Prince Harry: Future Wedding

[FashionMaven]

William was a serving officer in the RAF at the time of his wedding and the Honorary Colonel of the Irish Guards and thus was married in the latter's uniform.

Harry, although he has quit the army, like the rest of the BRF will continue to receive unearned promotions as if he was still in the army. He will probably wear the uniform of a Captain or Major - whatever rank he holds at the time of his marriage, whenever that may be, in the Blues and Royals uniform as that is the regiment he belongs to - Anne is the Colonel of that regiment.

HM may given him some other honorary colonel's position - if one becomes vacant - before his wedding, just as she may choose to give him a substantive title.

Huh. This is fascinating.

What goes into announcing a royal engagement? Do they take engagement pictures beforehand and then release them with the announcement? Do they already know when a wedding would take place and where when they make the announcement?

 

[scriptgirl]

Engagement pics are released after the announcement.

 

[JessRulz]

...

I would love an Abbey wedding or St. Paul's Cathedral - wow what a venue. I think St. Paul's is my favorite. Wow.

That way, each son gets a piece of their mother: Wil gives Kate the ring, Harry marries where his mother did.

Of all the possible locations for a Harry wedding, St Paul's Cathedral is the one I would say has next to no chance of being used. If the wedding of the heir of the Prince of Wales (William, a future King) was not held there, the wedding of the Prince of Wales' younger son definitely won't be.

St Paul's Cathedral was selected for Charles and Diana's wedding mostly because it allowed for a larger amount of seating so more guests could attend the actual ceremony (around 3,500). Harry's wedding will not see anywhere near that amount.

 

[FashionMaven]

Of all the possible locations for a Harry wedding, St Paul's Cathedral is the one I would say has next to no chance of being used. If the wedding of the heir of the Prince of Wales (William, a future King) was not held there, the wedding of the Prince of Wales' younger son definitely won't be.

St Paul's Cathedral was selected for Charles and Diana's wedding mostly because it allowed for a larger amount of seating so more guests could attend the actual ceremony (around 3,500). Harry's wedding will not see anywhere near that amount.

I didn't realize it was that big... but you are likely right. It's just soooo gorgeous.

 

[Countessmeout]

St. George's Chapel is tiny - I think it's too small. Much much too small. Yikes it's tiny.

St. Margarets is nice - but if it's right next to the Abbey, it makes no sense not to use the Abbey.

I would love an Abbey wedding or St. Paul's Cathedral - wow what a venue. I think St. Paul's is my favorite. Wow.

That way, each son gets a piece of their mother: Wil gives Kate the ring, Harry marries where his mother did.

Tiny It seats eight hundred people.

William and Kate did not choose not to invite heads of state like the Obamas. They would never have been invited. As William was not heir to the throne, his wedding was not a state event. So no foreign heads of state. The only foreign government were commonwealth countries.

Harry's wedding will be naturally quite a bit smaller then his brother's. Oddly he could have a few politicians, but as personal guests.

St Pauls there is no way. St Pauls was too big for William and Kates. The cathedral seats 3500 people. 1500 more then Westminster. Not going to use a cathedral that large for a smaller royal wedding. Next time it will be used is if George is heir to throne when he marries, possibly.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Well, reportedly Will and Kate preferred not to invite some persons on the original list. Yes, I'm aware that persons representing Commonwealth countries were generally included, excluding foreign heads of state. The Obamas were invited to a state dinner the following month after the wedding by QE II. And later the Obamas got to know Will & Kate on a personal level. They hadn't met prior to W&K's wedding.

And yes, knowing the seating capacity of each venue is eye-opening and offers a bit of perspective. I had compared seating capacity between St. Paul's Cathedral, St. George's Chapel, and Westminster Abbey, and I immediately realized that St. Paul's is out of the question/ out of the running. Too huge, and as has been mentioned, Harry's wedding will not be grander than his older brother's.

... Which leads me to my next set of questions:

What goes into announcing a royal engagement? Do they take engagement pictures beforehand and then release them with the announcement? Do they already know when a wedding would take place and where when they make the announcement?

