The Royal Wedding looms ahead

[DillyDally]

Very excited as well, I will be watching with my mom (we don't have a very close bond and rarely talk, but it's a good chance to spend time together without conflicts, hopefully).

We'll watch the TV coverage on German television, since my mom doesn't speak English, but I will also be recording the BBC coverage (because that's the only station I usually watch during the day and it will be so much more interesting to have the UK perspective, the German coverage is horrible ).

I'm hoping for a very simple, elegant ivory/champagne silk dress. But I am sure Meghan will rock whatever dress she chooses (imagine the pressure of expectations, though!).

[Palimpsest]

9 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Does it work that way in the Anglican Church the way it does for Roman Catholics? I suppose the point is moot though, since Anglicans allow for divorce either way. 

The C of E allows for divorce but doesn't automatically allow for remarriage after divorce if an ex-spouse is still living.  If the first marriage was CoE, that is.  As Meghan wasn'r previously married in a CoE ceremony it doesn't count.

Since 2002, the CoE does allow for remarriage after divorce in the church under "special circumstances."  You have to find a sympathetic vicar and demonstrate proper repentance.

If you remember, Charles and Camilla did not have a church wedding.  They had a civil ceremony, followed by a church service of Prayer and Dedication that included an Act of Penitence performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Apparently their circumstances weren't special enough for Rowan Williams to allow them a church wedding.

[SapphireSlytherin]

9 hours ago, Beermeet said:

SHUT. THE. FRONT.  DOOR!

Pics.  Must needs pics!  Enjoy!!!!!

 

I'm sure I will be posting them here/there/everywhere.  I'm debating taking video, though, instead of stills. We shall see.

 

9 hours ago, ViolaSebastian said:

Dare we even hope for a repeat of this?

I've always thought it was in homage to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Palimpsest]

8 hours ago, ViolaSebastian said:

Dare we even hope for a repeat of this?

 

The toilet seat hat will never grow old.

9 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

That’s the usual line but it’s simply not true.There are countless hours of footage of her interacting with her children and Grandchildren. And as to comfort...

The Queen has many strengths and can be compassionate.  She has her moments.  She is a strong and dedicated monarch, but the royal family has never been a model of functionality.  Quite the opposite, really.

They are just people.  People with faults, and none of them are perfect.  They are an entitled, not very academically inclined, not very bright or educated, filthy rich and spoiled bunch who live in a fish bowl.  When they speak, everyone listens.  And that isn't good for anyone in the long run.

When the peevish Prince Charles whined about his cold and distant parents in his (authorised) biography, and after the near constitutional crisis of 1997, the whole royal family, including the Queen, had to revamp their cold images.  It was a massive PR campaign and very successful in the end.

The Queen has loosened up with her grandchildren publicly, if not privately, and undoubtedly loves them all very much.  However, she is famously undemonstrative, very rigid in her beliefs about the importance of the crown, and how the royals should behave.  She has very high expectations of her family, and has been disappointed many times by their behavior.  Obviously.

[formergothardite]

Who told her that hat was a good idea?!

[viii]

Kensington Palace said that Meghan’s father will walk her down the aisle. Booooo. I wanted her solo. 

[Palimpsest]

27 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Who told her that hat was a good idea?!

Rufus knows!  She auctioned it off for charity in the end.  Both of the Yorkies, possibly to distract people from their not stick-thin figures, have made many sartorially suspect decisions in the past.  They are both perfectly nice-looking young women, but they have been mercilessly mocked for their looks and I feel sorry for them.

Bea wore a fantastic butterfly hat once though.  I loved it.

[singsingsing]

46 minutes ago, viii said:

Kensington Palace said that Meghan’s father will walk her down the aisle. Booooo. I wanted her solo. 

Same! But I'm very glad for both of them if this is what both truly wanted, because I know there was some question as to whether her father would even be able to attend the wedding at all.  

