# THE Wedding



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Magnificent! Leave it to the British! What a fantastic show of splendor, tradition, pageantry, religion and values.

And not one attendee wearing shorts and a tank top! Marvelous!

I got up here in the Colonies at 2 AM to watch. Forgot there was a 2 AM! :icon_smile:

Enjoyed watching the event from the start as opposed to the clips that will be on the nightly news.

I wish them and Britain well!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Andy said:


> And not one attendee wearing shorts and a tank top! Marvelous!


If only we all had Beefeaters to keep out the riff-raff!!


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> If only we all had Beefeaters to keep out the riff-raff!!


Last time I visited the Tower, I had the pleasure of seeing one of the Yeoman Warders (a retired senior British NCO, of course) politely but very firmly stop an idiotic foreign tourist (he did not seem to be an American, I was relieved to note) from bringing shame on himself and making everyone else cringe by walking behind one of the on-duty guardsmen while doing a moronic parody of his marching step. The offender was wearing flipflops too, I might add.:devil:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I'm not begrudging a certain amount of extravagance and folks are free to do as they wish with their money, but when I see the ongoing pain, suffering, and loss in the world from events such as the earthquake in Japan and the storms in the Southeastern U.S. it makes me cringe to see $70 million spent on two people getting married. There is a point at which that becomes almost shameful. I'm not sure where that point is, maybe $10-20 million; but to me something is out of kilter here regardless of how nice everyone's clothes were.

Cruiser


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not begrudging a certain amount of extravagance and folks are free to do as they wish with their money, but when I see the ongoing pain, suffering, and loss in the world from events such as the earthquake in Japan and the storms in the Southeastern U.S. it makes me cringe to see $70 million spent on two people getting married. There is a point at which that becomes almost shameful. I'm not sure where that point is, maybe $10-20 million; but to me something is out of kilter here regardless of how nice everyone's clothes were.
> Cruiser


I don't see it at all shameful, the wedding has been a boon for the economy of the UK which is badly needed over there. During the week of the wedding almost every hotel room in London was booked and sales of related merchandise was estimated to be over £44 million. Think of all the restaurants that will be filled with people, shops with tourists, taxi cabs shuttling people back and forth, the millions of people using mass transit, all the parties people had in their homes with families and friends, flights completely booked and cross-country rail cars filled with people. If $70 million was spent on the wedding that's $70 million in the pockets of many average British citizens who can use it.

This is much more than two people getting married this is about the pride that the British people have for their great union of countries. It's about people getting together to celebrate a happy moment in life and the traditions that bound the British people together.

And everyone did look wonderful.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Andy said:


> Magnificent! Leave it to the British! What a fantastic show of splendor, tradition, pageantry, religion and values.
> 
> 
> I got up here in the Colonies at 2 AM to watch. I wish them and Britain well!


Yes, it was magnificent. William is a remarkable man;

well rounded, on the yin side a degree in art history, on the yang side flying military helicopters at some risk to himself ;

psychologically sound, a successful escapee from his parent's soap opera;

level unassuming personality without arrogance, per his flight crew and everyone else who knows him;

socially conscious - active in charities with a real concern for the less fortunate;

blessed with a beautiful wife;

and a pretty good dresser.

On this side of the pond we have not seen a comparable prominent figure since President Kennedy.

Andy, I join in wishing them well but I'm surprised you had to wake up at 2 am. I though real men just stayed up.


----------



## TomS (Mar 29, 2010)

Highly enjoyable from a sartorial perspective, as well as being a wonderful show of pageantry and pomp. The good people of Gieves and Hawkes deserve a lot of credit for the Duke of Cambridge's various outfits looked just right.

As a Brit, it's astonishing to see the degree to which we can still bring the world to a grinding halt for the day!

Serious question though; any guesses on who made James Middleton's shirt? I think the collar shape is fantastic.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not begrudging a certain amount of extravagance and folks are free to do as they wish with their money, but when I see the ongoing pain, suffering, and loss in the world from events such as the earthquake in Japan and the storms in the Southeastern U.S. it makes me cringe to see $70 million spent on two people getting married. There is a point at which that becomes almost shameful. I'm not sure where that point is, maybe $10-20 million; but to me something is out of kilter here regardless of how nice everyone's clothes were.
> 
> Cruiser


Cruiser, in days of yore I'd have agreed with you instantly, but...over the decades we've both seen that even when the money gets to The Right Place, somebody wayyyyy too often takes it and does The Wrong Thing. I'm more tolerant these days of letting it go where "the people" want it to go, no matter how greedy, egotistical and dumb that may objectively be.

I set my clock a little too late, so missed the actual vows. It was a pleasure to see so many men "all dressed up" and comfortable with it.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Isn't it though? I wonder how soon we'll see that shape in RTW.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Middleton's collar looks like a detachable, similar to the Albany shape made by Luke Eyres, albeit scaled a bit more trimly.

https://www.luke-eyres.co.uk/

It's the kind of relatively exiguous collar that a slender man can get away with.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Middleton's collar looks like a detachable, similar to the Albany shape made by Luke Eyres, albeit scaled a bit more trimly.
> 
> https://www.luke-eyres.co.uk/
> 
> It's the kind of relatively exiguous collar that a* slender man can get away with*.


Well, so much for that idea!


----------



## TomS (Mar 29, 2010)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Middleton's collar looks like a detachable, similar to the Albany shape made by Luke Eyres, albeit scaled a bit more trimly.
> 
> https://www.luke-eyres.co.uk/
> 
> It's the kind of relatively exiguous collar that a slender man can get away with.


I am a slender man, for now at least!

It's smaller than the Albany though, which is what enables him to wear it with a four-in-hand knot without it seeming lost in an expanse of collar.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

brings out the republican in me - off with their heads! - no, wait, I meant to say I'm glad it's over and done with :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## ATLien (Jan 6, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not begrudging a certain amount of extravagance and folks are free to do as they wish with their money, but when I see the ongoing pain, suffering, and loss in the world from events such as the earthquake in Japan and the storms in the Southeastern U.S. it makes me cringe to see $70 million spent on two people getting married. There is a point at which that becomes almost shameful. I'm not sure where that point is, maybe $10-20 million; but to me something is out of kilter here regardless of how nice everyone's clothes were.
> 
> Cruiser


Great advice from a country with hardly any public debt and no waste of public money.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

ATLien said:


> Great advice from a country with hardly any public debt and no waste of public money.


A couple of things. First, I offered no advice. I merely stated how such events make me feel.

Second, my comment was not from any particular country, nor was it directed at any particular country. I feel the same way about extreme excess in any country, including my own. It just so happens that this event took place in England.

I think that you, along with a couple more, may have read things into my post that weren't there. And for what it's worth, my comments came after I spoke with an English friend of mine who said that if she had her way the entire monarchy would be given the boot, so clearly there are alternative views in England as well.

I'm staying out of that debate because it isn't my country. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

So it's all over then? Chinese state TV (CCTV) didn't show it at all.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> A couple of things. First, I offered no advice. I merely stated how such events make me feel.
> 
> Second, my comment was not from any particular country, nor was it directed at any particular country. I feel the same way about extreme excess in any country, including my own. It just so happens that this event took place in England.
> 
> ...


You make some good points. From what I gather the Americans were more excited about the wedding than the British. Considering how the United States started, interest in the wedding could be considered somewhat un-American. But I'm not saying that I feel that way. My interest in the Royal wedding is purely sartorial.

I did read that even though the wedding has brought considerable tourism and wedding-related revenue, making the day a holiday caused the country to lose more money than it made.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> So it's all over then? Chinese state TV (CCTV) didn't show it at all.


