Royal Marriage of Freddie Windsor and Sophie Winkleman

[Orchid]

Royal wedding of the year? Not likely - only Princess Eugenie is likely to attend.

It had promised to be the royal wedding of the year. But most of the Royal Family have snubbed the lavish nuptials of Lord Freddie Windsor and Sophie Winkleman at Hampton Court on Saturday, the Mail can reveal.

Even the Earl and Countess of Wessex have yet to reply to their invite with just five days to go and are down as an 'unlikely' TBC, the Mail can reveal.

The Queen will instead be on duty in her role as head of the armed forces visiting her Royal Lancers in Caterick, while her husband, the elderly Duke of Edinburgh, has decided not make the journey down from their Scottish estate where he is currently on holiday.

Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall have a job on in Northumberland while Princes William and Harry, who were widely thought to be making an appearance, have also decided to give it a miss - without even being able to come up with a half-decent excuse.

Read More: Daily Mail

What a brutal and ridiculous snub. The issue of security detail for William and Kate is nonsense. "Vetting" a royal wedding of 450 is too much of a security nightmare but heading to the polo or the nightclubs of London where total strangers will be present isn't. What a joke.

I wish the beautiful royal couple a wonderful day.

[drezzle]

So much for decorum and restraint in keeping ones family's dirty laundry private. 

[Fabulous Fake]

I feel absolutely vexed for Mr & Mrs Winkleman who have been landed with a horrendous bill for this pantomime. :sigh:

Wonder if anyone asked the couple about the arrangements or if Princess Michael took it all upon herself to spend someone else's money.  :o

[Trudie]

FF I just read today that it was Princess Michael herself took this upon herself and is complaining that the money the Winklemans set aside for their daughter was considered by her to be a paltry sum. It was said that she even chose the dress for Sophie and that Sophie joked or maybe not she won't know what it will look like until the day. If she wants such a grand affair I wonder why she hasn't ponied up it's not like this is a state occasion. I also feel sorry for the Winklemans they are being forced beyond their means by a very minor Princess even the RF can't stand for her grandness. :(

[Orchid]

Well if they are dispensing with the traditional wedding breakfast in favour of a buffet and the reception venue is courtesy of Freddie's Godmother, Lady Annabel Goldsmith, I imagine they have cut costs considerably. So it may not be so much of a pinch after all. Although it's surprising to hear Sophie left the choice of designer AND the design of her gown up to Princess Michael of Kent. That's relinquishing one responsibility too far I feel.  I'd be having night sweats if I left all decisions concerning my wedding dress up to my future Mother-in-Law. Argh. I can't think of anything worse!

I just hope William and Harry put a show in for their Cousin. It's a shocking snub if they don't. I simply don't buy the "issue" surrounding security detail. So what if someone gets a picture of Kate at the wedding??? We've seen plenty of pictures of her before now and plenty more of her in the glossy magazines of which William seems to dread her featuring in. If security were such a serious point of contention, surely Kate and William would never have gone to London clubs for all these years where Joe Public could easily take a snap or two of the pair sipping thier Mojitos and two-stepping their way around the dance floor to I like The Way You Move. It's such a weak excuse - especially considering the 450 guests would be far better "vetted" in a social sense than any of those who venture into Mahiki or Boujis on a Saturday night. It just serves to highlight the stark hierarchy employed by the royal family; even from within. I was always under the impression Princess Michael of Kent was particularly close to HM so I'd have thought HM would be the last person to snub the wedding; least of all those members that fall beneath her in the royal food chain.

[wannable]

Perhaps W&K will be celebrating Harry's birthday.

[whisperofsound]

i wish them the best nontheless. . .

[echo]

i feel like im going out on a limb here...

can members of the royal family be *ahem* persuaded or encouraged to not attend by the queen/greymen/whatever?
or is my imagination just getting the better of me?

[brittanylala]

Orchid, I'm in full agreement with your point of view. This is a massive snub on behalf of William and Harry. The excuse about the wedding clashing with Harry's birthday is ridiculous. His birthday is the Tuesday after the wedding, so why not celebrate it the weekend of 19-20th September instead? It's hardly a milestone birthday that will take months to prepare for, we'll probably read stories about them celebrating it at the local pub/restaurant. I just refuse to believe William and Harry can't reschedule their birthday celebration for another evening, besides the celebration will probably wind up in the papers for all the wrong reasons anyway.

The excuse about security is equally as pathetic. Orchid has already expressed my opinions on that so there's no need for me to start ranting.

