# The Royal Wedding 4/29/2011 What channel to watch?



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

So The Royal Wedding will be broadcast on several channels. I have 4 tuners, and am trying to decide which channels to record since it will be happening in the middle of the night on the west coast and I won't be viewing live!

I remember being glued to the tube for Charles and Diana's wedding. Not that interested in William and Kate, but still want to watch and TiVo makes it easy. 

BBC would be my first choice, but I don't get it in HD, only SD, so need other recommendations. Anyone else planning to watch?


----------



## nirisahn (Nov 19, 2005)

Maybe this will help.

http://www.watchtheroyalwedding.com/20573/full-us-royal-wedding-tv-schedules-for-april/


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Since you have four tuners, I would record BBC America anyway, even if it is only in SD (unless PBS stations have access to the BBC broadcast and one in your area is airing it in HD), for the audio. (I assume all of the feeds will have the same video.)

Pay close attention to the listings; BBC America, for example, might have it listed in a series of two-hour blocks, so you would be better off with a manual recording.

I have seen reports that Fox News will also be covering it, but they don't say whether it will be a simulcast of SkyTV or if they will have their own commentators, and it doesn't seem to be listed on TV listings (both TiVo and U-Verse say Bill O'Reilly's show is on at 2 AM that day).

-- Don


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

nirisahn said:


> Maybe this will help.
> 
> http://www.watchtheroyalwedding.com/20573/full-us-royal-wedding-tv-schedules-for-april/


Wow, that's a lot of info! Thanks for the link.

Good advice on recording the BBC coverage since I do have the capacity, thanks Don.


----------



## dilbert27 (Dec 1, 2006)

Fox News for the Fair and Balanced Coverage.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

It's easy for me...what else is on?


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> It's easy for me...what else is on?


LOL...this.

Although I have a feeling my wife or daughter will want to watch some of this snoozefest.


----------



## nirisahn (Nov 19, 2005)

I'm more interested in the pomp and ritual than the participants. I didn't watch when Charles and Diana got married, so I've never seen a royal wedding. It could be interesting.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

nirisahn said:


> I'm more interested in the pomp and ritual than the participants. I didn't watch when Charles and Diana got married, so I've never seen a royal wedding. It could be interesting.


I was in high school when Charles and Diana got married. I'd never really had any interest in the royal family before that. I still don't have a lot of interest in them per se, but will watch just for the entertainment value. To me it's like the Academy Awards, I usually haven't seen any of the nominated films, but I always watch just to see who is there and what they are wearing.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

nirisahn said:


> I'm more interested in the pomp and ritual than the participants. I didn't watch when Charles and Diana got married, so I've never seen a royal wedding. It could be interesting.


I like the participants. I'm curious to see PARTS of the pomp and ceremony.

I need to see the schedule to see when the coverage starts in Central time zone. I am guessing it will all be over when I wake up in the morning.

I can't bring myself to TiVo it in SD. That's the only way I get BBCA. I'm leaning towards NBC because I am an "NBC guy". But could go CNN if Anderson Cooper was involved.


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

I'll record it, too. Haven't picked channels yet, so thanks for that link. Looking forward to it.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I looked at the schedule, and it seems to be broken up into multiple parts. Like a "pre-game" then the actual event. Of course, what counts as the start of the event? Walk down the aisle? Something before that?


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I would think the start of the event will be Kate's trip to Westminster Abbey.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

I'm recording BBCA. Pretty much have blocked off from 2:00 AM central time onwards. That way I can FF through what I want to skip and watch the parts I want. Since I have another tuner, I will probably also record at least one of the American broadcasts. Can zip through that as well and pick what parts I want to watch.

I'm just soooo thankful for TiVo this time around.  I was in high school when Charles and Diana were married. Just a teenage girl totally wrapped up in that whole Diana hysteria and woke up in the middle of the night in order to watch. Back then you either watched live or you missed out. 

Geesh...I feel like Grandma talking about walking to school barefoot in the snow.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

That Don Guy said:


> Since you have four tuners, I would record BBC America anyway, even if it is only in SD (unless PBS stations have access to the BBC broadcast and one in your area is airing it in HD), for the audio. (I assume all of the feeds will have the same video.)


That's a good idea.  I checked our PBS station (WGBH Boston) but they aren't covering the BBC feed. If it's the same TV feed for all of them though, I can record an HD feed on one Tivo, and then the BBC SD one on the other one, and then I can leave the receiver's audio on the BBC one and watch the HD one.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I just set my TiVo to record BBCAmerica's coverage and I am picking the Today Show as my second because I like Matt Lauer 

It also seems like BBCAmerica is RE-broadcasting stuff for the entire day including highlight shows etc.