_Not at all!! _What are they, a buncha commies?.....oh, yeah, right, slipped my mind


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

About the alleged economic benefits accruing from the royal wedding, I heard an economist claim recently that they would in fact be negligible in the face of the UK's current problems. Also, the whole country had a day off work: I wonder how much that cost the economy?

Lots of very nicely turned out gents: interesting how many of the ties were undimpled (Cameron's was dimpled, however - I thought he looked particularly dapper, a good dresser on the whole). I wonder whether the wearing of a tie pin precludes a dimple? Any ideas anyone? A lot of men were let down by poor posture - both Harry and William a bit hunched and awkward, like their father (not so Prince Philip, still looking very martial!). Kate was stunning of course - nice-looking sister too...


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

I didn't watch much of the wedding, a few minutes here and there as I had to work. It was great to see some well dressed people for once. On the other hand I was disappointed by the lack of tailoring in some of the sleeve lengths. Maybe it's just me as I know I typically have to shorten my left sleeve vs. the right.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

All I can say is this Kate girl is a real looker. At least the endless supply of trashy Brit tabloids will feature someone worth looking at.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Nothing like hand wringing negative thinking to interject on a wonderful event like this (but only from one poster). I don't have any tolerance for negativism, but we all have to live and sometimes work for/with them.

Thank goodness there were some positive thinking in our human past or we'd still be in mud huts worried that if we did anything nicer or had goals, the poor neighbors would be insulted.

If you want to look at the Wedding on a cold cash level, then it was a great investment. Billions of money will now come to the UK in the form of tourism, and goods sold for years to come.

Even my local merchants were tying into the wedding for sales. And think of all that great money spent on media advertising covering the event.

With tradition we confirm our values and some of us can set our goals even higher.


----------



## ilikeyourstyle (Apr 24, 2007)

I try to keep envy/jealousy in check when watching this type of event. There will always be someone wealthier than me spending more money than me, and I can either attack them for being wasteful or just remember that there are always people less wealthy than me thinking the same thing about what I do with my money.

The event itself was lovely and uplifting. I would be hard pressed to list five people I saw who were poorly attired. Nearly everyone looked amazing.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Andy said:


> Nothing like hand wringing negative thinking to interject on a wonderful event like this (but only from one poster). I don't have any tolerance for negativism, but we all have to live and sometimes work for/with them.
> 
> 
> > Following that line of thinking, Andy, would mean that almost anything contrary to what one likes or believes would be negativism. I have no problems with the event itself. I just thought that the grandeur could have been scaled back just a bit given the times, but that's just a personal opinion.
> ...


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Isn't that why the guillotine was invented during the French Revolution. :icon_smile:


So I guess the lesson is that positive thinking and idealism aren't the only sources of innovation. Envy and class warfare also sometimes produce, er, new technologies.

Cruiser, you make some good points, and it's always nice to see a fact-based argument. I guess roughly half of that $70 million was for security (https://www.industryleadersmagazine.com/marriage-majestic-william-kate-wedding-to-cost-70-million/), and by the looks of it that's the bulk of the taxpayer expense, with the two families picking up most of the expenses for the gown, the cake, the parties, etc. There's my modest attempt at adding to the facts on hand.

Anyway, $10-$20 million would have bought a nice wedding, I'm sure--but there would have been a lot of media chatter about the short guest list, chintzy displays, etc. The whole point of having a royal family is to put on a good show as this or that occasion requires. You may not like that whole concept, but it is what it is. That's on the philosophical (non-fact-based) side of this debate.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Kurt N said:


> You may not like that whole concept, but it is what it is.


I do understand that and I'm not calling for any heads to be cut off. :icon_smile_big:

I would like to make one thing clear, I'm a fan of both Prince William and Prince Harry. I wouldn't give a plug nickel for most of the Royals, but these guys seem to be a notch above in my book.

I was especially pleased to see that William and I dress in a like manner. Here he is after the wedding. I was wearing the same thing a couple of days ago, except that I had my jacket and shirt buttoned. Nice looking couple.










Cruiser


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not begrudging a certain amount of extravagance and folks are free to do as they wish with their money, but when I see the ongoing pain, suffering, and loss in the world from events such as the earthquake in Japan and the storms in the Southeastern U.S. it makes me cringe to see $70 million spent on two people getting married. There is a point at which that becomes almost shameful. I'm not sure where that point is, maybe $10-20 million; but to me something is out of kilter here regardless of how nice everyone's clothes were.


Maybe everyone should have just worn jeans? :tongue2:



Cruiser said:


> For example, *I was living in Nashville* when the debate was going on about bringing an NFL sports franchise to the city. Many did not want their tax dollars to be spent on a private enterprise like this; however, others pointed out that it would bring revenue into the city that would far outweigh the cost.


This is a bad example, though, because your tax dollars would have gone to the stadium, but they did not pay for the wedding. If residents of the UK want to discuss the cost and whether or not it was justified, that is their business. My tax dollars don't support the royal family, therefore it is no concern of mine.

Andy started this thread to discuss the fashion aspects of the wedding, just as he started this forum to discuss fashion in general. I'm not saying that a discussion about the wedding's cost is irrelevant, just not relevant to this thread.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

To return to sartorial considerations, it's interesting to compare the aristocracy and middle classes here. The former were not especially well-dressed (not counting uniforms, of course) and the women were not very impressive. But the middle classes looked pretty good, the Middleton family particularly, but also the Camerons and the Cleggs and others. Prince Albert's girlfriend was extremely elegant, etc. An illustration of the fact that the aristocracy just leave everything to their tailors and manservants and take no interest in their appearance, their inherited status being enough for them. By contrast, the middle classes care about how they look and want to give a good impression. Behavior too: aristocrats fidgety and bored-looking, middle classers more poised and attentive. Some would say that the Middletons were a tad too well turned out ("bless their hearts", as that great snob Alan Clark would have said).


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

DoghouseReilly said:


> ... your tax dollars would have gone to the stadium, but they did not pay for the wedding. If residents of the UK want to discuss the cost and whether or not it was justified, that is their business. My tax dollars don't support the royal family, therefore it is no concern of mine.
> 
> Andy started this thread to discuss the fashion aspects of the wedding, just as he started this forum to discuss fashion in general. I'm not saying that a discussion about the wedding's cost is irrelevant, just not relevant to this thread.


If you're saying that we have to have a personal stake in a matter before we're allowed to air our (harmless, no-impact-on-anyone) opinions, I disagree.

Anyway, Andy did say "splendor, tradition, pageantry, religion *and values*." Pretty much opened the door for a discussion of things like economic priorities.


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> A couple of things. First, I offered no advice. I merely stated how such events make me feel.
> 
> Second, my comment was not from any particular country, nor was it directed at any particular country. I feel the same way about extreme excess in any country, including my own. It just so happens that this event took place in England.
> 
> ...


I think your position is certainly valid especially in light of recent events and I didn't take it at all as anti-monarchy or negative.

When Queen Elizabeth II (then Princess Elizabeth) was married in 1947, England's economy was a disaster and the whole country was forced to use ration coupons and they were only allowed a small portion of meat, milk and bread for each household for a week and clothing could not be bought new for most people because cloth was being rationed. Many were forced to buy used clothing that was donated to churches and other relief organizations. The Royal Family was not excluded from this and the silk that Princess Elizabeth bought to have her wedding gown made out of was bought with ration coupons. Even though Britain was facing hard times the wedding lifted people's spirits and made the British people feel unified under extreme hardship.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

phyrpowr said:


> _Not at all!! _What are they, a buncha commies?.....oh, yeah, right, slipped my mind


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Best post I've read in a long time!



mrp said:


> I didn't watch much of the wedding, a few minutes here and there as I had to work. It was great to see some well dressed people for once. On the other hand I was disappointed by the lack of tailoring in some of the sleeve lengths. Maybe it's just me as I know I typically have to shorten my left sleeve vs. the right.


