Being in history at a Canadian university, we definitely study our government thoroughly. To answer your second question first, all current members of the Queens Privy Council for Canada ARE Canadian, aside from Prince Philip, with I believe all past members being Canadian also. Being that our Privy Council was formed to provide a Canadian opinion for the Crown, it only makes sense to have Canadians on the Council. And to answer your first question, it is his marriage that connects him to us. Canada, Papua New Guinea, and Australia are all territories of Her Majesty, so the titles given by each country are afforded to him as they are usually the highest honour given in that country. A lot of Canadian-British relations trace back through the history of colonialism here.

Whose dress was about 7,000 degrees of gorgeous.

I know, right? She was a very stunning bride!

LOL!!! Now why didn't I think to limit the question to the American GCers, or at least to those who don't live in the Netherlands?

(And yes, I could have named Queen Beatrix as well, but while I know about the Dutch and Swedish heirs, I wouldn't have been able to remember their names without looking them up.)

We won our Revolution. They didn't really try.

I posted a picture of her - I love her dress, and she wore it quite well! Unfortunately, I posted it in the Wedding Cake Thread.

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editor...c1317c8d6.jpeg

My mother subscribed to both Royalty and Majesty magazines. I had no chance.

I really didn't care about Jessica getting married, and frankly I don't care about William getting married because I think he deserves some privacy. After the hounding and obsession with his mother and father, I'm hoping people will not do the same to him. Am I happy for the young couple? Yes, but what they do really isn't any of my business and I don't want to perpetuate the continued invasion of privacy, even though he is considered a public figure. I just feel bad for what he had to see happen to his mother that I've moved to having no interest.

I saw a report from BBC yesterday and they reported that the "wedding watch" is going on right now and as soon as they marry the "bump watch" will start.
That makes me really feel bad for them. The press has been all over them for the last 8 years of "when will he propose" and calling Kate "waity Katie". Now as soon as the ring is on her finger and the vows will be said, the press will be expecting the baby bump. Dude let them have some time to be married.
I really hope that Kate and William don't succumb to the "expectation" that they are to start a family right away. But considering William never surrendered to the expectation of proposing to Kate years ago, I'm thinking they won't.

And he would still only jokingly be closer to being a Queen than a King if he was transsexual.

Sooooo excited!


Just announced: Christopher Warren-Green, conductor of the Charlotte Symphony Orchestra will conduct the London Chamber Orchestra for the wedding!

He used to conduct for Buckingham Palace on a regular basis. I'll be singing Brahms with him conducting next month, and sang the Polovtisan Dances with him last year! He's a great, great guy.

ETA:Charlotte Observer Story on it.

Is anybody up for a GC Wedding Watch? I'll be up and watching the wedding (complete with tea and tiara) - it would be nice to share the event.

Any idea what time/channel it will be on?

wedding will start at 6am EDST so I assume the "pregame" will start around 2am.

And yes, I'll be watching it. I would assume ABC, NBC and CBS will all be carrying the BBC feed from within Westminster Abby. It's not like Edward and Sophie's wedding where they actually sold the TV rights for money.

Count me in if I'm not out shooting.

I just realized that my cousin's wedding (that I'm singing AND doing flowers for - yes, I am crazy) is the next day...so we may be up at that hour working on arrangements. Do you think it would be rude to watch the Royal Wedding while prepping for my cousin's wedding??:p

I'll be up and watching every moment. Can't wait, actually.

not showing up for your cousin's wedding, if william and kate were getting married at the same time as your cousin, would be rude. prepping for your cousin's wedding and watching the royal wedding is not.

i will be watching it, honey!!

April 29th just happens to be my wedding anniversary- I am more than happy to share the date with Will & Kate.

Did anyone see the misprinted mugs where they had Harry's picture on it rather than Will's?

Oh crap. I have to work that day & I can't take anymore time off. There's no working TV in my classroom either since they did away with them. Boo! Maybe I can take in my laptop & watch while I have the kids do independent groups. ;)

How whimsical & fun!

