Charles & Queen pay for wedding...guess Kate's parents got lucky!

[LOVETHATMOUSE]

I love the royals too! When I was a senior in high school our chorus went to London for Easter vacation to tour and sing. It was Di and Charles madness since they were preparing for the wedding that summer. Of course I was the true romantic and got swept up into the whole thing. My dd is now 15 - a few years younger than me for "my" royal wedding. I stayed up with my mom to watch Di and Charles, and my dd and I watched Di's funeral Now we have a happy occasion again and my dm, myself and my dd will stay up to watch William and Kate. I really want to go to London this time around again, but no $$ to do so.

 

[walden]

So you see all of this going away some day?

Not any time soon!

:

I don't know, it seems they get thanks and get some joy from it. People do certainly admire them (perhaps those people aren't the most vocal, but they exist) and CARE about them. Heck, my ancestry is mainly Irish so I sometimes have NO clue what on earth I'm thinking, caring about British royalty, and yet...every time I think of them marrying, I get all teary-eyed (including right now).

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I do actually care about them and pity them, as people. I find it hard to see what many of them have done as individuals to make themselves admirable, or worthy of my admiration. They are just people. Rich people who are groomed from birth to cut ribbons, open buildings, get given posies and live their lives in the public eye. I pity their lack of choice.

It's not about "caring", it's simply fun. Why must we think about the recession, naked body scanners and murder even second of every day?

Every once in a while it is absolutely lovely to here about a famous individual that seems actually happy. Instead of Charlie sheen beating his wife and Lindsey lohan failing another drug test.

I sincerely wish Willliam and Kate all happiness. I suspect that he has hung in there and insisted on marrying Kate, even though her social background was not exactly approved by the "firm" for a long time. Good for him.

However, please adjust all rose-tinted glasses when it comes to the Royals. They are only human. The Queen's own marriage was supposedly not a bed of roses. Of her four children, three of their marriages have ended in very public and unpleasant divorce. Some of that may be atttributed to the public scrutiny. I wish the younger royals better fortune.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Regardless of Williams station, foreign dignataries will be all in one place at one time. Speculation was that the Obamas would be invited, but even if Hillary went instead, it isn't Jane, average citizen.

Actually, heads of state probably will not be invited this time around, unless they are family members (such as Albert of Monaco, for example).
This is because as William is not the heir apparent yet, this does not qualify as a State Wedding. (Charles was already the Prince of Wales when he married, so he was heir apparent. William is only the heir presumptive at this time. Heirs presumptive do not rate state weddings.) The American representative in attendance will probably be either the Ambassador or Secretary Clinton; maybe the Bidens.

I suspect that most Americans (and probably a fair number of Britons, too) don't realize that there are two levels of wedding type, and will be expecting the same level of pomp that they saw in 1982. If you remember the wedding of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, or Princess Anne and Mark Phillips in 1973, that is what you should be expecting this time around.

 

[mickaholic4077]

Not quite. The Queen is only a constitutional Monarch, so getting her "permission" is more of an etiquette and political question. I don't think the Queen's actual opinion means much -- Parliament's matters more. The Queen would have to "approve" the marriage if the PM told her to approve it.

William and Kate could, technically, completely ignore this archaic requirement and pop off to the nearest registry office, marry quite legally and have legitimate children -- as commoners. It would certainly cause problems with the Act of Succession if William and Kate had a civil marriage. As things stand, it would be labeled a morganic marriage. Attempts have been made to revise the Act for years. Technically, as the Act stands today, without revision since 1702, William and Kate would merely jeopardise the possibility of their potential children inheriting the throne. It would not make their civil marriage invalid or their children actually illegitimate.

I don't know. I pity the Royals who by birth are a tourist attraction. Granted, they are a wealthy and privileged tourist attraction, but their choices are so limited from birth. And by that I mean: in careers, choice of spouse, and desire for privacy (if any).

Part of me wants to see more of the younger royals kick over the traces and say that they don't want any claim to the throne or attendant publicity! It must be a thankless job to be a Royal.

That's morganatic.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Not quite. The Queen is only a constitutional Monarch, so getting her "permission" is more of an etiquette and political question. I don't think the Queen's actual opinion means much -- Parliament's matters more. The Queen would have to "approve" the marriage if the PM told her to approve it.

William and Kate could, technically, completely ignore this archaic requirement and pop off to the nearest registry office, marry quite legally and have legitimate children -- as commoners. It would certainly cause problems with the Act of Succession if William and Kate had a civil marriage. As things stand, it would be labeled a morganic marriage. Attempts have been made to revise the Act for years. Technically, as the Act stands today, without revision since 1702, William and Kate would merely jeopardise the possibility of their potential children inheriting the throne. It would not make their civil marriage invalid or their children actually illegitimate.

I don't know. I pity the Royals who by birth are a tourist attraction. Granted, they are a wealthy and privileged tourist attraction, but their choices are so limited from birth. And by that I mean: in careers, choice of spouse, and desire for privacy (if any).

