I suppose to decrease the complexity of the whole thing for the ceremony (or some such)

Yeah, I suppose it just makes things more convenient. Similarly, I think you have to be Lutheran to be the monarch in Sweden, but there's no bar on marrying other religions. When Chris O'Neill (catholic) married Princess Madeleine in 2013 he wasn't required to convert. They even had half the ceremony in English for him as he didn't speak Swedish. Their kids are all baptised into the Church of Sweden.

Mrsmum · 12-05-2018 10:31pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the two brothers each got the right wife for their position and a swap wouldn't work as well. Kate is an out and out lady which is just as well because as the future King's wife and future king's mother she has to behave as becoming to the role. Observing decorum at all times in dress and manner. Meghan is way down the pecking order, never going to get near the throne, so much more free to express herself style wise which probably suits her celebrity personality and life experience. She will get away with being a bit more racy. All the same her mini skirt, lots of flesh on show days are over.

Actually when William becomes King, does Kate become queen or just king's wife ?

bizidea · 12-05-2018 10:37pm

Couldn't give a rats ass and sick of hearing about it dont understand why anyone gives a s**t

sunbeam · 12-05-2018 11:36pm

Kate will be Queen Catherine-a queen consort just like the Queen Mother was. When Charles becomes King William will most likely be bumped up to Princes of Wales and Kate will become the HRH Catherine, The Princess of Wales.

When Charles becomes King there is also the possibility that Camilla will become Queen Consort, although they have in the past maintained that she would be Princess Consort. She is now technically the Princess of Wales, but has never been styled as such for PR reasons-Diana fans would never have accepted it.

If Kate does get bumped up to Princess of Wales, the title of Duchess of Cornwall will also technically be hers, so they will have to find another one for Camilla. If she isn't made Queen Charles could always just issues letters patent and make her a Princess of The United Kingdom like the Queen did with Prince Philip.

Philip was never made King as traditionally a King was seen to outrank a Queen and there have been very few King Consorts. In Denmark, Prince Henrik, who was in a similar position to Philip, always argued that he should have been made King. Last year he announced that as he had not, he did not wish to be buried with the Queen. The palace attempted to explain this away by announcing he was suffering from dementia, but when he died earlier this year, they honoured his wishes.

Carry · 13-05-2018 12:02am

sunbeam wrote: »

Kate will be Queen Catherine-a queen consort just like the Queen Mother was. When Charles becomes King William will most likely be bumped up to Princes of Wales and Kate will become the HRH Catherine, The Princess of Wales.

When Charles becomes King there is also the possibility that Camilla will become Queen Consort, although they have in the past maintained that she would be Princess Consort. She is now technically the Princess of Wales, but has never been styled as such for PR reasons-Diana fans would never have accepted it.

If Kate does get bumped up to Princess of Wales, the title of Duchess of Cornwall will also technically be hers, so they will have to find another one for Camilla. If she isn't made Queen Charles could always just issues letters patent and make her a Princess of The United Kingdom like the Queen did with Prince Philip.

Philip was never made King as traditionally a King was seen to outrank a Queen and there have been very few King Consorts. In Denmark, Prince Henrik, who was in a similar position to Philip, always argued that he should have been made King. Last year he announced that as he had not, he did not wish to be buried with the Queen. The palace attempted to explain this away by announcing he was suffering from dementia, but when he died earlier this year, they honoured his wishes.

Wow, I'm dumbfounded by your knowledge about royal stuff. :eek:
Really, I am. I didn't even get that much knowledge by reading the glossies at the hairdesser's!
I love history, but the protocol of royalty is just that for me, history. I pity all the people that are imprisoned by all that stuff.

And no, I don't care much about that wedding, but you can't avoid it at all, reading the papers or news websites. Won't watch it, it's a Saturday and I have a life.

Purple Mountain · 13-05-2018 12:09am

sunbeam wrote: »

Kate will be Queen Catherine-a queen consort just like the Queen Mother was. When Charles becomes King William will most likely be bumped up to Princes of Wales and Kate will become the HRH Catherine, The Princess of Wales.

When Charles becomes King there is also the possibility that Camilla will become Queen Consort, although they have in the past maintained that she would be Princess Consort. She is now technically the Princess of Wales, but has never been styled as such for PR reasons-Diana fans would never have accepted it.

If Kate does get bumped up to Princess of Wales, the title of Duchess of Cornwall will also technically be hers, so they will have to find another one for Camilla. If she isn't made Queen Charles could always just issues letters patent and make her a Princess of The United Kingdom like the Queen did with Prince Philip.

Philip was never made King as traditionally a King was seen to outrank a Queen and there have been very few King Consorts. In Denmark, Prince Henrik, who was in a similar position to Philip, always argued that he should have been made King. Last year he announced that as he had not, he did not wish to be buried with the Queen. The palace attempted to explain this away by announcing he was suffering from dementia, but when he died earlier this year, they honoured his wishes.