I second this notion. I saw a photo of Mr. Middleton (who looked quite dapper in full dress) in which his morning coat sleeves looked insanely long.


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

I think that HMG and the British public more generally (not excluding the Royal Family) pull their weight in terms of international aid and charitable disaster relief, so I feel no shame that as a nation we have forked out for a wedding that has united a couple who I hope will one day make a very fine king and queen, and given 25 million people in the UK (and uncounted millions abroad) something to watch and, perchance, to celebrate. God knows we could do with something of the sort at the moment.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

My take on it is that William will be a very popular monarch. Buckingham Palace has come a long way in its understanding of PR, something they desperately needed, and William and Harry are much more comfortable in public than Charles used to be. Additionally, the silly old idea that royalty should never actually 'do' anything has gone by the wayside and both the younger princes are showing themselves as useful, contributing members of society. To generations past that would have been appalling. Royals simply 'were' rather than 'did' but we live in different times. So the younger brother will grow up an likely attain general rank (a very suitable employ for a member of the monarchy) and the Heir Apparent is a search and rescue pilot. How much more heroic in today's world can you get? Methinks that the British republicans will find it quite the challenge to convince the rest of the citizenry that the royals should go.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

I was off for the day after tweaking my ankle so I watched the re-runs. 

I very much enjoyed the flawless execution of a model production of a newsworthy event. It was a pleasure seeing Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie in their wild hats and how nicely everyone was turned out. And not a pair of blue jeans in sight! 

I am sure the party rental business will pick up nicely and the sight of Pip leading the bridesmaids in was an image to set a gentleman to thinking seriously. 

PMOK had to ride in a bus. Too bad&#8230;


----------



## TweedyDon (Aug 31, 2007)

arkirshner said:


> Yes, it was magnificent. William is a remarkable man;
> 
> well rounded, on the yin side a degree in art history,


From an excellent university, too! 

I wish my fellow alums the very best for their marriage!


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Oldsarge said:


> My take on it is that William will be a very popular monarch. Buckingham Palace has come a long way in its understanding of PR, something they desperately needed, and William and Harry are much more comfortable in public than Charles used to be. Additionally, the silly old idea that royalty should never actually 'do' anything has gone by the wayside and both the younger princes are showing themselves as useful, contributing members of society. To generations past that would have been appalling. Royals simply 'were' rather than 'did' but we live in different times. So the younger brother will grow up an likely attain general rank (a very suitable employ for a member of the monarchy) and the Heir Apparent is a search and rescue pilot. How much more heroic in today's world can you get? Methinks that the British republicans will find it quite the challenge to convince the rest of the citizenry that the royals should go.


It's long been traditional for male royals to serve stints in the military, but they have to leave active service before too long and enter "the family firm" as full-time ribbon-cutters, etc. Prince Charles learned to fly a jet in the RAF and was a Royal Navy chopper pilot, as was Prince Andrew (who served in the Falklands War), and Charles eventually commanded a minesweeper, IIRC. They might have both been better off staying in the military, but that's not how it works. Charles was effectively done with his military career by the time he was 30, and Andrew not much after he turned 40.


----------



## Bracemaker (May 11, 2005)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Last time I visited the Tower, I had the pleasure of seeing one of the Yeoman Warders (a retired senior British NCO, of course) politely but very firmly stop an idiotic foreign tourist (he did not seem to be an American, I was relieved to note) from bringing shame on himself and making everyone else cringe by walking behind one of the on-duty guardsmen while doing a moronic parody of his marching step. The offender was wearing flipflops too, I might add.:devil:


It wasn't this bloke by any chance?


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Oldsarge said:


> My take on it is that William will be a very popular monarch... Methinks that the British republicans will find it quite the challenge to convince the rest of the citizenry that the royals should go.


A very astute comment. In the recent past it has been the Queen herself, rather than the monarchy as such, which has been respected in the UK; but it looks as if Prince William and the others of his generation have already started to bring that respect back to the institution.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not begrudging a certain amount of extravagance and folks are free to do as they wish with their money, but when I see the ongoing pain, suffering, and loss in the world from events such as the earthquake in Japan and the storms in the Southeastern U.S. it makes me cringe to see $70 million spent on two people getting married. There is a point at which that becomes almost shameful. I'm not sure where that point is, maybe $10-20 million; but to me something is out of kilter here regardless of how nice everyone's clothes were.
> 
> Cruiser


I would have your same sympathies _if_ everyone in the UK decided to cancel their weddings for this entire year/period and/or when some disaster or war happens halfway across the world. Unfortunately, life goes on and as long as there is a ounce of British spirit in us and a chance to, for just one single day of the 365 days of the year (or decade), forget about the doom and gloom and remind us of what is good in life instead of thinking about coffins and the walking dead then all the more better for morale and the country.

Regarding the expense of it all, I'm more happy to put my 62p towards this than the white elephant of how much the Olympics are costing us. And we have given so much in aid to other countries already (even to India with its multibillion dollar space programme and didn't ask for the aid to begin with) that even we are now questioning whether or not we are dishing out too much to these 'international chuggers' at this juncture (and I haven't included how much the British have given to things like Children In Need or Comic/Sport Relief every single year)...


----------



## Dr Kilroy (May 10, 2010)

Have you seen the ditto/frock suit of The King of Tonga? 





Best regards, Dr


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Bracemaker said:


> It wasn't this bloke by any chance?


No, our Warder had a beard. But I'm sure any of them could have handled the faux-marching miscreant--after decades in the service and a few years or even months of dealing with the hordes at one of the world's great tourist attractions, the Warders to a man must really have "seen it all."


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Thinking way back, the first thing I remember seeing on television was the coronation of the present queen (I must have been about 5). I'm sure that telecast had a profound effect on my interior landscape.


----------



## medhat (Jan 15, 2006)

Orsini said:


> I was off for the day after tweaking my ankle so I watched the re-runs.
> 
> I very much enjoyed the flawless execution of a model production of a newsworthy event. It was a pleasure seeing Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie in their wild hats and how nicely everyone was turned out. And not a pair of blue jeans in sight!
> 
> ...


Agreed. I watched all too much of the event, and was really impressed by how well the details of the event were carried out, with a Disney-esque level of coordination with the timing, the video, the social media, the internet. And this from an institution not known for being progressive in anything! From a fashion perspective, sure, they're all super-wealthy, but you got to give the attendees credit (especially the women, including the daughters of the Duke of York) for taking rather bold style steps on an enormous stage (what, 2 billion people watching, really?). My only question mark for the men was David Beckham. First, Ralph Lauren, an American who made his career copying the British, for the choice of morning dress, then to wear his OBE medal on the "wrong" side? I suspect he took some advice from his wife. The Royals know how to dress, as did the bride, who was smokin'.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

What I (and my friends) wore to Friday's street party (silk topper was stored under the table at that point in time which I later wore afterwards):


When I was in Hyde Park earlier watching the big screens, there were plenty of people who wanted to take photos of me.


----------



## Padme (Aug 18, 2009)

We set the alarm for 2:45, and my husband set up the DVD recorder for me. We had a lot of fun watching it. I would not have minded catching a glimpse of Sarah, but I know she was not invited. I made a nice breakfast, and my husband opened a bottle of champagne using a new technique he learned from one of his online sites. He was very pleased with his work.
I thought the whole thing was very close to perfect. Maybe Catherine can swing for some of the Palace pictures online for the suburban ladies.