Part of me wants to see more of the younger royals kick over the traces and say that they don't want any claim to the throne or attendant publicity! It must be a thankless job to be a Royal.

NOt true

The Act said that no descendant of George II, male or female, other than the issue of princesses who had married or might thereafter marry "into foreign families", could marry without the consent of the reigning monarch, "signified under the great seal and declared in council". That consent was to be set out in the licence and in the register of the marriage, and entered in the books of the Privy Council. Any marriage contracted without the consent of the monarch was to be null and void.
The Act renders void any marriage wherever contracted or solemnized in contravention of it. A member of the royal family who contracts a marriage that violates the Act does not thereby lose his or her place in the line of succession,[3], but the offspring of such a union are made illegitimate by the voiding of the marriage and thus lose any right to succeed. Also the royal marriage act came into being in 1772 so it can not have stood since 1702.

 

[BC]

Bumbershoot, you posted that you couldn't imagine anyone thinking the bride's parents would pay for this sort of wedding....well, I just wanted to clarify I never thought they would pay for the wedding. That was my point in stating that Kate's parents got lucky because she was marrying a royal, therefore they would not have to pay. Anyway, it was moreless in jest, as I know they have plenty of money had she chosen to marry a "commoner".

 

[PaulaSB12]

The main problem for the younger royals if they get jobs they are using royal connections to make money if they don't they are scroungers cant win.

 

[beatlesblonde]

I hope that I can watch the wedding went it does happen. I wasn't born yet when Charles and Diana wed so this will be my first royal wedding (although I remember watching Diana's funeral ). I love weddings in general and although I already had my dream wedding, I'll enjoy living vicariously through Will and Kate.

 

[walden]

NOt true

The Act said that no descendant of George II, male or female, other than the issue of princesses who had married or might thereafter marry "into foreign families", could marry without the consent of the reigning monarch, "signified under the great seal and declared in council". That consent was to be set out in the licence and in the register of the marriage, and entered in the books of the Privy Council. Any marriage contracted without the consent of the monarch was to be null and void.
The Act renders void any marriage wherever contracted or solemnized in contravention of it. A member of the royal family who contracts a marriage that violates the Act does not thereby lose his or her place in the line of succession,[3], but the offspring of such a union are made illegitimate by the voiding of the marriage and thus lose any right to succeed. Also the royal marriage act came into being in 1772 so it can not have stood since 1702.

I stand corrected. . This is what happens when you are as old as the hills and try to go by memory instead of looking things up. I was thinking of the Act of Settlement which was enacted in 1701, not 1702. Not the Act of Royal Marriage of 1772. The goal of the Act of Settlement was to ensure that only Protestants could inherit the throne. So William could marry a person of any religion, or an atheist, but never a Catholic. Idiotic. IMO.

If you ask me both Acts badly need changing! Both are quite ridiculous. IMO. Also, as you obviously know your history, can you look up the law that says you can be hanged, drawn and quartered for urinating off Chelsea bridge? J/K Last time I looked that was still an Act of Treason.

The main problem for the younger royals if they get jobs they are using royal connections to make money if they don't they are scroungers cant win.

Precisely. They just can't win. I feel so very sorry for them.

 

[PaulaSB12]

I stand corrected. . This is what happens when you are as old as the hills and try to go by memory instead of looking things up. I was thinking of the Act of Settlement which was enacted in 1701, not 1702. Not the Act of Royal Marriage of 1772. The goal of the Act of Settlement was to ensure that only Protestants could inherit the throne. So William could marry a person of any religion, or an atheist, but never a Catholic. Idiotic. IMO.

If you ask me both Acts badly need changing! Both are quite ridiculous. IMO. Also, as you obviously know your history, can you look up the law that says you can be hanged, drawn and quartered for urinating off Chelsea bridge? J/K Last time I looked that was still an Act of Treason.




Precisely. They just can't win. I feel so very sorry for them.

You have to remember the time when the rule on marrying a catholic was made legal. Charles II was working on forcing the country to become catholic again when he died. James was so behind the move to force the religious change he was kicked off the throne. The last thing anyone wanted was another catholic monach on the throne of England. To the people of that era a catholic monach meant Queen Mary I (technically King William's wife was Queen Regnant not consort so if she died and he remarried and had children these children would not have inherited the throne) and Mary was a religious nut case who thought burning and torturing people would save their souls. They where scared of the burning times returning. 10 silly UK laws will look for the one you wanted

The UK’s top 10 most ridiculous British laws

1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament
2. It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British king oruk-shop.jpg queen’s image upside-down
3. It is illegal for a woman to be topless in Liverpool except as a clerk in a tropical fish store
4. Eating mince pies on Christmas Day is banned
5. If someone knocks on your door in Scotland and requires the use of your toilet, you are required to let them enter
6. In the UK a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants, including in a policeman’s helmet
7. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the King, and the tail of the Queen
8. It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing
9. It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour
10. It is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls of York, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow

 

[NMAmy]

3. It is illegal for a woman to be topless in Liverpool except as a clerk in a tropical fish store

I think this is my favorite.