It will transpire similar to the engagement announcement of Will & Kate I would think. The press were called to gather; Kate and William walked out into a room at KP I believe and answered press questions. An announcement was made prior to their walking out to answer questions. Kate was wearing her engagement ring (Diana's former engagement ring) for the first time publicly.

After the press gathering, Kate and William were interviewed by a BBC reporter with whom William was well-acquainted and comfortable being around. The public got to hear Kate's speaking voice for the first time. Unusually for a royal girlfriend, that will not be the case with Meghan, due to her already familiar public profile as an actor on a television series.

 

[scriptgirl]

I thought William and Kate met the press at BP?

I wonder who will take the engagement pics and the formal wedding pics?

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I thought William and Kate met the press at BP?

I wonder who will take the engagement pics of Meghan and Harry and the formal wedding pics?

^^ It could have been at BP. I didn't look it up for confirmation. ?

The BBC interview with Will & Kate was about 17+ minutes.

ETA:
I looked it up: Clarence House released the engagement announcement due to Prince Charles being William's father. The photo call with Will & Kate took place at St. James' Palace.

 

[Pranter]

After hearing what Harry said recently about his brother marrying where his mother's funeral was...that Diana's presence was there, and he seemed to think that was great...I fully expect him to marry at Westminster. It will surprise me if he doesn't.

I expect him to marry in his military uniform.


LaRae

 

[FashionMaven]

After hearing what Harry said recently about his brother marrying where his mother's funeral was...that Diana's presence was there, and he seemed to think that was great...I fully expect him to marry at Westminster. It will surprise me if he doesn't.

I expect him to marry in his military uniform. I expect Meghan to use a British dress designer ...although there is an outside chance she could go American or Canadian. She will not do anything fashion forward or cutting edge. She will respect the tradition of the BRF by wearing something more conservative.


LaRae

I wasn't aware of the comments Harry made about feeling Diana's presence at the Abbey when Wil married Kate - do you have a link? That does seems to push this toward the Abbey though - just smaller and more low key? Wil and Kate used trees when they married - not sure how much more low key they could get there, lol. Flowers would almost seem more grand.

And I agree that Meghan will be conservative with her wedding day garb (should there be a wedding - I'm almost afraid I'll jinx it!). And likely a British designer - but maybe a collaboration with a British and an American designer? Perhaps in terms of style or sentimental details worked into the gown?

 

[duchessrachel]

I don't think it will be a private wedding. I think it will have pomp and circumstance. I hope it does!

Me too. I want a carriage ride after the wedding and a kiss on the balcony at Buckingham Palace.

 

[Skippyboo]

Prince Harry: Marriage and Royal Protocols

After hearing what Harry said recently about his brother marrying where his mother's funeral was...that Diana's presence was there, and he seemed to think that was great...I fully expect him to marry at Westminster. It will surprise me if he doesn't.

I expect him to marry in his military uniform. I expect Meghan to use a British dress designer ...although there is an outside chance she could go American or Canadian. She will not do anything fashion forward or cutting edge. She will respect the tradition of the BRF by wearing something more conservative.

Now...to see what ring she gets! That will be interesting!


LaRae

Harry didn't say anything about feeling Diana's presence at William's wedding- that was William

https://www.google.com/amp/people.c...iam-felt-princess-diana-presence-wedding/amp/

 

[duchessrachel]

For reasons that I won't get into, I think if Harry and Meghan have a smaller wedding, some unfortunate conclusions may be drawn and some of the public may also draw those conclusions and feel validated.

I totally agree. I said the same thing in a post awhile back in another thread. I am thinking it will be Westminister Abbey, a carriage ride, and a kiss on the Buckingham Palace balcony.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Some facts:

Well, Will & Kate weren't interested in inviting heads of state whom they weren't familiar with. Reportedly, the Queen told them to tear up the 'guest list' provided by the government/royal courtiers and write up their own list with the people they preferred to invite to their wedding. Once again, they did not invite too many heads of state they didn't know. Even the Obamas were left off. Although, the Queen made it up to President Obama and Michelle Obama in May 2011 by inviting them to a state dinner. Sometime later, Barack and Michelle met William and Kate, and they are friends now. Of course, Harry is even more friendly with the Obamas, who are sure to be invited to his wedding.