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> What I (and my friends) wore to Friday's street party (silk topper was stored under the table at that point in time which I later wore afterwards):
> 
> When I was in Hyde Park earlier watching the big screens, there were plenty of people who wanted to take photos of me.


Very dapper, and your friend's very handsome piped morning coat with matching piped d/b waistcoat is a revelation - I never saw the like!

Looking at the photos at via this link (https://royalwedding.yahoo.com/photos/sets/1124/Royal-wedding-fashion-report-card.html) I was struck by a few things:

James Middleton's collar was well-chosen, and looks (as other have said above) like a proper detachable collar. Perhaps the sleeves of the morning coat are a little long.

Sir Elton John looks a little fussy in his fancy weskit but Mr Furnish is well turned-out and it looks as though his grey waistcoat may have slips, which is interesting if so.

I thought David Beckham looked presentable, although I don't think that his collar was up to the strain of carrying the whole wing collar and straight tie look.

Guy Ritchie looked comfortable in his morning dress although it looks as though he left his collar bones at home; his interlocutor, however, needs a bit of work to centre his tie and shorten his trousers a bit: overall a good effort but I think that the narrow lapels on his morning coat let him down.

Chelsy Davy's unnamed escort looks very well in a grey morning suit with a blue shirt.

Of those not illustrated, I was pleased that the prime minister wore morning dress but wasn't taken with the scoop-like neck of his waistcoat. Speaking of waistcoats, I also noted a pleasing number of coloured waistcoats on display, including the buff ones worn by the Middletons, and a rather fetching blue one sported by an unknown guest who featured in the shots taken when the Duchess of Cambridge and her father were being greeted at the door of the Abbey.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> I would have your same sympathies _if_ everyone in the UK decided to cancel their weddings for this entire year/period and/or when some disaster or war happens halfway across the world


I never said that they shouldn't have had a wedding or even that it shouldn't have been a grand event. There is so much being read into my comment that simply wasn't stated or intended.

Cruiser


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Whereas my "off with their heads" seemed to pass without comment :biggrin2:; but then, I actually thought the whole show was superb, and well worth every penny I paid for it. I revere Queen Elizabeth, and regret that her offspring are so disappointing. Why not hope for better from her grandson! He has already suceeded in doing what may be the most important thing he ever has to do.


----------



## GrumF14 (Aug 25, 2008)

Dr Kilroy said:


> Have you seen the ditto/frock suit of The King of Tonga?
> Best regards, Dr


 I did, actually! The commentators on television identified it as an interesting "overcoat", and I was quite pleased to know the difference. I think he looks quite dapper.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not begrudging a certain amount of extravagance and folks are free to do as they wish with their money, but when I see the ongoing pain, suffering, and loss in the world from events such as the earthquake in Japan and the storms in the Southeastern U.S. it makes me cringe to see $70 million spent on two people getting married. There is a point at which that becomes almost shameful. I'm not sure where that point is, maybe $10-20 million; but to me something is out of kilter here regardless of how nice everyone's clothes were.
> 
> Cruiser


There was a time in America when we had out royalty , motion picture stars. There was
a big party for Elizabeth Taylor and Nick Hilton. The young Ms. Taylor was called the most exciting women in America. Then there was Grace Kelly.
Hollywood's glamour is gone , it was what dreams were made of .

Now we spend $10-20 million dollars on a fighter plane , and $7 billion on an aircraft carrier. 
Would one call that extravagance ? with all the problems listed ?

With foul sounding pop lyrics , sex and violence loaded motion pictures and jeans worn to the operas , this wonderful extravagant affair was a breath of fresh air. 
Maybe this beautiful marriage might convince more young people today to get married.


----------



## JWM1960 (Jan 23, 2009)

Please discuss the mens' neckware. I saw all neckties, no cravats or ascots. Also comment on the tie pins positioned just below the knot and positioned in a way that caused the tie to billow out from the shirt between the knot and the tie pin (tack). Is this a proper way to wear a tie with morning dress? I noticed white pearl tie pins. Are there others that would be acceptable (black pearl for example)?


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

I thought I'd emigrated to the US to get away from this kind of thing! I went down to Philadelphia for the Penn Relays and so spent the day oblivious...


----------



## TomS (Mar 29, 2010)

Wingtip brogues with your dinner suit, William?


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

As I observed in Another Place, his grandfather used to wear black suede slip-ons with black tie, so there is a certain tradition of being a law unto one's self...

The tie pins seem perfectly proper to me, white pearl is the safest choice but one coudl choose a variety of stones, metals etc., to suit. The absence of cravats is not really a surprise, they tend to be a staple of the hire companies now and are supplied ready-tied. True self-tie ones are hard to find nowadays, in fact I suspect that they would need to be made to order (I believe David Saxby can or could do them.) I have a couple which I really must learn to tie one day.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Padme said:


> We set the alarm for 2:45, and my husband set up the DVD recorder for me. We had a lot of fun watching it. I would not have minded catching a glimpse of Sarah, but I know she was not invited. I made a nice breakfast, and *my husband opened a bottle of champagne using a new technique* he learned from one of his online sites. He was very pleased with his work.
> I thought the whole thing was very close to perfect. Maybe Catherine can swing for some of the Palace pictures online for the suburban ladies.


Was the champagne opening method this one?


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Cardcaptor Charlie:

You look great!


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

JWM1960 said:


> Please discuss the mens' neckware. I saw all neckties, no cravats or ascots. Also comment on the tie pins positioned just below the knot and positioned in a way that caused the tie to billow out from the shirt between the knot and the tie pin (tack). Is this a proper way to wear a tie with morning dress? I noticed white pearl tie pins. Are there others that would be acceptable (black pearl for example)?


The formal Ascot/cravat with wing collar fell out of use since the 1950s and no one (save a few including me who know how to do it with a proper formal Ascot tie/cravat and a stiff collar) has done the look properly since mostly due to the fact that it has been done badly by the hire wear companies for so long that it has become naff. Therefore, neck ties have become de rigueur for morning dress ever since.

To create the tie arch, a tie tack is used and tacked about an inch lower than the level of the pin socket so the tie is dragged upwards to create the arch. The tie tack should be silver faced with MOP but it could be oynx or other semi-precious stone.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Padme said:


> I would not have minded catching a glimpse of Sarah, but I know she was not invited.


Ever since that scandal with her trying to sell access to her ex, I very much doubt that sending her an invite would have crossed their minds. Instead she gave the indirect finger to the Royal Family by making her daughters wear ridiculous appendages on their heads...


----------



## Padme (Aug 18, 2009)

Andy said:


> Was the champagne opening method this one?


Michael Alden from The London Lounge had a little video on his website. He's doing a repeat performance with the empty bottle for our son right now. I didn't see him do it because I was watching the show, but he showed me the bottle and the cork right after he did it. It was the Dom Perignon from Sams Club. He said he was nervous while he was opening it, but it worked out perfectly.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Perhaps this is where a Californian (especially a Californian whose family once owned a winery in Napa Valley) has an advantage. I learned to open champagne not much after I was old enough to drink it and that was a lonnnnng time ago. It's really very easy. Once you've done it a couple of times you will wonder why you were intimidated.


----------



## Padme (Aug 18, 2009)

We used to go out more before kids but when they got into the system (school, and the my parents have this type of thing) they thought of lots of ways to spend our money. We went quiet and stayed home.Then they went through a horrified phase of our parents are drinking and will become heathens and addicts. 

Now they are getting older and we can reason with them, so we are expanding our horizons again.


