Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by AragornElessar, Feb 8, 2011.
Agree, love both of these
This is the one Diana wore for her wedding? If that's the case the only way I'd like to see it on Kate is if they modify it to make it her own. But I still don't like the idea of her wearing all of Diana's jewels on her wedding day, and it's maybe even a bit creepy.
Would she wear a tiara for William's investiture as Duke of Cambridge? Because then that would be the perfect occasion, particularly if she is also made Duchess of Cambridge.
Diana wore the Spencer family tiara on her wedding day. I believe it went to her brother on her death.
The talk is that William will be made Duke or Earl of something on his wedding day. Is there actually a formal ceremony for that at some point?
I agree. I'm not sure if I were here that I'd want to wear tons of things associated with someone who's practically St. Diana the Martyr now (yes, I'm being sarcastic) AND who is a HUGE style icon. It's not fair to her but Kate's not going to come out well on that comparison, even if I at least think she's a lot prettier.
If he is named Duke of Cambridge, and she is married to him, doesn't she automatically become Duchess of Cambridge? I'm a little confused on the titles thing, I wonder what's wrong with her simply being Catherine, Princess William?
Yes, Kate will automatically become titled when William does (well, the instant they are married anyway)... whatever it may be, although there usually isn't a lot of fanfare at investitures. William's investiture will probably take place a day or two before the wedding, and there will likely only be a press release about it. The only one that has a bigger ceremony is when someone is made Prince of Wales.
As for just being called Princess William, there's nothing wrong with it. But it's standard family practice for the groom to be granted either an Earldom or Dukedom as a wedding gift from the monarch... even for men marrying into the royal family. The most current exceptions are the men Princess Anne married. They declined elevations.
I would be surprised to see Kate wear the fringe, as I have heard speculation that if Zara Phillips wears a tiara at her wedding in June (July?) it might be that one, given that her mother and grandmother both wore it at their weddings.
I think the Cambridge Lovers Knot is a beautiful piece, but I'd like to see Kate not always be saddled with things so closely associated with Diana. I know the intent is to honour Diana and make her part of the day, which is important to William (as it would be to anyone who lost a beloved parent at such a young age), but I hope Kate will be allowed to develop her own style and look.
I think the engagement ring was a big nod in that direction, big enough to cover it. Weddings are about beginnings - this is Kate's day, not Diana's.
But it is also William's day. And when he thinks of Diana, he certainly doesn't think of DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES (all caps for martyred emphasis). He thinks of his mother. And I think a lot of people are looking at the ring and everything else through their own perceptions and not his view. I also think that after being with him for eight years, Kate probably has a view of Diana as his mother rather than the dead princess/icon as well.
It's nice to think it's Kate's day, and it might be if she were marrying an ordinary commoner, but it's the Royal Family Firm's day and anyone who thinks otherwise, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.
This is my favorite as well. I love it's simplicity and understatement.
Yes yes yes. I think you may have misunderstood me - I am a big Diana fan, and was delighted when William gave Kate her ring. I thought it was a beautiful thing to do, and the right time and place for it.
I also firmly believe that a wedding is about the groom as much as the bride - when I said it's Kate's day, I meant in contrast to Diana. As MILs go, Diana is an enormous presence already, so I think it's really important than on HER wedding day, that Kate is the focus. William will already be the focus - he's the future king with the weight of history and tradition and symbolism and responsibility all over him. No worries that he will be lost in all this.
I think that Diana will be there in so many ways already, and that Kate doesn't need another physical piece of her piled on that will only lead to comparisons/who wore it best/etc.
I was just thinking the same thing.
Cate's parents are wealthy, I'd love for her to have something that works with her delicate features, and complements rather than competes for attention.
Oh, and I agree that it is to collect money from schoolchildren to purchase jewels for a Royal. Let wealthy patrons give gifts if they so desire
But, then, I *am* from the US - and while it is interesting to look at the pretty dresses, fab estates, art collections, and hordes of jewelry, I am *very* glad that my own country has no royalty.
In fact, viewing the jewels the Romanovs enthusiastically amassed, while the Russian people starved, I can almost understand why things ended so very badly.
Also, I find it very odd that the current British Queen is so much admired by her people. She doesn't seem to do very much...
She actually does a lot more than most give her credit for. Their official site gives examples of what her day is like. IMHO, it takes a special person to carry out all those public duties. I for one would not be able to stomach it. Just thinking about talking to groups of strangers once gives me the heaves, let alone doing it my whole life.
I doubt that the royals ASKED for a donation of jewelry from the children. I imagine that the educational powers that were wanted to give a gift and the kids went along with it happily and were proud to do so.
In Flora Thompson's "Lark Rise to Candleford" books (not the TV series as far as I know which bears little relation to the books) there is a touching scene where the Vicar's daughter is collecting a sixpence or so from "the women of England" for a gift for Queen Victoria's jubilee. She doesn't go to the home of a woman who has lost her husband or something like that as she knows she couldn't afford to contribute. When the child Laura discovers that said woman has her coin all polished up and ready to give to the Queen she tells the Vicar's daughter who goes back to the home of the woman and takes her contribution. Pride is saved all round. Just a little story from a child's memories, but it does show the attitudes of the time.
