Community Chat

[stevieb]

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@BettyNewbie wrote:

---

@felixmom wrote:

I read that she's also putting a "no ring, no bring" policy in place meaning guests can't bring their significant other to the wedding unless they're married or engaged...do do do do.....

---

someone may have already said but....thats a Royal Family rule for family members....not the \public......not Pippas rule....and shes  not following it completely because Harrys gf is invited to the reception

---

@BettyNewbie

It's smart for Harry's girlfriend to not attend the wedding.   I'm betting Pippa has never even met Meagan, anyway.  If Meagan did attend, it would steal the bride's thunder, and lets remember ....   it's Pippa's day.  

---

So some seem to think, but on a personal level, I'd hardly consider Markle a household name, other than her being Harry's 'latest'. I mean, I know she's an actress, but, from my prespective, hardly 'all that'...

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@stevieb wrote:

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@BettyNewbie wrote:

---

@felixmom wrote:

I read that she's also putting a "no ring, no bring" policy in place meaning guests can't bring their significant other to the wedding unless they're married or engaged...do do do do.....

---

someone may have already said but....thats a Royal Family rule for family members....not the \public......not Pippas rule....and shes  not following it completely because Harrys gf is invited to the reception

---

@BettyNewbie

It's smart for Harry's girlfriend to not attend the wedding.   I'm betting Pippa has never even met Meagan, anyway.  If Meagan did attend, it would steal the bride's thunder, and lets remember ....   it's Pippa's day.  

---

So some seem to think, but on a personal level, I'd hardly consider Markle a household name, other than her being Harry's 'latest'. I mean, I know she's an actress, but, from my prespective, hardly 'all that'...

---

@stevieb

My point was that there WILL be plenty of photographers present ... not just whom the bride hired.  They will be there to get photos of all the guests etc etc, and Harry's new girlfriend would just attract too much attention, IMO.   

[Tinkrbl44]

If anyone is interested, here's the article published in The Royalist about Pippa's wedding ...  I didn't realize the wedding is next week!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/13/pippa-middleton-is-planning-a-royally-grand-wedding

[lulu2]

After reading the link, I can now say in some small way my husband contributed to the groom's family fortune.  We stayed at the (fabulous and terribly expensive) Eden Rock Hotel in St. Barth's.  I think it's closed for renovations since we've been there.  I cannot imagine what they can do to make it more luxurious.

There's an article in the Daily Mail about this glass house Pippa had imported from Belgium to be placed on her parents' land for the wedding some of the comments are funny and fitting.

[BettyNewbie]

---

@stevieb wrote:

---

@BettyNewbie wrote:

---

@felixmom wrote:

I read that she's also putting a "no ring, no bring" policy in place meaning guests can't bring their significant other to the wedding unless they're married or engaged...do do do do.....

---

someone may have already said but....thats a Royal Family rule for family members....not the \public......not Pippas rule....and shes  not following it completely because Harrys gf is invited to the reception

---

Strictly speaking, Pippa is not a member of the royal family. Her sister is but she's not. If the royals choose to dictate how their events are conducted or how royals attending other events conduct themselves that's their choice, but I don't think they can dictate attendace at a wedding of the inlaws... As was noted, I've read the supposed rationale is the size of the church. I'm not sure that rings true (pun intended) but it makes a good excuse.

---

the "rule" pertains to Harry, who is royal........I think theyve come up with a fair solution...reception only, there wont be phone allowed and no unoffical photogs

just think about all the royal girlfriends who have come and gone...imagine them in all the historical pictures??? OH NOOOO  ...Just Randy Andy alone would be terrible!!! He dated half of the soft-p orn stars in the world

[DeniseColo]

Interesting thread about weddings. However I had to use Google to figure out who Pippa is.  Guess I'm not too up-to-date on who's who and current social events.

[SahmIam]

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@SahmIam wrote:

---

@Yardlie wrote:

Regarding no ring/no bring ... It is a form of discrimination against singles.

Next thing you know, people will be inviting only one person out of a couple. If they aren't close friends with the spouse, they won't be invited. No know/no go.

---

RIght. Just like "no kids" discriminates against those of us with young children. But of course, DO send a gift.......

---

@SahmIam

Sorry, but that's not "discrimination" against people with young children.  

It's not wanting a wedding ruined by children who were never taught how to behave in public and running roughshod all over, and even throwing food around.    They have no place at a formal wedding.

Personally, I think small children should ALWAYS be left at home with a babysitter.  If the parents don't want to respect the bride & groom's wishes, they should stay home, too.    

---

Being honest, I was being sarcastic. I don't see EITHER as being discriminatory because, as you pointed out, it's the COUPLES' choice. As usual, those who dislike kids only commented/favored my post....typical. Forget the fact that it's the PARENTS who are to blame, not the kids. You act as you are taught but lets hate on the children, shall we? Again, typical.

[GSPgirl]

Can anyone really trust the news?  

[GSPgirl]

---

@Desertdi wrote:

I was one of those "always a bridesmaid" girls decades ago.   In Catholic weddings (and I assume Anglican are the same).......there were only morning masses for weddings.     No "questionable" clothing was allowed in church.    If it was a formal evening reception, everybody went home and changed clothes for the formal affair at a hotel or country club.   

I realize "times have changed"...........

---

When I lived in England I went to an Anglican wedding and then an elaborate sit down dinner.  No one changed clothes. 

[stevieb]

---

@SahmIam wrote:

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@SahmIam wrote:

---

@Yardlie wrote:

Regarding no ring/no bring ... It is a form of discrimination against singles.

Next thing you know, people will be inviting only one person out of a couple. If they aren't close friends with the spouse, they won't be invited. No know/no go.

---

RIght. Just like "no kids" discriminates against those of us with young children. But of course, DO send a gift.......

---

@SahmIam

Sorry, but that's not "discrimination" against people with young children.  

It's not wanting a wedding ruined by children who were never taught how to behave in public and running roughshod all over, and even throwing food around.    They have no place at a formal wedding.

Personally, I think small children should ALWAYS be left at home with a babysitter.  If the parents don't want to respect the bride & groom's wishes, they should stay home, too.    

---

Being honest, I was being sarcastic. I don't see EITHER as being discriminatory because, as you pointed out, it's the COUPLES' choice. As usual, those who dislike kids only commented/favored my post....typical. Forget the fact that it's the PARENTS who are to blame, not the kids. You act as you are taught but lets hate on the children, shall we? Again, typical.

---

Regardless of where the blame gets laid, if a child attends a beautiful, formal wedding and acts out, the result is the same. Likewise, in a restaurant, a department store, at the grocery... wherever... everyone else is subjected to the bad behavior... no matter how that bad behavior evolved...