Prince William and Kate Middleton

[Douglas]

Sarah's two daughters are 'guests' at the wedding.  Also, I would think they would be included in the official family photo portraits after the ceremony.

I believe that Nancy Reagan was personally acquainted with Prince Charles before his marriage to Diana, therefore it was most appropriate that she was invited.  Michelle Obama is not quite in that category.

By graciously opting out of this event it might be a step in rehabilitating Sarah's rather sullied image.  I know our dear Lucien will differ on this point [ you're always on my invitation list, Lucien....;-))]

I understand that the bride has declined the traditional use of horse drawn coaches for this day.  Therefore, I assume that limousines will transport the entourage.  Has anyone heard otherwise?

Robert, will you be on the parade route? I understand you're attending regio sine invitare.

[Robert_Hall]

No, Douglas, I do not arrrive in London until 2 weeks after the wedding. I get to see the   Obama show instead.

[grandduchessella]

I understand that the bride has declined the traditional use of horse drawn coaches for this day.  Therefore, I assume that limousines will transport the entourage.  Has anyone heard otherwise?

From what I've read, she'll drive by car (a luxurious one, I'm sure!) to the church and they will depart along the procession route by carriage.

[Patrick M]

Nancy Reagan had not met Prince Charles prior to the first Wales wedding and was not personally invited to attend. The US government was officially invited (invitation to White House via State Dept) -- and Nancy Reagan was chosen as its representative. My understanding is that the President and State Dept could just as legitimately asked Florence Jones from Topeka, Kansas to represent the nation (except there would have been a hopping mad Nancy Reagan to contend with ...).
In the case of William's wedding, the US government did not receive an official invitation, and the Obamas did not receive a personal invitation, so no Obamas and no official representative of the country will be in the Abbey. From what I understand, it's possible that the American ambassador in London or other U.S. diplomat has been invited, but this has not been made public, and regardless,. I believe he/she would be considered a personal invite and not an official representative of the country.   

[Douglas]

This post is to correct a couple errors in post #513 above.

Mrs Reagan had indeed met Prince Charles before she attended his wedding in 1981. [ Ref:: http://www.reaganlibrary.com]

  Nancy Reagan met Prince Charles on March 17, 1974 when she and her husband, then Gov. of California, attended a party at the Walter and Mrs. Annenberg home "Sunnylands" in Rancho Mirage, California. The Prince gave a talk during the event. In fact it was also St. Patrick’s Day and some of the guests wore green.

Prince Charles and Princess Diana invited  president Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy to their 1981 ceremony – though she came alone because the president was too ill to travel due to an assassination attempt on him earlier in his term as President.

For their 1981 wedding the  royal couple invited the President and Mrs Reagan in a personal and formal manner.   It would have been improper to have invited The White House and frankly rather insulting.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339315/President-Obama-snubbed-sources-reveal-invited-Prince-Williams-wedding.html#ixzz1EqtR748I

[Robert_Hall]

Thanks, Douglas. I thought the Reagan/Wales connection went  back further than we might have presumed. The Prince of Wales, as I recall, was even a target of Nixon's [shudder] for a possible match with one of his daughters, around the time he developed his "Imperial Presidency".
 In the end, who really cares and what difference does any of it make? Car or carriage, hooey. Betty Crocker bridal cakes, blah.  If the bride's dress becomes off-the shelf at Kmart [or whatever], maybe a bit of a market ruffle.  But even then, it will just be a loss leader, would it not?
 I would rather be be with the Duchess of York, being a Euro-slob sipping Cosmos than  with the mob in  Westminster.
 BTW,according to the BBC,  EVERY ambassador has been invited, it is simply pro forma. Whether they  attend or not is up to them. And with the dramatic changes going on now, I imagine several will not, or no longer even be ambassadors.

[RoyalWatcher]

Oh my goodness!!! Did you all see the joint engagement that Prince William and soon to be Princess William attended today?!?! She was BRILLIANT! Bless her heart, she did a fantastic job. She is a natural just like her soon to be husband.

I'm not British (however, my English great-grandfather met (and eventually fell in love with) my English great-grandmother in Victoria station London), but this American girl is so proud of her. She is adorable!

Congratulations, Kate...your first Royal engagement and you did so well. = )

[RoyalWatcher]

P.S. I loved her hair pulled back in a ponytail (super practical and a smart choice considering the weather conditions)...and her outfit....and watching her interact with those in attendance especially the little ones.