We'll have to wait and see how the details will be handled. And of course, it's the engagement that we're waiting to hear announced first.

1. It wasn't a state wedding.

2. They invited several royal heads of state. 10 attended, others were represented by their heirs or other family members. They weren't familiar with none of them.

3. They invited 13 Commonwealth governors-generals. They weren't familiar with none of them.

4. They invited several Commonwealth prime ministers. 6 attended (7 if you count David Cameron). They weren't familiar with none of them.

5. The Queen (according to William) did tell them to tear up the guest list, but she also said that there was people that needed to be invited.

6. Maybe you meant to be ironic, but the Obamas weren't invited to the state dinner at BP because the Queen wanted to ''made it up to'' them. It was a state banquet during a state visit, which the British government wanted to take place.

That is a very interesting suggestion. Wonder if he will. And also, the bride usually has the wedding in her hometown.
Los Angeles? That would be the modernizing beyond modernizing!

I respect your opinion, but the one of the two thing that I'm 100% sure of is that Harry will be married in the UK. Why? Because he's the son of the Heir/Monarch and in that capacity a senior member of the british monarchy.

The other thing I'm 100% sure of is that the wedding never ever will take place at St Paul's. Why?

1. He isn't the heir or the eldest child of the heir.

2. The Cathedral wasn't used for William, but Harry wouldn't have been allowed to marry there anyway, even if it had been used in 2011.

Edward had a much lower profile than Harry, but there was great interest from both British and foreign media for his wedding in 1999.

After hearing what Harry said recently about his brother marrying where his mother's funeral was...that Diana's presence was there, and he seemed to think that was great...I fully expect him to marry at Westminster. It will surprise me if he doesn't.

I expect him to marry in his military uniform.

LaRae

Where will a possible Harry/Meghan wedding take place?

Former Royal Weddings:

Princess Elizabeth - November 1947: To and from Westminster Abbey in closed carriages and appearance on the balcony.

Margaret - May 1960: To and from Westminster Abbey in closed carriages and appearance on the balcony. (That had not happened today, I think)

Anne - November 1973: To and from Westminster Abbey in closed carriages and appearance on the balcony. (That had not happened today, I think)

Charles - July 1981: To and from St Paul's Cathedral in open carriages and appearance on the balcony.

Andrew - July 1986: To and from Westminster Abbey in open carriages and appearance on the balcony. (That had not happened today, I think)

Edward - June 1999: A televised Royal Wedding at St George's Chapel with a carriage procession in Windsor. Why? Because there was no appetite for a big Abbey wedding after the wars of Waleses, the divorces, the Diana craziness and her tragic death. But as I wrote above, the monarchy was as popular as ever, and were not recovering from Diana's death.

William - April 2011: A scaled-down wedding in comparison with the Abbey weddings mentioned above. Why? Due to the financial crisis.

And of Course smaller than in 1981. Why? He wasn't the heir and his wedding was therefore not a state event.

To Westminster Abbey in cars and back to the palace in open carriages for William/Kate and the bridal party, and closed carriages for the Queen/Philip, Charles/Camilla and Kate's parents and appearance on the balcony.

A possible wedding for Harry:

The monarchy is as popular as ever with record high support in several polls since 2002, some of over 80%, but we live in a different era with a more critical press than we did in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

And remember: William is the eldest son of the heir, and he was as popular as Harry (if not even more) when he married, and there were still complaining from media and other people about the costs etc.

I'll therefor be very surprised if he gets a Abbey wedding with a carriage procession and a balcony apperance.

I think we'll see much of the same as we saw for Edward in 1999, A Televised Royal Wedding at St George's Chapel with a carriage procession in Windsor.