I saw it! Part of me wants one as a collector's item, and the other half wants to slap whoever approved it!

http://l.yimg.com/ep/wpprod/42/2011/...l-Kate-Mug.jpg

Timeline for the Royal Wedding Day, from Yahoo!:

"We all know that Prince William and Kate Middleton will walk down the aisle on April 29, but what about the schedule of events throughout the day? Here's how the timing of the biggest wedding of the year will break down:

"9 a.m. London time (1 a.m. PT/4 a.m. ET) - According to CNN, the wedding guests (all 1,900 of them) are scheduled to arrive between 9 a.m. - 10 a.m. (London time) at Westminster Abbey. Let's hope the Queen doesn't sleep through her alarm.

"10:50 a.m. London time (2:50 a.m. PT/5:50 a.m. ET) - Kate and her father Mike Middleton will depart Buckingham Palace via car, a somewhat controversial decision as it is the first time since 1963 that a royal bride has not arrived at the church by horse-drawn carriage. Their car will travel along The Mall, passing by Clarence House, Whitehall, and Parliament Square.

"11 a.m. London time (3 a.m. PT/6 a.m. ET) - The service begins at 11:00 a.m. sharp, so turn off your cell phones and throw some butter on your popcorn. [Time for tea and scones for the Yanks!] While the Dean of Westminster will conduct the church service, William and Kate will actually be married by Rowan Douglas Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

"12 p.m. London time (4 a.m. PT/7 a.m. ET) - Following the ceremony, Prince William and Princess Catherine, now husband and wife, will return to Buckingham Palace in a procession of horse-drawn coaches, passing by the thousands of well-wishers who will be lining the streets.

"12:30 p.m. London time (4:30 a.m. PT/7:30 a.m. ET) - Once back at the Palace, the newlyweds will be met by the Queen and enjoy a swanky champagne reception. The couple will also take a moment to appear on the Buckingham Palace balcony where they will wave, and perhaps even kiss, for the crowds and cameras.

"7 p.m. London time (11 a.m. PT/2 p.m. ET) - Following that epic soiree, the Prince of Wales (William's father, Charles) will host a private dinner and dance, also at Buckingham Palace. This event will be for just the bride and groom's closest friends and family. If ever there was an opportunity for the Queen to bust out the Electric Slide, this will be it."

You will also be able to watch it live on Yahoo!, but probably every other station/website, too.

thanks honey!

I find it funny that everyone is calling her "Princess Catherine" or "Princess Kate" since her actual title will be "Princess William" (since she's a commoner she doesn't get her own name anymore).

It took me a while to figure out that Princess Michael of Kent's first name wasn't really Michael (it's Marie Christine).

^^^Really? I thought maybe they name girls "Michael" in England like it's not a big deal.....good to know! :p

I think I might break out my old homecoming tiara while I watch so I can feel like a princess, too. :)

But, that is assuming that she isn't ennobled by the Queen.

Actually, it's assuming William isn't given a title, which isn't likely. Per tradition, William will be made the Duke of Somewhere upon his marriage, in which case she will be Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Somewhere. But even then, unless the Queen says otherwise, she would still be Princess William of Wales -- it's just that her usual title would be HRH Duchess of Wherever. Diana's full title when she and Charles were married was Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales & Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland.

But I bet that, as with William's mum, people will popularly call her Princess Catherine (or even Princess Kate), even though it's not proper.

^ agreeing, of course, with MC

This is the first I've heard of Kate being called Princess. Look at Sarah Ferguson - never heard anyone refer to her as a princess, always Duchess of York. But when Prince William becomes King, then Kate will be Queen Catherine (as his consort).

Oh, I'll be wearing my tiara, too, as I plan to use china for breakfast. I feel like I'm channeling Hyacinth Bucket!

I think the difference in thinking of her in terms of being a princess is the fact that he's second in line. Which means, of course, that when Charles becomes King, and assuming William is invested with the title Prince of Wales, Kate will become HRH The Princess of Wales.