----------



## JWM1960 (Jan 23, 2009)

Thanks for the opinions on the tie and tie pin. I am father of bride in a few weeks and wearing morning dress. Mother of bride wearing an eggplant colored dress and black pearls so I am thinking a solid silk dark purple necktie, and a black pearl tie pin. Shirt is pale blue with very fine white/off white stripes, white turn down collar and white double cuffs, vest is standard dove gray, and coat is oxford gray standard cutaway. Thoughts on the tie and tie pin?


----------



## JWM1960 (Jan 23, 2009)

One More question...Are AE Fifth Avenues, in black custom calf, appropriate for Morning Dress?


----------



## JWM1960 (Jan 23, 2009)

Oh...and about the wedding? Pippa!!! Enough said.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Andy said:


> Cardcaptor Charlie:
> 
> You look great!


He sure does. Rather better than his companions, in fact. This isn't to imply that they are in any way shabby but our Charlie is just miles ahead.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

JWM1960 said:


> One More question...Are AE Fifth Avenues, in black custom calf, appropriate for Morning Dress?


Very much so, although a balmoral cap toe boot would be better but they are hard to find.


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

JWM1960 said:


> Thanks for the opinions on the tie and tie pin. I am father of bride in a few weeks and wearing morning dress. Mother of bride wearing an eggplant colored dress and black pearls so I am thinking a solid silk dark purple necktie, and a black pearl tie pin. Shirt is pale blue with very fine white/off white stripes, white turn down collar and white double cuffs, vest is standard dove gray, and coat is oxford gray standard cutaway. Thoughts on the tie and tie pin?


It all sounds good, and we hope to have pictures....

Here's a selection of my tie pins: https://s83.photobucket.com/albums/...06/Accessories/?action=view&current=001-3.jpg


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> Wingtip brogues with your dinner suit, William?


I bet Mr Middleton was wearing the right shoes...


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Just found out that Beckham's top hat was made by Philip Treacy*.* Telling a millinery to do a hatmaker's job, no wonder it looked like a fancy dress hat!


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Anthony Jordan said:


> I think that HMG and the British public more generally (not excluding the Royal Family) pull their weight in terms of international aid and charitable disaster relief, so I feel no shame that as a nation we have forked out for a wedding that has united a couple who I hope will one day make a very fine king and queen, and given 25 million people in the UK (and uncounted millions abroad) something to watch and, perchance, to celebrate. God knows we could do with something of the sort at the moment.


And the aftermath? How will they fare against the British media? Kate is a star and will be constantly in the limelight, though she seems much steelier than poor Diana. The pressure on the in-laws is going to be enormous, like winning millions on the national lottery.

I wonder whether the postponement of the honeymoon has anything to do with recent US activity in Pakistan?


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Rich said:


> I wonder whether the postponement of the honeymoon has anything to do with recent US activity in Pakistan?


Unless they were planning to honeymoon in those places, I think you;re reading too much into it...


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

JWM1960 said:


> Thanks for the opinions on the tie and tie pin. I am father of bride in a few weeks and wearing morning dress. Mother of bride wearing an eggplant colored dress and black pearls so I am thinking a solid silk dark purple necktie, and a black pearl tie pin. Shirt is pale blue with very fine white/off white stripes, white turn down collar and white double cuffs, vest is standard dove gray, and coat is oxford gray standard cutaway. Thoughts on the tie and tie pin?


Since you're part of the wedding party then I would go for a solid silver or wedding silk tie. Dark purple is okay but you are going to use a black pearl pin which would be consumed by the dark purple.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Andy said:


> Cardcaptor Charlie:
> 
> You look great!


Thanks!


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> Unless they were planning to honeymoon in those places, I think you;re reading too much into it...


It's just that rumour had it (last week) that they were going to Jordan...


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

A post-event submittal of two of the best turned out male participants in the event not in uniform - Father and son Michael and James Middleton...









Well played, gentlemen! Long live the upper-middle class!


----------



## JWM1960 (Jan 23, 2009)

I thought The Right Honorable Sir John Major also appeared very well dressed.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Grayson said:


> A post-event submittal of two of the best turned out male participants in the event not in uniform - Father and son Michael and James Middleton...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed, the Middletons _père et fils _did well. The red tie and the purple tie, respectively, provide just the right amount of color to accent the rest of their rig. Good job.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not begrudging a certain amount of extravagance and folks are free to do as they wish with their money, but when I see the ongoing pain, suffering, and loss in the world from events such as the earthquake in Japan and the storms in the Southeastern U.S. it makes me cringe to see $70 million spent on two people getting married. There is a point at which that becomes almost shameful. I'm not sure where that point is, maybe $10-20 million; but to me something is out of kilter here regardless of how nice everyone's clothes were.
> 
> Cruiser


As about half of the money was spent on security, I would suggest that it wasn't extra expenditure at all. After all, security people, by which I mean the police, and the forces get paid anyway,whether they are at public events or not. 
The other £15-18 million or so is a small price to pay for the massive economic benefits that London, and therefore the exchequer through taxes will accrue. It is also a small pricve for the wonderful sense of well-being that it engendered in Britain. Productivity may have been limited on Friday by so many people not being at work, but many *were *at work, producing as normal, so the impact there wasn't that significant. In any case, the expenditure for that day would be dwarfed by the daily expenditure of Britain's armed forces in Libya and Afghanistan, for an even less positive result.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Chouan said:


> As about half of the money was spent on security, I would suggest that it wasn't extra expenditure at all. After all, security people, by which I mean the police, and the forces get paid anyway,whether they are at public events or not.


While I understand fixed expenses, wasn't it declared to be a holiday with their pay increased accordingly for working on a holiday? I think that I heard they received double their normal pay. Also, weren't there many more officials on duty than would normally be on duty?

I got a chuckle out of David Letterman's joke last night about William having to return his uniform to Cap'n Crunch after the ceremony. :icon_smile_big:

That joke would probably go over better in the U.S. where military uniforms tend to be a little more conservative than those of many nations.

Cruiser


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> I got a chuckle out of David Letterman's joke last night about William having to return his uniform to Cap'n Crunch after the ceremony. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> That joke would probably go over better in the U.S. where military uniforms tend to be a little more conservative than those of many nations.


The uniform he wore is about as conservative as it gets.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I got a chuckle out of David Letterman's joke last night about William having to return his uniform to Cap'n Crunch after the ceremony. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> That joke would probably go over better in the U.S. where military uniforms tend to be a little more conservative than those of many nations.
> 
> Cruiser


I think I heard that joke on Leno last week. The US isn't used to such old-fashioned uniforms. I'm surprised the red coat didn't bring out hatred towards to British. Americans have forgotten their roots.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Matt S said:


> The US isn't used to such old-fashioned uniforms.












"In support of the President of the United States, the Corps performs at armed forces arrival ceremonies for visiting dignitaries and heads of state at the White House, and has participated in every Presidential inaugural parade since President John F. Kennedy's in 1961 (as well as his funeral)."

"The musicians of this unit recall the days of the American Revolution as they perform in uniforms patterned after those worn by the musicians of Gen. George Washington's Continental Army. Military musicians of the period wore the reverse colors of the regiments to which they were assigned. The uniforms worn by the members of the Corps are dated circa 1781, and consist of black tricorn hats, white wigs, waistcoats, colonial coveralls, and red regimental coats.

The drum major of the unit is distinguished from the other musicians by his headgear, the light-infantry Cap. In contrast to modern Army bands, and as an indication of prominence, he carries an espontoon instead of the standard mace. The espontoon is an 18th century weapon carried by officers. However, it is used by the drum major to issue silent commands to the Corps."

https://www.fifeanddrum.army.mil/about.html


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Well, you got me there. That is even older than Cap'n Crunch. It's odd how multiple comedians compared William's bright red uniform to Cap'n Crunch, when he actually wears blue. If they showed the two side by side the joke really wouldn't be as funny.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Matt S said:


> Well, you got me there. That is even older than Cap'n Crunch. It's odd how multiple comedians compared William's bright red uniform to Cap'n Crunch, when he actually wears blue. If they showed the two side by side the joke really wouldn't be as funny.