I can of course be wrong, and I will be the first to admit it if I am.

 

[soapstar]

I’ve deleted and edited numerous off-topic posts regarding Meghan and Harry’s relationship and their relationship with her family. Please remember this thread is about royal protocols and not about H&M’s relationship, engagement rings, engagement predictions or Meghan’s career. Nor is it about Chelsy, Cressida or Kate.

Let’s also steer clear of comparing various royal wedding gowns. And as always, please remember that as long as the forum rules are followed, all opinions are welcome. Thanks.

 

[scriptgirl]

Why won't Harry be allowed to marry at St. Paul's?

 

[Countessmeout]

Why won't Harry be allowed to marry at St. Paul's?

The cost and security alone. St Pauls seats over 3500 people. The cost to secure and decorate the cathedral would be enormous. Besides it would be more then half empty. William and Kate's wedding was only about 1900 people. Even their wedding, St Paul's would have been nearly half empty. St Pauls certainly doesn't match the scaled down wedding concept.

 

[Pranter]

I wasn't aware of the comments Harry made about feeling Diana's presence at the Abbey when Wil married Kate - do you have a link? That does seems to push this toward the Abbey though - just smaller and more low key? Wil and Kate used trees when they married - not sure how much more low key they could get there, lol. Flowers would almost seem more grand.

And I agree that Meghan will be conservative with her wedding day garb (should there be a wedding - I'm almost afraid I'll jinx it!). And likely a British designer - but maybe a collaboration with a British and an American designer? Perhaps in terms of style or sentimental details worked into the gown?

I was sure there was a link posted here back during the month of August ..Harry by himself talking about it. I knew William had said it..but I thought Harry had too....I'll have to see if I can find it or am remembering wrongly.


LaRae

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Why won't Harry be allowed to marry at St. Paul's?

For one thing it is huge. It seats 3500 people. It was only used for Charles and Diana's wedding as that was a state occasion by virtue of Charles being the heir. Heads of state from around the world were invited and attended in an official capacity.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I was sure there was a link posted here back during the month of August ..Harry by himself talking about it. I knew William had said it..but I thought Harry had too....I'll have to see if I can find it or am remembering wrongly.


Perhaps the wedding rehearsal she could wear an American designer and then THE dress could be British.


LaRae

I think it quite possible they have two receptions, much as William & Kate did. Maybe Meghan could wear a British dress for the wedding & first reception and an American dress for the evening dinner reception.

 

[FashionMaven]

I'm sure Meghan will be cool either way but dangit - I want an Abbey wedding with pomp and circumstance, a carriage ride and a balcony kiss!

 

[Pranter]

I suspect you are going to get all the pomp and circumstance you want Maven, in the Abbey, just perhaps a lower guest number. Although if you are talking the Biden's the Obama's and maybe the Trudeau's coming...certainly not lacking in 'umph'



LaRae

 

[Somebody]

Were the wedding dates of Anne and Andrew bank holidays?

I guess the reason why many look to Edward and Sophie's wedding is that theirs was the second-last major royal wedding and the last of a not-future king. Furthermore, Harry is not the second son of the monarch, but most likely the grandson of the monarch at the time of his wedding. With William, we have seen that makes a difference!

In addition, times change and so do opinions on what is appropiate, so I wouldn't be surprised if the wedding of the queen's grandson would be more like the queen's youngest son than the queen's second son - add to that, that it is Meghan second marriage, and Windsor seems a more likely option than the Abbey (although I do not rule it out completely).

 

[FashionMaven]

One last thought I meant to mention before is that Edward and Sophie - at the time that they married - fully intended to not be working royals. They meant to have their own businesses and live nearly as commoners. No royal duties.

So - it makes total sense that they would choose a smaller venue with zero pomp and circumstance. No carriage ride. No balcony kiss. No playing to the public because they were preparing for a life of non-royalty.

Prince Harry and his wife will be full time working royals. In that context it literally doesn't make sense for them to attempt to fly under the radar the way Edward/Sophie purposefully did.