And wow, this royal tiara talk is interesting - I know absolutely nothing about royal tiaras, so I have no idea whatsoever which tiara (if any) Meghan Markle will be wearing! Admittedly I'm much more interested in seeing her dress. I'd love to see her walk down the aisle in a stylish suit, though, just to see everyone's heads explode, ahaha.

[Botkinetti]

http://people.com/royals/princess-beatrices-fascinator-sells-for-130000/

I didn’t like the hat but I do remember thinking she was a young woman who obviously liked it , so good for her. People should wear what makes them happy.

[viii]

A suit would be absolutely amazing! She would look killer in that. 

[ViolaSebastian]

2 hours ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

I've always thought it was in homage to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Palimpsest]

27 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

And wow, this royal tiara talk is interesting - I know absolutely nothing about royal tiaras, so I have no idea whatsoever which tiara (if any) Meghan Markle will be wearing!

I'm not into jewelry or diamonds myself but I am rather obsessed with tiaras!  It is the history behind them as well as the sparkle.  This site is hard to search but here is the Queen Mum's Cartier bandeau mentioned above, and you can browse other British royal tiaras there:   http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/2017/11/tiara-thursday-queen-mothers-cartier.html

[Imaginary_Wonderland]

I think it was a Philip Treacy hat, at least I remember guessing that when I first saw it.  The ebay auction for the hat made over 50,000 for charity, so sometimes a bit notoriety isn't all bad. 

 

[nausicaa]

3 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

The C of E allows for divorce but doesn't automatically allow for remarriage after divorce if an ex-spouse is still living.  If the first marriage was CoE, that is.  As Meghan wasn'r previously married in a CoE ceremony it doesn't count.

Since 2002, the CoE does allow for remarriage after divorce in the church under "special circumstances."  You have to find a sympathetic vicar and demonstrate proper repentance.

If you remember, Charles and Camilla did not have a church wedding.  They had a civil ceremony, followed by a church service of Prayer and Dedication that included an Act of Penitence performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Apparently their circumstances weren't special enough for Rowan Williams to allow them a church wedding.

Interesting! I attend an Episcopalian church and always forget that while it is part of the Anglican Communion, it is much more liberal than even the CoE still.  Not only do Episcopalians allow for remarriage after divorce no questions asked, they also allow for gay marriage and there is a push to include specifically same-sex wedding vows in the prayer book (currently the genders are just switched out in the traditional wedding vows).

I mean, I'm probably more conservative than most of the Episcopal priests I meet.

[viii]

3 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

If you remember, Charles and Camilla did not have a church wedding.  They had a civil ceremony, followed by a church service of Prayer and Dedication that included an Act of Penitence performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Apparently their circumstances weren't special enough for Rowan Williams to allow them a church wedding.

I always thought it was less about special circumstances, and more due to public attention. I thought Charles and Camilla had a civil ceremony, because if they had attempted a church wedding, there would have been negative publicity from Diana fans. 

[Palimpsest]

Just now, nausicaa said:

Not only do Episcopalians allow for remarriage after divorce no questions asked, they also allow for gay marriage and there is a push to include specifically same-sex wedding vows in the prayer book (currently the genders are just switched out in the traditional wedding vows).

There is a whacking great schism in the Anglican Communion, especially over same sex marriage.  A lot of the African and Far Eastern churches are very against it.  We could see the whole thing split apart.

Are you sure your church isn't actually Reformed Episcopalian - that split was official a few years ago.  As it is, the American Episcopalians are being naughty little rebels and are well ahead of the curve.  There are also rebel CoE vicars but I don't think it is official policy. 

2 minutes ago, viii said:

I always thought it was less about special circumstances, and more due to public attention. I thought Charles and Camilla had a civil ceremony, because if they had attempted a church wedding, there would have been negative publicity from Diana fans. 

It was discussed to death at the time, there was plenty of negative publicity anyway, and the church Blessing ceremony was as public as you can get. 

It was a theological decision made by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the end.

