Zara & Mike Wedding waiting for Royal Approval
Katie Nicholl reckons that Zara Phillips & Mike Tindall are pressuring the Royal Household to allow them to announce their engagement…
The pair have been dating since 2003 and had hoped to wed this year but were pipped to the post by Lord Freddie Windsor, who is marrying actress Sophie Winkleman next month.
‘The Palace has to give them the nod,’ says my source. ‘Zara is Royal and there are certain protocols.
There’s still the question of whether William and Kate will make an announcement. There can’t be two at once.’
August 17th, 2009 05:23
It looks as if things are falling into place, eh?
I think Zara and Mike will announce their engagement shortly and that will provide a distraction while William and Kate get ready to make their next move.
August 19th, 2009 01:43
will i think Zara and mike will announce their plans in their wedding i think kate and will will follow on run..
August 20th, 2009 05:17
whatever happens, we wish them the best of luck
August 21st, 2009 21:28
Strictly speaking, as her mother the Princess Royal has pointed out on more than one occasion, Zara is NOT royal. While she does need the permission of the Queen to wed, she is merely a member of the extended royal family, which is not the same thing as being “royal.”
However, in this day and age of obsessive media attention, the weddings of even minor members of the extended family probably need to be spaced a bit, so as not to crowd the schedule.
On the other hand, since taxpayers won’t be paying for this event, given the non-royal status of both the bride and the groom, it seems to me that their engagement and wedding aren’t quite the major issues that this media gossip is claiming. I suspect that, as usual, the gossip doesn’t necessarily know what she’s talking about. The U.K. media do tend to make it up as they go along where the royals and their non-royal cousins are concerned. They know that the palace usually won’t bother to object to anything they claim, lest it seem to be taking notice of the tabloid media.
August 22nd, 2009 00:13
Well Fiametta, it’s true that Zara is not a titled royal but she is royal. She is the grandaughter of the Queen, so she is royal. The Queen has to give her go ahead for a wedding in her family. I don’t think the Queen would have a problem granting an approval for Zara & Mike to marry. Mike said in a interview that they will marry when the time is right. I don’t think a wedding is coming up for them soon.
August 23rd, 2009 18:37
No, Rman, Zara is not “royal”; she is merely a member of the extended royal family, which is quite a different thing. (In the U.K., royal and noble status descend through the father, not the mother, unless the mother is a reigning monarch, the immediate heir to the throne, or has a title that, by special dispensation, can be passed on to a child — usually a son.)
If you doubt me on this, see Zara’s own mother’s remarks. And if Princess Anne doesn’t know what she’s talking about on the subject, then no one does.
August 24th, 2009 01:06
Fiametta,
You are simply playing with words.
As the eldest granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Zara Phillips is twelfth in the line of succession to the British throne.
She is elligible through her bloodline and birth to be a Queen of England.
Zara’s mother made the decision not to call her children Prince or Princess, but it does not subtract from who Zara Phillips is, she is near the top of the line of succession to the English throne, which makes her both noble and royal.
August 24th, 2009 05:28
Some information on the line of succession…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne
August 24th, 2009 08:19
Some don’t consider Zara or Peter royal because they don’t have any royal titles and don’t carryout any engagement on behalf of the Queen but they are royal. Princess Anne wanted her children to have more normal lives and requested that Peter & Zara to given no titles and become none working royals.
August 24th, 2009 19:06
No, Clover, I am not “merely playing with words.” Please contact Debretts and Burkes if you doubt me. They are the experts, so if you feel that I am not, then perhaps you’d prefer to discuss the matter with genuinely well-informed experts.
I understand that it’s exciting to think of a wedding that involves non-royal, but extended, members of the royal family as “royal,” but I don’t care for the impulse to extend “royal status” to extended members. That doesn’t mean, of course, that such weddings aren’t gorgeous. Truth to tell, an elegant, restrained, “extended family” event may be better than a so-called “royal event.” The most beautiful wedding dress I’ve seen within the last several years was that worn by Lady Rose Windsor, younger daughter of the Duke of Gloucester, when she married George Gilman.
Let’s hope that Prince William and Ms. Middleton, if they should marry, are able to mount a wedding of similar taste and restraint.
August 24th, 2009 22:21
Fiametta,
I think you are using the terms non-royal to say that Zara has no special social status. Right? This is what I do not agree with.