Would you mind explaining the heir order please Sunbeam?
Why is it Charles Wills George Charlotte Louis Harry?

Would it not go..Charles then his three siblings then Wills Harry then siblings children then the grandchildren?

I just get confused about how Wills 3 children get consecutive placing.

prinzeugen · 13-05-2018 12:21am

Purple Mountain wrote: »

Would you mind explaining the heir order please Sunbeam?
Why is it Charles Wills George Charlotte Louis Harry?

Would it not go..Charles then his three siblings then Wills Harry then siblings children then the grandchildren?

I just get confused about how Wills 3 children get consecutive placing.

It moves onto the next generation unless the dead/abdicated monarch is childless in which case the brother/sister takes over.

For example, if Edward the 8th had a child, it would have become monarch when he abdicated.

As he was childless, his brother became king.

Neyite · 13-05-2018 12:34am

Purple Mountain wrote: »

Would you mind explaining the heir order please Sunbeam?
Why is it Charles Wills George Charlotte Louis Harry?

Would it not go..Charles then his three siblings then Wills Harry then siblings children then the grandchildren?

I just get confused about how Wills 3 children get consecutive placing.

It goes to the eldest heir initally, so that was Charles, then to his eldest, then the next eldest of his sons. So prior to the spogs it was:

Charles, Andrew Edward and Anne. (Anne was last as princes superseded princesses)

Then with the kids, it was Charles, Wills, Harry, Andrew, Edward...

When the grandkids arrived it pushed out the line a bit more - Charles's direct heir is William so in turn Williams direct heir was his kids in order of birth as shortly before the second one - a girl- was born the queen changed the act of succession that bumped a boy up the line over his sister. If Queenie didnt do this the line would be Charles, Wills, George, Louis and Charlotte, but now it's Charles, Wills, George, Charlotte & Louis.

After the three kids it's Harry next and the third kid just born has pushed Andrew and Edward totally out of the running to the point that Andrew no longer needs the queens permission to marry.

It's interesting that Queen wasn't even reared for the role - she was just a niece of the king at the time, but he wanted to marry a twice divorced American socialite and didn't want the responsibility of being King. So abdicated and the role landed to his brother Bertie who was never considered king material but turned out to be a pretty well loved one by the end. So had David not had his head turned by Wallis back in the day, people would be struggling to remember these one's names.

sunbeam · 13-05-2018 1:13am

As far I recall when Edward VIII abdicated, he gave up the right of any of his descendents to rise to the throne. I'm not 100 percent certain about this, but have heard speculation that if Charles decided to pass on being King, that might wipe the rest of his line out and the throne would go to Andrew. In practice, I'm sure they would find some way to give it to William, probably involving an act of parliament, especially if Charles had been King for a while and decided to 'retire'.

When Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands retired/abdicated in 2013 the throne went to her son and she went back to being Princess Beatrix. When King Juan Carlos of Spain retired/abdicated in favour of his son in 2014 he retained the courtesy title of King.

I can't see Charles retiring though-he has waited far too long for the throne and is now the oldest Prince of Wales in history.

sunbeam · 13-05-2018 1:50am

Even if Wallis had become Queen the throne would have gone to Elizabeth anyway as she and Edward had no children.

One of the biggest shakeups in the line to the throne came with the death of 21 year old Princess Charlotte of Wales in childbirth in 1817. She was second in line to the throne after her father and though her uncles had plenty of 'illegitimate' offspring there was no other legitimate heir to the crown after her. Her death prompted a race among her uncles to create one and this ultimately led to the birth of her cousin who became Queen Victoria.

Charlotte's tragic death changed the way that labour was managed by the medical profession, which began to take a far more interventionist approach in its management following the tragedy. She was hugely popular with the public and the outpouring of public grief following her death has been likened to that which followed the death of Princess Diana.

Charlotte was considered an unlucky name with the royal family because of her death and that of Princess Charlotte of Clarence who only lived a day after birth in 1819. Hence it has taken almost 200 years for it to be used again as a first name for a British princess.

prinzeugen · 13-05-2018 2:16am

sunbeam wrote: »

As far I recall when Edward VIII abdicated, he gave up the right of any of his descendents to rise to the throne. I'm not 100 percent certain about this, but have heard speculation that if Charles decided to pass on being King, that might wipe the rest of his line out and the throne would go to Andrew. In practice, I'm sure they would find some way to give it to William, probably involving more letters patent and/or an act of parliament, especially if Charles had been King for a while and decided to 'retire'.

When Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands retired/abdicated in 2013 the throne went to her son and she went back to being Princess Beatrix. When King Juan Carlos of Spain retired/abdicated in favour of his son in 2014 he retained the courtesy title of King.