[viii]

They should have just let Charles marry Camilla from the beginning, imo. He obviously loves her. Of course, we wouldn't have William and Harry if that happened, and I doubt Kate Middleton would be queen! 

[akinom]

12 hours ago, ViolaSebastian said:

In searching for a picture of that hat, I ran across this, which...there's no explaining it, just read:

http://theopenscroll.blogspot.com/2012/11/part-50-sodomite-gateway-princess.html

Wow. 

[Palimpsest]

41 minutes ago, viii said:

They should have just let Charles marry Camilla from the beginning, imo.

And this is the myth of the star crossed lovers again.  It is unclear that Charles ever wanted to marry Camilla in his youth - far from it.

Charles and Camilla met and had a fling.  She was one of many flings and part of a known bed-hopping crowd.  She wasn't thought suitable, including by Charles, because a. she was a commoner, b. they had had a fling (that virgin thing), and c. he wasn't ready to settle down.  At all.

He goes off to have many more flings (some of whom he treated badly) and she married Andrew Parker Bowles.  A famous cock-smith in his own right.  And she seemed perfectly OK about the marriage.

Charles tried to romance many far more aristocratic types than Camilla (including Lady Jane Fellowes, Diana's sister) but they weren't interested in marrying him.  At some point he and Camilla started up again and played musical beds both before and after his marriage to Diana.  Diana, the poor deluded teenager, seems to have thought he would stay faithful.  And perhaps so did he, but it was a marriage of convenience.

That said, I think Charles and Camilla do love each other these days.  At least, she loves him.  He is a very moody, conceited, and peevish person but she has managed to put up with his idiosyncrasies for years.

[viii]

I disagree to an extent - I don't think he would have kept falling back into bed with her if he didn't feel some sort of feeling for her. I understand that you can have sex without emotions attached, but she had a draw to him that he kept returning to. 

[Seahorse Wrangler]

13 hours ago, Beermeet said:

Those two and those outfits and hats!  It's like they sarcastically dressed up as The Step-sisters from Cinderalla.  I love it!!!   The meme of that remains in my top 3 fav memes.

 

Sorry but no..

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cinderella-wedding/

[Beermeet]

@Seahorse Wrangler  I know, I know.  Let me have my fun!  

[Hashtag Blessed]

20 hours ago, anjulibai said:

It is very beautiful and definitely deserves to be worn often. 

The Lotus Flower Tiara would look pretty on her. It's not a good picture, but I think it would look very pretty on Kate. my remove that top pearl, though. Kate's worn it twice, but I don't think it's associated with her, the way the Cambridge Lover's Knot is beginning to be (rightfully, given the name and her title)

 

I love the lotus flower tiara! I think it will depend on the style of her dress. I think sharp white suit would look awesome with The Queen Mary Fringe Tiara. 

Spoiler

 

Though maybe it is too big for the understated look. I don't know too much about any of this but it is so much fun speculating. 

[Knight of Ni]

It’s interesting how the media can portray things differently than what actually happened. The story I read about Charles and Camilla is that they were madly in love with each other but neither family approves of the match. They were thinking about getting married anyway but Camilla’s father and brother announced that Camilla had become engaged while Charles was on a trip. They announced it publicly in a newspaper or something. Charles was devastated but because the entire country thought Camilla was already engaged he definitely couldn’t marry her. Camilla was also devastated but was convinced to go through with the marriage. They supposedly never stopped loving each other and it seemed like fate when they were finally married. Ugh. 

[Palimpsest]

45 minutes ago, viii said:

I disagree to an extent - I don't think he would have kept falling back into bed with her if he didn't feel some sort of feeling for her. I understand that you can have sex without emotions attached, but she had a draw to him that he kept returning to. 

She reportedly mothers him and cajoles him out of his moods.  And she is also supposed to be a very kind, warm, and pleasant person.  But again, the idea of Charles and Camilla being *forbidden to marry*  is a myth.  They didn't pine much.  They did everything but cohabit for years.  Including during both their marriages.