[Patrick M]

Douglas - I have a lot of respect for you but on this one I know what I am talking about. I only post twice a year, and only when I (think I) know my stuff. I would tell you my job title, and then you would believe me, but don't want to potentially get in any trouble. Suffice it to say that I work in protocol in Washington DC. I DID indeed make an error in my earlier post and did not know about the earlier meeting of Charles and the Reagans in California, but I did re-check my facts today. The invitation to Charles/Diana's wedding was an official govt invitation. It was not a personal invite to the Reagans and it did not go to the White House, although sometimes a copy is sent to the WH as a courtesy. Charles/Diana may have HOPED the Reagans would attend their wedding, and maybe were pleased when Nancy Regan was named the official representative, but that's all. For an official government invitation of this caliber (weddings and funerals that are matters of State), the sender doesn't get to pick the guest, regardless of whose name is on the envelope (typically the Secty of State or Chief of Protocol, actually). Deciding who attend is the job of the US State Department, in consultation with the President. 

[Douglas]

Hi Patrick, you're going to have to come up with more convincing evidence about the royal invitation than you have so far.

Here is an invitation from Charles' 1981 wedding that's up for auction.


  All of the royal wedding invitations I've seen have ER II stamped in gold at the top.  Below that are two lines where the actual name of the invited is hand written.  According to the Reagan Museum in Simi Valley, CA, the President and Mrs. Reagan were personally invited to the wedding by name.  

 The idea that the Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh would invite "The United States - State Department" or some other impersonal moniker, as you assert, seems rather unlikely and would be very insulting to the Reagans.  Weddings are very personal events.

Here is the fictional dialogue for the AP readers amusement, RR,  "Hey Nancy, the State Department  sent over this invitation.  Are you interested in going?"

Come on Patrick, let's be serious on this website.

[Lucien]

Their first official engagement together,a natural:

http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=14987586&pos=5

http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=14988169&pos=4

http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=14987343&pos=7

Courtesy Phil Noble.

And more from yesterday:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2011/02/wales-cheers-wills-and-kate-.html

The Prince and his fiancee travelled to St.Andrews today:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2011/02/william-and-kate-return-to-st-andrews.html

courtesy hja

[Eddie_uk]

Hi Patrick, you're going to have to come up with more convincing evidence about the royal invitation than you have so far.

Well, I am still waiting on your convincing evidence that the Queen wears a wig!! We have been waiting a few years for that at least!

[Douglas]

Hi Patrick, you're going to have to come up with more convincing evidence about the royal invitation than you have so far.

Well, I am still waiting on your convincing evidence that the Queen wears a wig!! We have been waiting a few years for that at least!

I don't have too provide any evidence...it's all too obvious.  Besides that, in 1982 Michael Fagan stated that her dressing table displayed her wigs.  

Ref: TIME Jul 1982, "The hyperbolic British press went wild over the incident. The Sun, whose more than 4 million daily circulation is the largest in the country, is said to have paid Fagan's wife, Christine for the rights to her story and proceeded to tantalize readers with various comments: the Queen was wearing a shortie nightgown at the time; she had the figure of a 16-year-old; her wig, so Fagan  told Christine, was sitting in her room. Other papers made much of the fact that Elizabeth and Prince Philip obviously have separate bedrooms...."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922952-2,00.html#ixzz1F1ZIXxj1

 Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth in The Queen bought the QE II wig she wore at the same establishment that the Queen bought hers.  QE II wears a wig as a convenience for her public appearances and has for decades.  It's really nothing to be so worried and anxious about.  QE II is a wise and practical woman.

[Grace]

Michael Fagan = a complete nutcase.  The Sun = a British tabloid known for its inventive stories.  Helen Mirren wearing a wig to play HM = quite understandable to get the right look, but none of this is "convincing evidence" as far as I can see...probably Eddie too...the Queen has a good head of hair, always has and it looks COMPLETELY NATURAL to me.

[Patrick M]

Douglas - This is my last response, because you are sort of nasty to me (which makes you look like a jerk and a bully). This is supposed to be fun and you're not nice, so I'm out. (Sweet Eddie, in contrast, is only nasty when someone has thrown the first stone). Anyhoo, I never asserted that the invitation said "State Dept", I said that it was not a personal invitation, it was a state invitation. It came to the US State Department. Your friends at the Reagan Museum can say whatever they want, but invitations and responses to state events follow diplomatic channels that have been worked out over centuries. Why would the US government have paid for the Steuben bowl the US gave the royal couple, if it was personal?!? The invitation was in all likelihood discussed by the Chief of Protocol at State with the President's Chief of Staff. They would then move to a discussion of the political and PR advantages and disadvantages to the President and/or First Lady in accepting the invite. If they decided not to, someone else would have represented them. A personal invite doesn't allow for: "I can't come but my cousin Millie will stand in for me." A state invitation does. I don't care if you believe me.