If anything, I'm incredibly disappointed in Harry. William's actions don't surprise me anymore, especially when you consider his embarrassing absence at Peter and Autumn's wedding. But I expected so much more from Harry. Shame on William and Harry for putting a boozy weekend ahead of a family wedding!  :notamused:

[drezzle]

In most families I think first cousin weddings are a big deal, but then when you get to the point where the groom's grandfather is first cousin to your grandmother, then it's not a big deal, and these distant cousins may not even know about each others marriages.  Of course it's different with the royal family because of the media coverage, but that may be the only difference, and I can't see either William or Harry honoring media hype and media wishes. 

If anybody should have gone, it would be the queen and PP, and they can't really claim they are too old or decrepit for the obvious reason that Prince Charles is waiting in the regent wings.

[Jenee]

Drezzle, I agree with you about the "importance" of a family wedding based on the closeness of the family member. First cousins are a 'must' if at all possible - anything beyond that is, IMO, not a big deal to miss, unless you live in the same city, and then I feel one is obliged to attend.


This excuse is absolute bs:
The notoriously private prince is also said to have worried about the taking of unauthorised photographs of him with girlfriend Kate Middleton due to the presence of so many 'unvetted' guests, particularly after the fiasco that surrounded last year's wedding of his cousin, Peter Phillips, who sold pictures of her to a glossy magazine.

It wasn't some random 'unvetted' guest who sold pictures of Kate to Hello! - It was Peter and Autumn themselves!


Edit: Here's another article:
Are Freddie Windsor and Sophie Winkleman going to have the most surreal royal wedding ever?

[Royal Nanny]

Maybe the princes will be attendance and this is just a ploy to keep the press off balance.  

On the other hand, if they are not attending due to the reason stated, of being a security nightmare, I think they are perhaps contributing to the 'hype' that surrounds them, by avoiding the press and creating more mystique to their relationship.  

I often wonder, if they were more 'out there' and obliging with photos, if people would be less interested eventually.  Just a thought.

[Stix Chix]

^good points Nanny.

i'm not sure how close the Waleses have ever been to the Kents.  they were neighbors at Kensington Palace but Princess Michale didn't get along with either Charles or Diana.  or vice versa.  there is very little age difference between the Kent's children and William and Harry but you rarely see them hanging out together....Buckingham's balcony not counted. ;)

it is a bit of a surprise that there wont be more of them attending but i'm not buying the excuses the DM have come up with.  worrying about guests taking pictures of he and Kate is extreme even for William. :laugh:  and i doubt if a wedding is somehow harder on their security then going to clubs.  either they're spending time with friends, have something going on with their charities or busy with their military training.

but if you have to have an excuse that sounds better then, "I just don't wanna!" saying Scotland Yard can't ensure your safety is a pretty awesome one. :laugh:  i'll have to try it sometime. ;)

[lil157]

I don't quite believe the "Harry's birthday", "photo fear" excuses either. I guess William don't want to send people and perhaps, not even to Kate, that he bringing his girlfriend to a royal wedding (as his date!) means he'll get married anytime soon. And I wouldn't believe he would go solo to a wedding (then people would wonder "where is kate? they must have split up!" yadda, yadda, yadda).

Will William lose more respect from the people by being the 98984th time he misses a family gathering? (Peter and Autumn's wedding, Lady Rose Gilman's wedding... I guess he reeeeeally wants to avoid engagement rumours by not attending royal weddings)

Plus, if the "harry's birthday" excuse is really real, why couldn't they attend Lord Frederick's wedding (which is about to happen in the afternoon) and celebrate his birthday at night or during the next sunday? Is Harry's birthday celebration suppose to be a weekend-long event?

But, in the end, what do we know? Maybe there's something going on inside the family that we don't know about? Maybe there's some bitterness that makes William and Harry not want to attend? I know, I've been there, I have skipped a relative birthday because of some... ungratefulness.

And as Her Majesty says "with dignity", so if there's some family feud going on, there's no need to expose it. Simply come up with an excuse to "look good" and satisfy people's wonders.

(But in this case, a bad one from William and Harry... couldn't they say they had to travel back to their training?)

[Kate]

OR, is all this publicity merely hype to shame some of the senior royals into attending? I realize there are some tensions between Princess Michael and the other royals ( feel sooo sorry for Prince Michael!) and perhaps she , herself is the reason none will attend..Too bad she couldn't have faded into the background on this occasion, allowing her son and the bride to be the main personalities .. She is completely , monopolizing and overshadowing the two stars of the event, not to mention the humiliation she has brought to the parents of the bride!
If I were the brides parents, I would hand over the 40 thousand to princess Michael and tell her anything above and beyond this amount is her responsibility....
I'm sure there will be more royals there then just Eugenie.

[Trudie]

In most families I think first cousin weddings are a big deal, but then when you get to the point where the groom's grandfather is first cousin to your grandmother, then it's not a big deal, and these distant cousins may not even know about each others marriages.  Of course it's different with the royal family because of the media coverage, but that may be the only difference, and I can't see either William or Harry honoring media hype and media wishes. 