I just know I am going to fast forward through most of it.

and then - at 8 pm Friday night on the TV Guide Channel - Kathy Griffin is doing a "Guide to the Royal Wedding". That's must see TV.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I thought the crowning of Charles as Prince of Wales was interested. I saw pieces of Princess Ann's wedding when I was in college and attending a semester in Austria. But I don't think I watched Diane and Charles' wedding. I may tape about a three hour block around the ceremony. I usually skip these things because I am anti-royalist. As I said at a Weight Watchers meeting once upon having called the organization to find out when the meeting times were and having the phone answered by a recording of a woman with an upper class British accent. "Whether you like Clinton or not, we only have him for 8 years. They have these people forever". Not a political statement, just a fact. (If Bush or Obama had been President, I would have said the same thing.)


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

For those who want to discuss not being interested in the Royal Wedding, please do so in the Happy Hour thread. http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=468428


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Here's the "schedule" as far as I know:
(All times Eastern - assume all trips to the abbey take five minutes)

Arrivals:

5:15 - William & Harry
5:25 - Catherine's mother and brother
5:40 - Andrew & his two daughters, Edward & Sophie, Anne & her husband, Charles & Camilla
(Fergie was not invited - for that matter, neither was Andrew's ex-wife)
5:45 - The Queen & Philip
5:55 - Catherine & her father
The wedding itself starts at 6:00 and lasts about an hour

7:15 - Carriage with William & Catherine leave the abbey, followed by carriage with The Queen
7:30 - Carriages arrive at Buckingham Palace
8:25 - Balcony appearance
8:30 - RAF Flyover (including some WWII-era planes)
They don't "schedule" when their first kiss takes place (note that kissing the bride usually isn't part of an Anglican ceremony)


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Cainebj said:


> and then - at 8 pm Friday night on the TV Guide Channel - Kathy Griffin is doing a "Guide to the Royal Wedding". That's must see TV.


I'm sure that will be a lot of fun to watch. Also looking forward to hearing what Joan Rivers has to say on Fashion Police!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> Here's the "schedule" as far as I know:
> (All times Eastern - assume all trips to the abbey take five minutes)
> 
> Arrivals:
> ...


Perfect!


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Perfect!


*OOPS* - I originally had the times for the post-wedding events one hour earlier than they actually take place. (Either that, or the bride and groom are going to leave 15 minutes into the ceremony and elope somewhere with his parents in hot pursuit!)

The original post has been edited with the correct times.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> *OOPS* (Either that, or the bride and groom are going to leave 15 minutes into the ceremony and elope somewhere with his parents in hot pursuit!)


Oooo! I want to see this!


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Jstkiddn said:


> Oooo! I want to see this!


And then we sit back and wait for two or three years to see if they have a girl first and then a boy, so the next "Constitutional Crisis" can start (which one would be next in the line of succession after William - they keep talking about getting rid of the "younger brothers before older sisters" rule, but I don't think they ever got around to it as they never needed it).


----------



## windracer (Jan 3, 2003)

TiVo needs to put out a Royal Wedding Guru Guide.


----------



## jneugeba (Jan 20, 2004)

That Don Guy said:


> Here's the "schedule" as far as I know:
> (All times Eastern - assume all trips to the abbey take five minutes)
> 
> Arrivals:
> ...


I find it odd that Catherine and her brother are arriving as early as they are. I would think they would come right before the Queen or Charles.



That Don Guy said:


> (Fergie was not invited - for that matter, neither was Andrew's ex-wife)


Fergie is Andrew's ex-wife.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

That Don Guy said:


> Here's the "schedule" as far as I know:
> (All times Eastern - assume all trips to the abbey take five minutes)
> 
> Arrivals:
> ...


No Spoiler Alerts?


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

jneugeba said:


> I find it odd that Catherine and her brother are arriving as early as they are. I would think they would come right before the Queen or Charles.


I assume you mean Catherine's mother and brother. Catherine is the last to arrive.

Remember - they're commoners (unlike, say, Diana's mother, who was Countess Spenser at the time). In-between Catherine's mother and Charles will be the non-British royalty attending the wedding. (I was a little surprised the Obamas weren't invited. Maybe somebody is still mad about the 1770s and 1812...)



> Fergie is Andrew's ex-wife.


Not _this_ Fergie...


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> (I was a little surprised the Obamas weren't invited. Maybe somebody is still mad about the 1770s and 1812...)


I don't think the lack of an invitation has anything to do with that. Maybe more of a practical matter re: security. Not that the event won't allready have a ton..


