http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330151/Prince-William-Kate-Middleton-engaged-marry-2011.html

I see what you mean about the ring, but then I think people would have been upset over that too, and oh the extravagance. The royal family tends to lose either way with a lot out there (not you, I mean those in the UK).

There's always been the debate about whether Charles should just abdicate, but I think he could actually be a good king, although he might end up like King Edward.

And they've chosen Westminster Abbey.

29th April.

Edited November 23, 201014 yr by Sylph

I'll be there!

As in, officially invited?

No no, I'll just be one of the masses lined outside Buckingham Palace or near Marble Arch down the Mall.

No no, I'll just be one of the masses lined outside Buckingham Palace or near Marble Arch down the Mall.

That's awesome you get to be there!

I plan on taking April 29 off from work. LOL

I keep watching those images of the couple and it pains me to say, they don't look in love at all. I can't pinpoint which one is less in love. Somehow very vanilla and did I hear it correctly? A priest said their marriage will last 7 years, but then retracted it and apologized?

No no, I'll just be one of the masses lined outside Buckingham Palace or near Marble Arch down the Mall.

Same here most likely. The 29th has been declared a Bank Holiday!

Toups, maybe in Canada you will get the day off, too?

Another thing which was very naïve of me was that I expected some real 'competition' and 'race' between cathedrals. Westminster Abbey seems like such a cliched choice. Why not the cathedral in Worcester or Hereford?

Oh, well, I never really believed it would end up otherwise.

I keep watching those images of the couple and it pains me to say, they don't look in love at all. I can't pinpoint which one is less in love. Somehow very vanilla and did I hear it correctly? A priest said their marriage will last 7 years, but then retracted it and apologized?

Well, to be fair, they have been together ("livin' in SIN" if they were Catholics, LOL) for nine years. So, you know, familiarity and all that. I think they are both by nature very even-tempered, bland, vanilla people. Let's face it, none of the royals are going to win Jeopardy in a hurry. They are not intellectual sorts. They like hunting, shooting, dogs, cold draughty castles, Barbour jackets, participating in military marches, flying helicopters, running around navy ships, dodging bullets in Afghanistan (thanks, Harry), horses, shagging, playing golf. And that's pretty much it.

Catherine Middleton looks like she has adapted herself to the lifestyle, enjoys some of theses landed-gentry-type pursuits, is not overly ambitious in terms of "her own career" and should do what she needs to do to fit in. The upside is that despite some criticism, the gutter press in the UK do think she's a bit of a babe and will no doubt photograph her in some expensive outfits. She will be a pin-up. It will be a perk for her, even if all that media attention can have a downside (which she is already familiar with).

The priest in question did have to apologize -- the Church of England likely leaned on him -- but he is an ardent Republican and has apparently never hid that. He said that he planned to be out of the country when the wedding occurred, that he didn't see why the taxpayer had to foot the bill for the wedding, then pointed out that royals liked to shag around outside of marriage all the way back through the mists of time. Technically, he is correct. I think he apologized on the basis that "This wasn't the moment to say that" and "hope I didn't cause any offense."

Another thing which was very naïve of me was that I expected some real 'competition' and 'race' between cathedrals. Westminster Abbey seems like such a cliched choice. Why not the cathedral in Worcester or Hereford?

Oh, well, I never really believed it would end up otherwise.

Worcester or Hereford? Oh dear no.

London is the only acceptable locale, just because of the shear numbers of people that must be accommodated. As well, London has been built for security. CCTV is everywhere, certain statutes regarding individual liberty only apply in London, the police are very well trained. London is the only choice.

Westminster Abbey strikes me as interesting since that's where Diana was buried from, I am starting to get the impression that William wants this wedding to involve Diana in as many ways as possible.

Worcester or Hereford? Oh dear no.

London is the only acceptable locale, just because of the shear numbers of people that must be accommodated. As well, London has been built for security. CCTV is everywhere, certain statutes regarding individual liberty only apply in London, the police are very well trained. London is the only choice.

Westminster Abbey strikes me as interesting since that's where Diana was buried from, I am starting to get the impression that William wants this wedding to involve Diana in as many ways as possible.

Um... I know, OK? I know. It was just a... Whatevs. I don't know what it was.

Thiking about it twice, sheer number of people that must be accommodated?! What a crock of sh!t. Must?! They must not be, but it's a tradition or whatever... For all you know, nothing prohibits a marriage between only four people being present there. But yeah, it's a royal wedding and all that.

Also I think it might be traditional for the heir to the throne to tie the knot in the capital city. It's like in Spain when Princess Elena married in Seville, Princess Cristina in Barcelona, but heir to the throne Prince Felipe HAD to marry in Madrid.

Speaking of the Spanish, Princess Leticia may have some competition on the front pages of la prensa rosa now (and so will Carla Bruni). Time to trot out a beautiful gown and the children for another photo op.

Well, to be fair, they have been together ("livin' in SIN" if they were Catholics, LOL) for nine years. So, you know, familiarity and all that. I think they are both by nature very even-tempered, bland, vanilla people. Let's face it, none of the royals are going to win Jeopardy in a hurry. They are not intellectual sorts. They like hunting, shooting, dogs, cold draughty castles, Barbour jackets, participating in military marches, flying helicopters, running around navy ships, dodging bullets in Afghanistan (thanks, Harry), horses, shagging, playing golf. And that's pretty much it.

Catherine Middleton looks like she has adapted herself to the lifestyle, enjoys some of theses landed-gentry-type pursuits, is not overly ambitious in terms of "her own career" and should do what she needs to do to fit in. The upside is that despite some criticism, the gutter press in the UK do think she's a bit of a babe and will no doubt photograph her in some expensive outfits. She will be a pin-up. It will be a perk for her, even if all that media attention can have a downside (which she is already familiar with).

The priest in question did have to apologize -- the Church of England likely leaned on him -- but he is an ardent Republican and has apparently never hid that. He said that he planned to be out of the country when the wedding occurred, that he didn't see why the taxpayer had to foot the bill for the wedding, then pointed out that royals liked to shag around outside of marriage all the way back through the mists of time. Technically, he is correct. I think he apologized on the basis that "This wasn't the moment to say that" and "hope I didn't cause any offense."

So vanilla it looks like a marriage of interest. Jean Broke-Smith was on TV and said that she has no idea of what sort of life and duties await her. If you look at what just the wedding calls for when it comes to royal protocol, it must be intimidating, even for her, who has already been to several royal events with William. She absolutely has to master everything from elocution and deportment to social protocol and etiquette, and fast. She will probably become a new royal face for charities and that sort of endeavours.

Some biographer (I think) who was also on TV said how Kate kept paying no attention to any other guy who courted her, it was always only William. But the way (s)he said it made it seem as if what sheilafan said about gold-digging.

Thiking about it twice, sheer number of people that must be accommodated?! What a crock of sh!t. Must?! They must not be, but it's a tradition or whatever... For all you know, nothing prohibits a marriage between only four people being present there. But yeah, it's a royal wedding and all that.

I'm not even thinking about guests, I'm talking security. Probably 1/4 of the entire crowd is going to be security and police.