I can't see Charles retiring though-he has waited far too long for the throne and is now the oldest Prince of Wales in history.

If Charles steps aside it will still pass to William. Once a child is born the line continues onto the next generation.

For example, if Prince George dies young, Charlotte will become Queen unless George had a child before his death.

A British king or queen "retiring" will never happen in our lifetime. Its just not British.

Outlaw Pete · 13-05-2018 5:58am

Morto for her old man.............

He's been caught colluding with the paps to fix the two recent pic scoops of him this past week or so. One set of photos was where he'd been photographed getting measured up for a weeding suit and the other was where he had apparently been looking at pics of the happy couple on a PC in an Internet Cafe.

If he does still end up coming to the wedding, they'd want to be sure and check his dickie bow for the latest GoPro.

...

Mrcaramelchoc · 13-05-2018 6:17am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Morto for her old man.............

He's been caught colluding with the paps to fix the two recent pic scoops of him this past week or so. One set of photos was where he'd been photographed getting measured up for a weeding suit and the other was where he had apparently been looking at pics of the happy couple on a PC in an Internet Cafe.

If he does still end up coming to the wedding, they'd want to be sure and check his dickie bow for the latest GoPro.

...

Ffs here was i thinking ah jaysus can't they(the paps) just leave the guy alone.

....... · 14-05-2018 9:15am

This post has been deleted.

jimgoose · 14-05-2018 9:34am

Because a lot of people here, men and women, are interested in the Royals over the road because they're unusual and entertaining in a way, and the spectacle and razzmatazz surrounding an event like this is something that doesn't roll around very often and doesn't do any great harm. If it bothers you that much, just ignore it. Live long, and prosper.

Danny Donut · 16-05-2018 11:06am

As Jim said this will be razzamataz at its best. It is history in the making.

Love it or hate it - but ffs RTE's story just after Kim Jong-un threatening to throw his toys out again, and blow the world to buggeration, is what Gary Linaker thinks about England and the World Cup. Why is this even a story here - or in England for that matter.

blairbear · 17-05-2018 2:37am

Does anyone know of anywhere in Dublin that's showing it on Saturday? There's a 75e event in the Conrad that I wouldn't pay for, and a viewing in the Whale Theatre in Greystones that's sold out, so outside of those? Any pub? Thought somewhere like Pantibar might show it but very little info online.

WoollyRedHat · 17-05-2018 10:16am

Anyone else think this whole relationship is actually an elaborate and conceptual cinematic piece that is Andy Warhol- like in nature being played out by aspiring actor Harry & former Suits star Meghan Markle, to bend the contours of reality and produce a piece to rival The Crown and The Kardashians, ? It would send the Tabloid's into a tizzy!

bnt · 17-05-2018 10:28am

After all the pomp and ceremony, it's just a marriage. They'll wake up in the morning, put their knickers on one leg at a time, and go to work. Will the marriage survive the pressure of being in the public eye? I'm actually positive about this one, since both of them have been in the public eye to varying degrees for years, so it's not the sudden shock it was for Diana. They'll need a roibust sense of humour to make it, but I think both of them have that.

Peatys · 17-05-2018 10:54am

blairbear wrote: »

Does anyone know of anywhere in Dublin that's showing it on Saturday? There's a 75e event in the Conrad that I wouldn't pay for, and a viewing in the Whale Theatre in Greystones that's sold out, so outside of those? Any pub? Thought somewhere like Pantibar might show it but very little info online.

My wife tells me it'll be on in our sitting room, but you're not invited.

....... · 17-05-2018 11:35am

This post has been deleted.

jimgoose · 17-05-2018 11:36am

Peatys wrote: »

My wife tells me it'll be on in our sitting room, but you're not invited.

What channels are showing the thing, anyway?

SEPT 23 1989 · 17-05-2018 11:39am

blairbear wrote: »

Does anyone know of anywhere in Dublin that's showing it on Saturday? There's a 75e event in the Conrad that I wouldn't pay for, and a viewing in the Whale Theatre in Greystones that's sold out, so outside of those? Any pub? Thought somewhere like Pantibar might show it but very little info online.

I think they are putting up a big screen in the Royal Dublin Society in D4

bnt · 17-05-2018 11:50am

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Won't what - work? Oh, they'll have work, all right - not in an office or a factory, and not 9-5, but these minor Royals can have quite a lot going on. Appearances, charity work, being patrons of organisations, and more. I doubt they work anything like as hard as you or I, but the idea that they just loaf around all day is nonsense. Have a look here for example.

....... · 17-05-2018 12:00pm

This post has been deleted.

Hector Bellend · 17-05-2018 12:07pm

Meghan Markle is a cutie.

I'd finger her.

