That's because he wasn't there. Neither was Lena Tindall, who's just a few months younger.
Yes, like Louis, who couldn't sit through the events of the Queen's Jubilee - the first official event he attended - and gave Kate quite the hard time.
But typical for kiddies right.
Huh? Camila's grandchildren are related to Camila, the Queen Consort. They are also not infants the way Archie and Lil are.
Absolutely. I don't know what exactly happened at that event but I bet a coronation will likely be even more boring for a child that young.
I may have misinterpreted what I read but I thought Lili was christened in the US? As far as I know, representatives of a country can't just travel to another country without it being or becoming a diplomatic affair.
I’m ok with the inauguration but a little less thrilled with the celebrity people/singers etc. That’s just me though of course.
They have to be wondering if he'd put anything they say and do in some future book/interview. And the same goes for Harry, if he assumed his family members leak whatever he does and says to the media.
Probably not adults but kids for sure.
(Edited) "
But isn't the pageantry and the pomp and circumstance the whole point of why people have celebration ceremonies? I mean, why have a costly wedding ceremony? Just hand each other a ring and "Tada you're married". Same with other types of ceremonies, like graduations. Its the ceremony and the sharing of the moment with family and friends that makes it special. Obviously, a coronation will be attended by more than just family and friends. This sort of thing only happens once every several decades and for me is possibly a once in a lifetime event, so I'll tune in for a bit to watch. And I definitely agree that children not being invited to the ceremony is nothing to get in an uproar about. In fact, it's sensible. I would be surprised if H&M are not in attendance. They accept invites to other high profile events. What's more high profile than the coronation of a king, who happens to be your father/in-law?
I think weddings and other events have gone over the top as well. It's become more of an event than a wedding, really, and it doesn't seem like sharing the moment with family and friends is at the center but the dress, the decorations, the cake etc.
Hasn't it always been this way though? A few people have massive weddings (not as many as one would think, probably), a few go the tiny route, with a few family/friends and most are somewhere in the middle. Over my 40 odd years of wedding-going, most were in the 50-100 guest range, with a few much smaller. I don't think I have ever been to one with over 100 guests.
Your points are valid. Weddings have become almost a competition. And I think it's ridiculous to spend $50K+ to say I do, specifically because it's should be about family and friends. But there can be a happy medium that includes some ceremonial sparkle without debt. My sister had an intimate wedding with forty-two guests. It was lovely and all paid for prior to the wedding day.
Well, not a royal wedding, at least not in person (did watch Fergie's wedding to Andrew on tv). I know people who have gone to City Hall, some with family & close friends, some without. I've seen weddings that cost a fortune and had a ton of guests but most were in the middle. Some had kids, some did not. I have definitely been to weddings that were under 100 people but not much under. The over 200 ones and the super expensive ones that I read about have been rare. And the ones I've attended have all been Catholic but I think that's because I was raised Catholic and dh's relatives are all still practicing not because those weddings are mostly done by Catholics.
This is also cultural. I've never been to a wedding with fewer than 100 guests.