Thats because he's wearing a U.S. Navy Full Dress Tailcoat:


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Bog said:


> espontoon


Had to Google this. I pictured a large, floating bucket to spit your chew juice in while swimming.

Instead it's a sort of spear with a crossbar--who knew?!


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Kurt N said:


> Had to Google this. I pictured a large, floating bucket to spit your chew juice in while swimming.
> 
> Instead it's a sort of spear with a crossbar--who knew?!


I recall reading somewhere that the original battlefield function of this somewhat stylized pike (in addition to serving as a readily visible sign of rank) was to hold soldiers steady on the firing line--sergeants would be able, if needed, to literally stand behind their men with the spontoon held horizontal and pressed against the small of the men's backs to keep them in place.

In the Navy (if the novels of Patrick O'Brian are correct), the same effect of holding men in action was achieved by placing a Marine sentry at every hatchway during combat, with orders to stop anyone attempting to go belowdecks without authorization.

Stalin, I have read, preferred NKVD units with machine guns just behind the front to act as battlefield police.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Leaving aside drum corps for a moment, the current dress uniforms of the U.S. Marine Corps are probably the closest we've got to the more ornate British/European style that William wore:


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

I particularly like Full Dress HM Household/Civil Uniform 1st Class:

*David George Philip Cholmondeley, 7th Marquess of Cholmondeley, KVCO, DL*
*The Lord Great Chamberlain of England*

You must listen to this tune whilst looking at the photo to get be best effect: 




For UK peeps, you can see him wear it when peforming his official duties at the State Opening of Parliament here: https://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8697000/8697438.stm


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Taliesin said:


> Leaving aside drum corps for a moment, the current dress uniforms of the U.S. Marine Corps are probably the closest we've got to the more ornate British/European style that William wore


Yes, that would be evening dress--basically the Marine version of white tie.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> You must listen to this tune whilst looking at the photo to get be best effect:


Very stirring!

Now I read the YouTube caption .... and apparently Edward VIII's coronation was scheduled for a date more than a year after he'd become king--time enough for him to abdicate and the coronation to proceed as scheduled but with his brother being crowned instead! That seems odd.


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Kurt N said:


> Very stirring!
> 
> Now I read the YouTube caption .... and apparently Edward VIII's coronation was scheduled for a date more than a year after he'd become king--time enough for him to abdicate and the coronation to proceed as scheduled but with his brother being crowned instead! That seems odd.


That's quite common. Queen Elizabeth II became monarch on February 9, 1952 but wasn't crowned until June 2, 1953. The transferring of power is a long and complicated process as is planning for a coronation.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

thefancyman said:


> That's quite common. Queen Elizabeth II became monarch on February 9, 1952 but wasn't crowned until June 2, 1953. The transferring of power is a long and complicated process as is planning for a coronation.


Indeed. When a monarch dies, the heir is informed.

Afterwards, there is a Accession Council where the oath and formal proclamation are taken and made by the new monarch (mainly a formality as the Accession is automatic on the death of the former monarch as dictated by the Act of Settlement 1701).

Next, the Heralds go to the Royal Exchange and various locations throughout the UK to announce the death of the monarch by reading the proclamation:






Then comes the months before the actual coronation takes place.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

I understand about planning, but a year plus still seems like a long time. JFK's funeral was a big affair and yet they managed to do it three days after his death. As for power transfer, that's a whole separate thing from the ceremonial aspect and can't possibly take a year. If it did, they'd have to fix the process so it didn't.

However, I didn't know about Queen Elizabeth, so apparently whatever else that year's delay may be--unusual it isn't. Thanks thefancyman for that info. And Cardcaptor, thanks for the details. What I glean from this is that the delay is actually part of the point, ceremonially. It's maybe a bit like Lent before Easter. The sense of expectation and preparation, I mean. Or like the engagement period prior to a wedding.


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Kurt N said:


> What I glean from this is that the delay is actually part of the point, ceremonially. It's maybe a bit like Lent before Easter. The sense of expectation and preparation, I mean. Or like the engagement period prior to a wedding.


I would say that probably is true. Much of the preparation for the coronation was like the preparation for the recent Royal Wedding. A lot of it is ceremonial with a ritualistic type process where steps are followed out of convention.

Plus, they probably coincided it with summertime and her "official" birthday to create a positive mood in the country during a period when food and clothing was still be rationed in Britain and the economy was still tepid.


----------



## egerland (Aug 18, 2008)

I thought everyone looked great. I did notice Beckham's faux pas with the medal. Apparently, his real faux pas was to wear it at all, since the invitation did not specify decorations (unless one was in uniform, of course). 

The vestments were also fabulous; no one does ritual as well as the CofE.

I've always been puzzled about American hostility to the royal family. Its not as if they are trying to take us over (though the Queen is rumoured to hold stock in the Fed). The Queen is the head of state of America's closest ally, Charles and William are the heirs, and they all should be respected as such.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Kurt N said:


> I understand about planning, but a year plus still seems like a long time. JFK's funeral was a big affair and yet they managed to do it three days after his death. As for power transfer, that's a whole separate thing from the ceremonial aspect and can't possibly take a year. If it did, they'd have to fix the process so it didn't.
> 
> However, I didn't know about Queen Elizabeth, so apparently whatever else that year's delay may be--unusual it isn't. Thanks thefancyman for that info. And Cardcaptor, thanks for the details. What I glean from this is that the delay is actually part of the point, ceremonially. It's maybe a bit like Lent before Easter. The sense of expectation and preparation, I mean. Or like the engagement period prior to a wedding.


You've got to at least account for a period of mourning and the preparation and taking place for the state funeral. You can't cram them all into a few months. Besides, there is no reason to rush things.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

egerland said:


> I've always been puzzled about American hostility to the royal family.


Probably because they hate the fact that she is more recognisable and commands more respect on the world stage than a president or world leader from anywhere else that doesn't stay around as long as her to gain such a status...


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

egerland said:


> I've always been puzzled about American hostility to the royal family. Its not as if they are trying to take us over (though the Queen is rumoured to hold stock in the Fed). The Queen is the head of state of America's closest ally, Charles and William are the heirs, and they all should be respected as such.


First, what hostility? I saw a great deal of kind interest toward them during/before/after this wedding.

Second, what level of respect are they entitled to under an _American_ view of the world beyond the respect due all human beings of decent education and who abide by laws? The American experiment is premised on an explicit _rejection_ of the notion that anyone is due extra deference by virtue of their station at birth. We might individually respect any particular member of the royal family for some deeds they have done or positions they've taken or restraint they've shown... but to revere them simply for having been born into the royal family is antithetical to the whole concept of being an American.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

egerland said:


> I've always been puzzled about American hostility to the royal family. Its not as if they are trying to take us over (though the Queen is rumoured to hold stock in the Fed). The Queen is the head of state of America's closest ally, Charles and William are the heirs, and they all should be respected as such.


Most likely it traces it's roots back to George III and the treatment of the American Colonies prior to the Revolutionary War. To quote from The Declaration of Independence:

_"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."_

While it is true that the monarchy is little more than a ceremonial figurehead these days, the very idea of a monarchy is something that many Americans simply don't care for; although at the same time I think that calling it "hostility" is a little harsh. I think might indifference is a better term for it. In general Americans tend to have more respect for those who are elected than they do for non-elected monarchs.