One shouldn't judge the attitudes of previous generations by today's standards. No doubt our own attitudes will be strange to the generations yet to come.
As an aside, I'm taking my widowed (Canadian) mum Monday to the "Princess Diana" traveling exhibit at the Grand Rapids Art Museum. It is my understanding that her wedding dress will be on display. I'm looking forward to it, but I think I might shed a tear too.
Oh for sure!
But, I remain convinced that soliciting money from Children and the poor in order to buy jewelry for one of the wealthiest people in the world is, and always was,
There were some people who at the Royals, even in Queen Victoria's day.
Checking the book, the amount for Queen Victoria was to be no more than one penny from each woman.
I do get your point, but it's not like the people were taxed or anything- donations were strictly voluntary. If the people wanted to give- who was to say no? There may or may not have been pressure- I don't know.
And yes, there was very strong anti monarchist feeling in Victorian times- particularly in the 1870s, when the Queen was still in seclusion mourning Albert and was seen as not doing her job.
Can we please stop going back on what was or wasn't right to happen close to a hundred years ago?
There's nothing I *hate* more than people using 21st Century beliefs to pass judgement on something that was perfectly acceptable during a far different time period.
When I first saw the photo in the blog for the The Empress Marie Feodorovna Diamond and Sapphire Bandeau, I thought it was a type of jeweled piece that was worn on the side, and when I saw the latest Weir fashion photo, wondered if he was trying to copy it. Then I searched for a better image, and found it was worn in the front:
Maybe Weir's designer will lend Ms. Middleton the thing on Weir's head?
It is my understanding that there is no such thing as a Royal Earl, just Royal Dukes. When a prince becomes king his brothers become Royal Dukes.
A woman who marries a regular Duke becomes Duchess upon marrying but I'm not sure that's the case with Royal Dukes. But the Queen will probably confer a title on Kate. Diana became Princess Diana of Wales, but since Charles is still Prince of Wales she Kate won't have that title.
I'm too American to view any of this as being appropriate in this day & age & I would resist any US money going to this nonsense. But if the English want their monarchs, they aren't hurting anyone, so be it.
Well, when Edward got married he became the Earl of Wessex, not the Duke.
That was apparently at his request - as he didn't want to put to much pressure on Sophia and allow her to be a smaller part of the Family. It would have usually been expected for him to become a royal Duke but the Queen apparently agreed with his request after seeing the mess Fergie made of being a royal Duchess I think it has worked well - Sophia has grown slowly more confident being in the public eye and they have also kept their children away from prying camera lenses - more kudos to them.
William - being the 2nd in line to the throne - will absolutely get a Royal Dukedom confered on him on the occassion of his marriage - and Kate will also have the title Duchess - with HRH in front of it.
It works the same for Royal Dukes as well as just regular ones... the wife automatically assumes the female version of her husband's title(s). So Kate will become Princess of Wales should William be invested with that title when Charles becomes King, but until then, she'll just be HRH Princess William, Duchess of [insert duchy here]. It's rare that a title in conferred upon a female since titles usually pass through the male line.
The US does the same type of thing with the President. Who do you think pays for the Inauguration? State dinners? Travels abroad? We, the taxpayers. So it's the same thing, but with a lot less jewelry.
It was announced at the time of his marriage, that when Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, passes on, Prince Edward will inherit his title. And not to sound crude or anything, but it will be relatively soon, too. Prince Philip turns 90 this year.
Right, an inauguration is *just like* a coronation.
The last few centuries never happened.
I started this thread in the intent of having fun and enjoying chatting w/others who are as excited about the upcoming Wedding. However, it's certainly gone in a different direction the last couple of pages.
I get some could care less and I do respect that, *BUT*!!
This thread is in Off Topic. Not PI. If you want to talk about the evils of Monarchy, and yes I do know it's not the greatest thing in the world, go to PI and start a thread in there, as that's where it belongs.
Please leave this one to those of us that do love the Royals, are looking forward to this Wedding and also adore the Jewelry that will be on display/wondering what will be on Kate's head. As it was intended to be.
Would you like everyone to PM their post to you so you can approve it before they post it? Thread drift is a natural thing around here, if case you weren't aware.
Thread drift happens on FSU. And it's not like it has gone totally off topic. Still talking about royalty here. My advice is to keep posting about what you like and ignore what you don't.
I believe he will inherit the title when both of his parents pass on. I think it is a hereditary title that would be passed to Charles first and then when Charles takes the throne he can make Edward Duke of Edinburgh.
In addition to that, that reliable source Wikipedia says that Edward asked to be Earl of Wessex because he was inspired by Colin Firth's character, Lord Wessex, in Shakespeare in Love. Otherwise, he would have been created Duke of Cambridge. Interesting!