A candlelight supper, perhaps?

That assumes that Charles ever becomes King. There is a good chance his mother will outlast him. Though I do have a question for you MC. Has there ever been a case before where the Heir Apparent was not the child of the Sovereign?

When the Sovereign had children? Or do you include times when the Sovereign was childless? Because for the latter the answer is yes definitely, the former I'm not as sure about. Possibly skipping daughters in favor of brothers?

I imagine Charles will become king, though maybe not for long, a la Edward VII.

George II (Mad King George) was heir apparent to his grandfather, George II.

Without double checking, I'd wager that in this case, we're probably talking about heirs presumptive, not heirs apparent. There is a difference.

An heir apparent's claim generally cannot be displaced. An heir presumptive's claim can be displaced, say by the birth of a child to the monarch. So, for example, if the Queen and Charles were to die in the next month or so, and William became king, Harry would be the heir presumptive. But as soon as William and Kate had a child, Harry would no longer be heir presumptive. If William and Kate had a son, that son would become heir apparent. If, however, they had a daughter, she would be heir presumptive, because the birth of a son could displace her claim.

Oh, it's someone important to whom to respond! ;)

I daresay that Parliment is changing the order of succession, or at least, there are those who are trying to change it. If changed, the eldest child would precede any younger child, male or female.

And Queen Victoria is a prime example of not being the child of a sovereign, is she not?

Important? Nah . . . .

There have been measures to that effect introduced in Parliament, as I understand it, but so far they have gotten nowhere. I think Blair's government actually blocked any such measure, not because he/they disagreed in principle, but because they thought changing the rule at this point would be a constitutional quagmire, especially since the monarch is monarch not only of the UK, but also of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji . . . .

Yes, but if I'm not mistaken she was not heir apparent; she was an heir presumptive. I guess there was at least the theoretical possibility that William IV could have fathered a legitimate child before he died.

Here's what wikipedia says

Victoria's grandfather and father died in 1820, within a week of each other, and the Duke of York died in 1827. On the death of her uncle George IV in 1830, she became heiress presumptive to her next surviving uncle, William IV. The Regency Act 1830 made special provision for Victoria's mother, the Duchess of Kent, to act as regent in case William died while Victoria was still a minor.[5] King William distrusted the Duchess's capacity to be regent, and in 1836 declared in her presence that he wanted to live until Victoria's 18th birthday, so that a regency could be avoided.[6]

[Palm on forehead]

Of course she was an heiress, not an heir. Oops.

Yeah to change the order of succession, all 16 Commonwealth Realms have to agree on it. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but this would require Royal Consent just to be read, then Royal Assent to be made law. The Queen could very well deny both, and might in order to prevent a constitutional crisis.

I'd pay good money to see that on a Mom Card when she picked up her kids from royal daycare.

I'm not sure why I took so long to read this thread, but I'm overwhelmed by the amount of royal knowledge I just stuffed into my pea sized head. What a wonderful history lesson on the monarchy!

PEOPLE DID A STORY ON MAESTRO WARREN-GREEN!!!


I really have to emphasis again want a wonderful guy he is. He could have had a giant head about all of this, but he really is an extremely humble, pleasant to work with person. He is also AMAZING to watch on the podium. Y'all (audience people) really miss the best part of the concert, since his back is to you while the music is happening. You can really see the music just flow through him - it's beautiful!

Bumping to remind everyone to polish their tiaras for early Friday morning!

There was a pretty interesting segment on NPR this morning about how low his approval rates are. They also compared Diana to Kate and I always forget how young Diana was when she got married--the fact that Kate has "lived" a little will help their marriage for sure.

Part of me thinks this is really lame, and I have my own issues with the British Monarchy, but I really like Kate Middleton. She's extremely attractive and it seems like she's really got her head on straight. If she had a reputation as a ditz or a party girl the British tabs would have been all over it.