For example, during World War II I think that the average American saw Winston Churchill as the British leader while many probably didn't even know who the King was at the time.

Cruiser


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

I agree that there really wasn't a lot of hostility, except for a few pundits who made a pretense of hostility precisely over the "We're Americans" thing. I'm thinking of a couple columns at Slate.com and I think TIME.com.

But the whole thing about showing respect surely isn't about the individual people. Whatever respect we accord a national flag (our own, or that of another nation) isn't because of the rights and privileges due to a bolt of cloth but rather because insulting the flag means insulting the country. Well, a British royal is I think a sort of flag in the flesh.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

To comments on remaining hostility with Britain over the American Revolution, I'd like to offer that a vast majority of us (outside of some history buffs) are over it. It is more than counterbalanced by the anglophiles among us, those of British ancestry, and the excellent allies our countries have been for each other.

Let the record show most of us also have made peace with Mexico over The Alamo, Germany over WWI, Japan+Germany+Italy over WWII, and the former USSR over The Cold War.

As for "The Period of Northern Aggression", well... there are still a few in The South working on that one.

:deadhorse-a:


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Which brings us back to the topic of William's actual job. The man has, to my understanding, been the pilot in at least two rescues where there was no way of getting to the individual in trouble except by helicopter. And my pilot friends tell me that flying a chopper in close proximity to cliff faces is not for the faint hearted. I am sure that Charles, had the Palace bureaucracy allowed it, would have shown equal fortitude in whatever mission he was assigned, but they didn't. It is a measure of how far Buckingham has come that Harry was allowed to serve in Afghanistan, at least until the stupid media spewed it all over the headlines to make the poor man a designated target, and that William can really do things that earn him _human_ respect aside from his position. Things are looking up for the Windsors, IMO.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

egerland said:


> I thought everyone looked great. I did notice Beckham's faux pas with the medal. Apparently, his real faux pas was to wear it at all, since the invitation did not specify decorations (unless one was in uniform, of course).
> 
> The vestments were also fabulous; no one does ritual as well as the CofE.
> 
> I've always been puzzled about American hostility to the royal family. Its not as if they are trying to take us over (though the Queen is rumoured to hold stock in the Fed). The Queen is the head of state of America's closest ally, Charles and William are the heirs, and they all should be respected as such.


I'm happy to be the citizen of a republic, but I agree--all it takes is one visit to London to sense how the monarchy _as an institution_ acts as a symbol of the dignity of the British state. The dignity part is why royals who goof or commit pecadilloes that are fairly typical of modern celebrity-hood get held up for ridicule or condemnation that would not be visited upon an ordinary celebrity miscreant with no public role beyond providing pure entertainment.

There's a memorable passage in one of C.S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower novels where Hornblower is telling his rather naive and unworldly wife about an audience he had with the King, and despairs mentally of making her understand that he is not in awe of the rather ho-hum George III as an individual (she seems to think that because he is king, he must possess extraordinary personal qualities), but still feels great loyalty toward what "Farmer George" represents, including the rule of law, the rights of Englishmen, and all the rest.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Kurt, the American idea is that "flag in the flesh" are terrible ideas.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Excellent point, Oldsarge.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Kurt, the American idea is that "flag in the flesh" are terrible ideas.




I get that. But I think it's one thing to say, "A flag in the flesh is a terrible idea," and it's another thing to say, "You folks over there, who have chosen to go with that idea against our good advice--we're not going to respect your flag."

I think PJC's point is correct and makes it easier to maintain these distinctions. Like they say in the military about a less-than-impressive officer: you're saluting the uniform, not the man.

And this is all hypothetical. I agree that there's really not a lot of American hostility toward British royals. Heck, some of my wife's friends held a Royal Wedding Breakfast on Friday.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Kurt N said:


> a... flag in the flesh.


Brilliant metaphor


----------



## simonfoy (Mar 18, 2010)

According to the press, the event was scaled down a bit. Kate didn't arrive in a horse drawn carriage etc.

Statistic wise the Royal Family cost each UK taxPayer 69 pence per year. That isn't much to have a Royal Family I feel. I am very proud of them and proud to be British, they're just a normal family after all, disfunctional!

It was a great day and one that will be remembered by many. Saville row did a fine job as they always do on these occasions. I just wish men dressed so well daily.

I hope you all enjoyed it, over here there were so many US reporters covering the event they couldn't understand why we weren't getting excited, British reserve, then BAM 1 million turn out on the streets to witness history. William is well loved and also the Brits feel a sense of parenthood towards him, having lost his Mum. We feel somehow we have to look after, support and show our love for him as we were all with him throughout his growing up. He's a good lad, as down to earth as you can be. He was playing footie on the park 3 days before the wedding. 

xxx


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Kurt, the American idea is that "flag in the flesh" are terrible ideas.




Actually, that is how many British people see the Queen and the monarchy as a whole. A symbol that represents the United Kingdom and stands for the people of Britain.

The poster of the phrase "keep calm and carry on" has a crown on top of it for a reason. The crown (with the monarch as an extension) is a symbol of British stability and union as our American flag is.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

PJC in NoVa said:


> .
> 
> (if the novels of Patrick O'Brian are correct),


My favorite author -and I have yet to find an instance when he's incorrect.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

egerland said:


> I've always been puzzled about American hostility to the royal family.


I've had the pleasure of living in the U.K. for almost 10years on a work assignment. I've never experienced more open hostility directed toward the royal family then that coming from fellow British citizens. Now that was puzzling!

I think the wedding was amazing!


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

sirchandler said:


> I've never experienced more open hostility directed toward the royal family then that coming from fellow British citizens.


I don't think this is true regarding the Queen herself; you have expressed, in a different way, what I tried to say above, that the institution of the monarchy may have lost respect from the people. But it is the Queen, not the monarchy, that is the "flag in the flesh". Simon's posting above admirably sums up the present feelings of most people in the UK.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

The Rambler said:


> My favorite author -and I have yet to find an instance when he's incorrect.


I'm currently re-reading all 20 (or 21, if you count the unfinished one) of the JA novels, and enjoying them just as much as I did the first time through--and I'm someone who doesn't tend to re-read much except the Bible, Homer, and Shakespeare.

Tho' no expert on the Napoleonic sea wars myself, I have read that O'Brian did meticulous research and strove to keep everything (speech, mannerisms, attitudes) absolutely true-to-period, which historical fiction (to say nothing of movies) often seems to have a hard time doing.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

His accuracy in History (barring the elastic timescale in his novels) technical aspects, society, culture and language are breathtaking.


----------



## Bracemaker (May 11, 2005)

PJC in NoVa said:


> I'm currently re-reading all 20 (or 21, if you count the unfinished one) of the JA novels, and enjoying them just as much as I did the first time through--and I'm someone who doesn't tend to re-read much except the Bible, Homer, and Shakespeare.
> 
> Tho' no expert on the Napoleonic sea wars myself, I have read that O'Brian did meticulous research and strove to keep everything (speech, mannerisms, attitudes) absolutely true-to-period, which historical fiction (to say nothing of movies) often seems to have a hard time doing.


Just considering a third reading myself...the feeling of total immersion (in the period, not the briny with JA having to dive in for yet another rescue) is fabulous. Perhaps we should organise a 'Surprise' dinner in costume somewhere for all devotees.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Bracemaker said:


> Just considering a third reading myself...the feeling of total immersion (in the period, not the briny with JA having to dive in for yet another rescue) is fabulous. Perhaps we should organise a 'Surprise' dinner in costume somewhere for all devotees.