If anybody should have gone, it would be the queen and PP, and they can't really claim they are too old or decrepit for the obvious reason that Prince Charles is waiting in the regent wings.

Actually Drezzle the grooms grandfather was Prince George Duke of Kent and HM's uncle Freddie and his sister are the youngest great grandchildren of George V and Queen Mary. Not that it matters as far as to attend or not attend the wedding that is their choice.

[drezzle]

Trudie, you are so right.  Freddie's father would be first cousin to William and Harry's grandmother.  Seemed to have lost a generation in there?  Princess Elizabeth was 16 when her first cousin was born, and then he had his children in his late 30s so that explains it.

[MapleLeaf]

It took me a while, but I think I understand all of the relationships now.  :P It's definitely confusing because King George V and Queen Mary had six children!: Edward, Albert, Mary, Henry, George, and John.  (John died when he was 13.)

Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (not Prince Edward HM's son) Princess Alexandra, and Prince Michael are the children of George, the late Duke of Kent, the 4th son of King George V and Queen Mary.  That makes them the first cousins of the Queen and Princess Margaret, and Prince Michael is the youngest in the Kent family.  Even though he's the Queen's first cousin, Prince Michael was born in 1942, so he's the second to the youngest of King George and Queen Mary's grandchildren.

Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester (son of King George's 3rd son Henry) was born in 1944, so he's the youngest of the Queen's first cousins.  Incidentally, the Duke of Gloucester is the father of Lady Rose Windsor, now Lady Rose Gilman.  Kate Middleton attended Rose's wedding to George Gilman last year, but neither Wills or Harry was there.  

Peter and Autumn Phillips attended Rose's wedding, and so did Lady Sarah Chatto, Viscount Linley, Lord Nicholas Windsor of Kent (who are both Lord Freddie's first cousins) Lady Gabriella Windsor, Alexander, Earl of Ulster and his sister Lady Davina Taylor, and a lot of minor royals.  I think Princess Anne was there as well, and I know for sure that Prince Edward and Sophie were there because I saw some pics of them either arriving or leaving the church.

I wonder why the Royals are basically snubbing Freddie's wedding?

[angieuk]

For what it's worth I think personally had the wedding been at [St George's Chapel] Windsor more Senior members of the Royal Family would have attended as their absence would have been blatently obvious.

Instead they have chosen some out of the way place grand as Hampton Court Palace is it is very much low-key.  I wonder how much coverage Hello Magazine will give to the event too.  Also don't know if William and Harry even see much of Lord Frederick? 

Saturday will reveal all!

[ice queen]

Problems with his security and "unauthorised photographs" of KM and himself...wow he sounds more arrogant and elitist than Princess Michael of Kent...someone please knock him off his high horse

[daibando]

It took me a while, but I think I understand all of the relationships now.  :P It's definitely confusing because King George V and Queen Mary had six children!: Edward, Albert, Mary, Henry, George, and John.  (John died when he was 13.)

Just one point, I think when you write Edward as being the first child, you mean David. Neither he nor Albert used their own names when becoming Monarch.

[ice queen]

Obviously she meant David. And btw, Edward is his "own" name. It's sad that you even had to point that out. But I wouldn't expect anything less from your posts. Bored much?

[Trudie]

It took me a while, but I think I understand all of the relationships now.  :P It's definitely confusing because King George V and Queen Mary had six children!: Edward, Albert, Mary, Henry, George, and John.  (John died when he was 13.)

Just one point, I think when you write Edward as being the first child, you mean David. Neither he nor Albert used their own names when becoming Monarch.

Wrong again Prince David as you call him was christened Edward Albert Christian Andrew George Patrick David and was called David by the Family. As for George VI he was christened Albert Frederick Arthur George He chose to use George as King as a way of providing the continuity of his father reign blighted by the Abdication you can look this up on any official royal site if you care to. :disdain:

[daibando]

Unlike you Trudie, I have now done my research and am more than willing to hold up my hand and say, 'I was wrong'. You will, however, notice that I said, 'I think'. Apparently, your obvious antagonism is more pronounced than my supposed xenophobia. Just for the record, I do not dislike foreigners (I am one myself), I just have little respect for pretentious persons foreign or not.

[wannable]

Perhaps Princess Michael of Kent is right to take the reigns Sophie's wedding.

See this happens when you marry royalty and practically anyone can walk in and find out your wedding list.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1212636/A-dinner-service-4-236-435-cashmere-throws-Lord-Freddie-Windsor-Sophie-Winkleman-ask-guests-gifts-worth-23-000.html