Peatys · 17-05-2018 12:09pm

jimgoose wrote: »

What channels are showing the thing, anyway?

The telly has been booked from 9am. It's on BBC1.
I've to bring light refershments at 11.45. Then fuck off as the main event begins at 12 as she "doesnt want to listen to your running commentary"

meeeeh · 17-05-2018 12:54pm

....... wrote: »

Oh I dont disagree that they "go" to things.

But its hardly work in the traditional sense of the word.

Would I prefer the drudgery of my 9-5 or to get escorted to loads of social engagements where everyone licks my arse and I am in new outfits looking wonderful all the time? Which to choose....

Id never be able for it. I would eat every bit of food they offered and turn into Jabba the Hut within 6 months. Theyd have to roll me into events.

I don't know about younger royals but I would never want to do what queen is doing. Even at 90 she is doing her duty, parading around, shaking hands with people she doesn't necessarily like, talking to people she doesn't know, making boring speeches regardless how she feels.

I think sometimes people place too much value on nice dresses and parties, life is about so much more. One of the biggest joys is to be able to say I am not doing that today or ever. She doesn't have that choice.

I am anything but royalist but I also don't crave the life they live in the constant glare of media. Even this wedding, everyone has some embarrassing or annoying relatives. If you are getting married you either don't invite them or hope the won't cause a scene. Here their whole past is scrutinised, stories are sold to media and there is constant dread of what next.

....... · 17-05-2018 2:37pm

This post has been deleted.

ginandtonicsky · 17-05-2018 3:43pm

Yeah but you get to be a rich-ass mofo married to Prince Harry with no money worries or day-job stresses and a fabulous wardrobe for the rest of your days.

I still reckon Markle is a social climber and will be CHA-CHING!ing her way up that aisle on Saturday. Even moreso now that her family has revealed themselves to be as crazy and classless as they actually are.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 17-05-2018 3:47pm

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Meghan Markle is a cutie.

I'd finger her.

Why do posts like this always make me picture a sad man living in his mam's spare room with a pile of magazines hidden under the bed.

jimgoose · 17-05-2018 3:50pm

ginandtonicsky wrote: »

...her family has revealed themselves to be as crazy and classless as they actually are.

They might be crazy, but apparently her father claims among his ancestors Robert the Bruce and Edward "Longshanks" Plantagenet.

ceadaoin. · 17-05-2018 3:53pm

I feel bad for her. Her family are a nightmare, must be humiliating for her for them to be acting like this so publicly. She's being judged by the public and im sure the wider royal family too. I'd be interested to hear her side of it but obviously we probably never will.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 17-05-2018 3:55pm

Yes I feel bad for her as well. This has thrown a huge shadow over what should be an exciting occasion for her.

EdgeCase · 17-05-2018 3:58pm

I find the whole concept of royals and monarchies and all this pomp ridiculous but, she seems like a very nice and rather down-to-earth woman and I find all this digging up stuff about her father a bit ridiculous.

Typical British tabloid asshattery. All they want to do is dig scandals about royals while the country is going down the toilet, largely thanks to the same media outlets' jingoistic campaigns over the years. A bit of real journalism wouldn't be a bad thing!

I would suspect most of the UK's population couldn't in reality give a damn and just want to see a state funded pretty fairy tale wedding.

....... · 17-05-2018 4:01pm

This post has been deleted.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 17-05-2018 4:01pm

i usually wouldn't care either way.
but this is fast descending into a soap opera, and there is something compulsive about watching people make fools of themselves and washing their dirty lingerie before the whole world.
it promises to be great amusement for all, and i for one cannot wait for the fisticuffs to kickoff at the reception.
my moneys on Charlie to land a hay maker on Andy, and Camilla to stick her stiletto in once he's floored.

EdgeCase · 17-05-2018 4:04pm

It's not like the Royals are some kind of model of perfect family serenity and scandal free history. The soap opera is a big part of what keeps the public interest and keeps them relevant.

If they were boring, people would have cancelled that reality TV show years ago.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 17-05-2018 4:11pm

Peatys wrote: »

The telly has been booked from 9am. It's on BBC1.
I've to bring light refershments at 11.45. Then fuck off as the main event begins at 12 as she "doesnt want to listen to your running commentary"

RTE will have live coverage also.

Tell them to watch on that so they don't hog the sky box.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 17-05-2018 4:14pm

i'll give it 3 years max.

Megs to quote the pressure of her career, travel etc.
Harry to blame the media for creating "a Dianaesque pressure-cooker environment".

DEFTLEFTHAND · 17-05-2018 4:15pm

IDK, there's a whiff of trailer trash off this lot.

I wonder what the Queen thinks of them.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 17-05-2018 4:16pm

Never realised how old Markle actually is.

Could pass for late 20s.

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

Comments