I just think we are putting way too much emphasis on the outlier in the data rather than looking carefully at WHY Edward/Sophie were the outlier. I honestly don't think it had anything to do with him being the last son or the last major wedding, etc., though I do think the mood after Diana had an impact too. I think it was their choice because they were choosing at that time to be regular people with regular jobs. That's why their children aren't HRH - it wasn't forced on them - it was their choice. They didn't want that.

Harry is definitely different (in terms of being a full time royal).

From all accounts, with Harry saying it's hard to find someone to "take him on" - meaning take on all of this and all of the royal duties, etc.. I highly doubt they'll be looking to emulate a couple that had every intention of not leading much of a royal life.

And frankly, in order to ensure the continued success of royal patronages and charities and to keep an increased profile for Harry and his wife as they continue their work - not giving the public a carriage ride, balcony kiss and wedding grander than Edward/Sophie's wouldn't be all that smart. I was so underwhelmed by their wedding.

So maybe if we didn't get an Abbey wedding - maybe we'd get this but with a Carriage ride and balcony kiss still?

Okay. Now I'm done, lol. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Osipi]

Were the wedding dates of Anne and Andrew bank holidays?

I guess the reason why many look to Edward and Sophie's wedding is that theirs was the second-last major royal wedding and the last of a not-future king. Furthermore, Harry is not the second son of the monarch, but most likely the grandson of the monarch at the time of his wedding. With William, we have seen that makes a difference!

In addition, times change and so do opinions on what is appropiate, so I wouldn't be surprised if the wedding of the queen's grandson would be more like the queen's youngest son than the queen's second son - add to that, that it is Meghan second marriage, and Windsor seems a more likely option than the Abbey (although I do not rule it out completely).

From what I've read, Andrew's wedding was not a bank holiday and it seems very unlikely that Harry's will be. William's was a semi-state wedding with governmental officials attending from the UK and the Commonwealth and also, William is directly in line to be King.

Harry's wedding will not even be a semi-state occasion. It will be a more personal event for the royal family and friends of the couple without the "necessary" governmental attendance. There very well may be political figures attending but if so, it will be as personal invitation from the couple and not because of their own status elsewhere.

Taking into account that most likely the wedding will happen during a busy workday and with the security concerns that in 2017 are unlike just about any other royal wedding planning time ever. I just think London will be a security nightmare especially with the tensions that there are in and around London now. I know people that have put off traveling to the UK because of the recent events.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

And frankly, in order to ensure the continued success of royal patronages and charities and to keep an increased profile for Harry and his wife as they continue their work - not giving the public a carriage ride, balcony kiss and wedding grander than Edward/Sophie's wouldn't be all that smart. I was so underwhelmed by their wedding.

So maybe if we didn't get an Abbey wedding - maybe we'd get this but with a Carriage ride and balcony kiss still?

Okay. Now I'm done, lol. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Even tho at Windsor, Sophie and Edward had a carriage ride.

 

[scriptgirl]

I too, am leery of comparing Ed and Sophie's wedding only because their wedding was almost 20 years ago and Edward's status and popularity is not the same as Harry's. And the times are completely different.

 

[FashionMaven]

I too, am leery of comparing Ed and Sophie's wedding only because their wedding was almost 20 years ago and Edward's status and popularity is not the same as Harry's. And the times are completely different.

Completely. According to recent polls - Harry is the most popular royal aside from HMQ. The worldwide attention alone - especially from the US - warrants something different than Ed/Sophie - not to mention, Harry plans to continue being a full time royal, which Ed/Sophie did not.

I'll repeat a question someone else had - did Anne and Andrew have bank holidays declared when they married?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I too, am leery of comparing Ed and Sophie's wedding only because their wedding was almost 20 years ago and Edward's status and popularity is not the same as Harry's. And the times are completely different.

The royal family doesn't do popularity contests.

 

[soapstar]

Let's move on from comparing weddings, please.