Yes, there is that sense of a fully realized "world" that great authors have a knack for creating, and O'Brian also manages to pack in so many of the key conflicts known to literature: Man against man, man against himself, man against society, man against nature, fate, or God.

And then there's the frequent dry humor, which I am noticing much more on this second go-through. Really, what a joy these books are!


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Also, no one I can think of has created a more satisfying and mature friendship. And, to return to the original subject of this thread, sort of, I've never enjoyed a scene involving a Royal more than the one where Clarence approaches JA to ask him to find a place for his bastard in _Blue at the Mizzen, _and later, says goodbye to him.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

And clothing-wise, I have learned from O'Brian that "sad" used to be a menswear color (I think it was something like taupe . . . ).


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I see that it's going to be difficult to "cur tail" our enthusiasm ....


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

The Rambler said:


> I see that it's going to be difficult to "cur tail" our enthusiasm ....


Good one! Not living or working in an environment where dog watches are familiar, I seldom have occasion to repeat that particular pun, and the Dear knows it's the shame of the world, as Stephen might say.

But I do find O'Brianisms creeping into my conversation. When someone is moving fast, I'll say they're "going like smoke and oakum" or "cracking on," for instance. Excessive strictness is "topping it the hard horse." Little kids are "squeakers." "All a-tanto" is good (all in order) and "ahoo" is bad (messy). Grabbing hold of something is "clapping on." And of course there's "excuse me while I go pump ship."

And Stephen's vocabulary is a wonder. Often you need to read O'Brian with a good dictionary on the nightstand. Yet at times the good doctor is almost poetically simple and compressed, as when he tells Parson Martin about Sir Joseph Blaine (but without telling too much) in _The Reverse of the Medal_: "His daily bread is Whitehall, but his joy is entomology."


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

Bracemaker said:


> Perhaps we should organise a 'Surprise' dinner in costume somewhere for all devotees.


I'll bring the port 

I'm on my first run through the series, just starting _The Ionian Mission_ a few days ago. Lovely books. I wonder how many other AAAC members are O'Brian fans...


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

sometimes a poster here will top it the nob, sometimes they're laid by the lee, sometimes ... but, I must run, wittles is up!


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Is it ok to wear brown shoes with a chelgnek? (or, however you spell it).


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Boy has this thread gotten lost at sea!


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

Im bringing it back Oldsarge.

Recently discovered the New Zealand PM wore a suit made from wool and Jade. The wool was a super 160s farmed in New Zealand and infused with Jade Particles. Its a new cloth from Dormeuil which is erm, called, Jade.

pretty interesting cloth that.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Oldsarge said:


> Boy has this thread gotten lost at sea!


OK, there's a scene in _Reverse of the Medal _where Jack, just back from a long, long voyage round the Horn, is sitting in his London club, looking out the window at the crowd of well-heeled men in St. James's Street, pondering the change of fashions (pantaloons everywhere!), and regretting how the older, more colorful clothes he grew up with (bottle-green or claret-coloured coats, knee britches) are being replaced by black, which he feels might look well in the individual case, but which in the main gave a regrettable aspect of "mourning" to the scene.

This is very much in character, as we've already learned that he has old-fashioned tastes--still wears his hair long and clubbed in back, and sets his cocked hat on his head sideways, or as O'Brian puts it, "athwartships, in the Nelson fashion."


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

David Reeves said:


> Im bringing it back Oldsarge.
> 
> Recently discovered the New Zealand PM wore a suit made from wool and Jade. The wool was a super 160s farmed in New Zealand and infused with Jade Particles. Its a new cloth from Dormeuil which is erm, called, Jade.
> 
> pretty interesting cloth that.


Isn't it though? I am really, really afraid what it will cost per yard, though. The stuff will likely make cashmere look like cotton!


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Going back to morning dress, here's the DoE at Tynwald (Isle of Man ceremony for promulgation of laws) in 2003.



His morning dress is very traditional yet it is amazingly cut with all items 'agreeing' with each other.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> Going back to morning dress, here's the DoE at Tynwald (Isle of Man ceremony for promulgation of laws) in 2003.
> 
> His morning dress is very traditional yet it is amazingly cut with all items 'agreeing' with each other.


Is there some special construction needed in the coat to allow it to hold up all those medals and the Garter star on one side without sagging or deforming? I would guess that there is. He does look outstanding. (BTW, dressed to the nines to promulgate laws for the Isle of Man? What a life!)


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

PJC in NoVa said:


> (BTW, dressed to the nines to promulgate laws for the Isle of Man? What a life!)


Tynwald is the oldest Parliament in the world. Surely it deserves "the nines'?


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Trimmer said:


> Tynwald is the oldest Parliament in the world. Surely it deserves "the nines'?


Fair enough. Long live the glorious 5th of July!


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Is there some special construction needed in the coat to allow it to hold up all those medals and the Garter star on one side without sagging or deforming? I would guess that there is. He does look outstanding. (BTW, dressed to the nines to promulgate laws for the Isle of Man? What a life!)


I don't think so. It's just that it is made to fit very well so the coat hugs the body and even with the weight of all those medals it doesn't sag. Buttoning up also helps to hold it all together.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Kurt N said:


> I understand about planning, but a year plus still seems like a long time.


Having read an interview with the tailor who did all the uniforms (), I have a better appreciation of what some of that prep time goes toward--whether for a wedding, a funeral, or a coronation. 2000 people to dress, some of them in custom-designed uniforms. Wow.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Trimmer said:


> Tynwald is the oldest Parliament in the world. Surely it deserves "the nines'?


I know of one of the members of the House of Keys who's a member of the New Sheridan Club as well. He married on the Isle of Man and most of the MHKs attended the wedding including some of the NSC members.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheridanclub/sets/72157623604897197/

He of course being on the Isle of Man government attends the Tynwald.


----------



## medhat (Jan 15, 2006)

Kurt N said:


> Having read an interview with the tailor who did all the uniforms (), I have a better appreciation of what some of that prep time goes toward--whether for a wedding, a funeral, or a coronation. 2000 people to dress, some of them in custom-designed uniforms. Wow.


Great link! Thanks.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Kurt N said:


> Having read an interview with the tailor who did all the uniforms (), I have a better appreciation of what some of that prep time goes toward--whether for a wedding, a funeral, or a coronation. 2000 people to dress, some of them in custom-designed uniforms. Wow.


Thank you for the link.


----------



## TomS (Mar 29, 2010)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> I know of one of the members of the House of Keys who's a member of the New Sheridan Club as well. He married on the Isle of Man and most of the MHKs attended the wedding including some of the NSC members.
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheridanclub/sets/72157623604897197/
> 
> He of course being on the Isle of Man government attends the Tynwald.


Absolutely fascinating! Thanks


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kurt N said:


> Having read an interview with the tailor who did all the uniforms (), I have a better appreciation of what some of that prep time goes toward--whether for a wedding, a funeral, or a coronation. 2000 people to dress, some of them in custom-designed uniforms. Wow.


I'd suggest that these are custom-made uniforms, not custom-designed. Uniform designs are regulated, whether they be civil or military. The only "custom" uniforms I can recall are the RAF uniform jackets worn by fighter pilots, in which the top buttons aren't done up, and the MN Officer uniform jackets, in which, simiarly, the top button isn't done up, but the jacket is made to allow for this.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

I'm sure you're right about the military uniforms, and probably most of the non-military ones, as well. But for the young pages, at least, the uniforms were specially designed for the occasion, as described in the interview.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kurt N said:


> I'm sure you're right about the military uniforms, and probably most of the non-military ones, as well. But for the young pages, at least, the uniforms were specially designed for the occasion, as described in the interview.


But they weren't uniforms, they were fancy dress for children.


----------