----------



## minorthr (Nov 24, 2001)

I'll be watching it on ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Any channel NOT showing it? (ok, I possibly take it back -- seeing how Kathy Griffin makes fun of it, at least for a few minutes, might be entertaining).


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

If the wedding had been the Prince of Wales and the future Princess of Wales (remember Harry and Katherine are third in line) then more non-royal foreign dignitaries would have been invited. 

Thanks for the schedule, I thought the ceremony would be about 30 minutes like most weddings I have attended. 
The guide data unfortunately has 8 hour blocks of time in it so I am manually recording about three hours of this on BBCA.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> If the wedding had been the Prince of Wales and the future Princess of Wales (remember Harry and Katherine are third in line) then more non-royal foreign dignitaries would have been invited.


Assuming you mean William and Katherine? Wills might not like his brother making a move on his woman.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

sieglinde said:


> Thanks for the schedule, I thought the ceremony would be about 30 minutes like most weddings I have attended.
> The guide data unfortunately has 8 hour blocks of time in it so I am manually recording about three hours of this on BBCA.


I set my recordings on NBC. They had 3 seperate "Today" show listings. Each lasting 2 or 3 hours. The first block seems to be "pre-game", so to speak.

In the schedule posted above, it indicates the ceremony itself is about 60 minutes. Of course, what marks the START of the cermony is a bit nebulous to me. I'm guessing it's at some point shortly prior to kate walking down the aisle, but doesn't include most guests arriving.

My plan is to TiVo a ton of it. then start with the start of coverage and fast forward through boring stuff or stuff I don't care about.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

For those who don't keep up with the Season Pass Alerts area, there's a thread there with a heads up there that some of the broadcasts may have changed and to check your scheduled recordings. Thanks That Don Guy for the info.

As I mentioned in the OP, I have 4 tuners available. I've decided to record ABC, NBC, CBUT (Canadian) and BBCA (even though it is in SD). I'm hoping that CBUT will have the BBC feed in HD. I'm sure there will be lots of duplications, and the FF button will get a workout when I get around to viewing, but what the heck, not like anything else is on that I want to record that time of day!


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

HD vs SD is not that important to me even though I have an HD TV. I will check out my PBS station, they may be having a feed from BBC.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> HD vs SD is not that important to me even though I have an HD TV. I will check out my PBS station, they may be having a feed from BBC.


This seems like the type of broadcast where HD will look GLORIOUS compared to an SD feed. Having said that, I'm using my two tuners for NBC and BBCA. And to be honest, I have no idea if BBCA is HD here (Houston Comcast) or not. But I'll probably watch it on NBC. I like their people.


----------



## jneugeba (Jan 20, 2004)

astrohip said:


> This seems like the type of broadcast where HD will look GLORIOUS compared to an SD feed. Having said that, I'm using my two tuners for NBC and BBCA. And to be honest, I have no idea if BBCA is HD here (Houston Comcast) or not. But I'll probably watch it on NBC. I like their people.


Agreed - if ever there was a time for HD it would be this with all the jewels, sparkles, etc.

I have my PBS HD channel set to record - I hope they have the BBC feed.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

jneugeba said:


> Agreed - if ever there was a time for HD it would be this with all the jewels, sparkles, etc.
> 
> I have my PBS HD channel set to record - I hope they have the BBC feed.


You should be able to tell by the schedule on their website.  Or do you mean they have coverage and you just don't know if it's the BBC feed?


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

I have PBS and NBC coverage set on the Tivo - can't wait to see that dress!!!!


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Wahhhh why isn't Boston PBS carrying the BBC feed.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

laria said:


> Wahhhh why isn't Boston PBS carrying the BBC feed.


Whose feed are they using?


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> Whose feed are they using?


Nobody's... according to the schedule they just have their regular programming on.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

laria said:


> Nobody's... according to the schedule they just have their regular programming on.


Same with PBS in Seattle, regular programming listed.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I ended up recording it on BBCA. It was fine in SD. My HD TV is not that huge and I really only notice the difference when using my DVD player.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

There was no local news shows on tv in Philadelphia. I was astounded. At 5:00 am every local station that normally carries news at that time had this stinkin' wedding coverage.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> If the wedding had been the Prince of Wales and the future Princess of Wales (remember Harry and Katherine are third in line)


Harry *is* third in line. William is actually second, though, after his dad.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Wow beautiful wedding. Looks so great in HD. Kate's dress was stunning. Did a ff to the important arrivals at the abbey starting with William and Harry. Also loved the Queen's yellow dress. Got plenty of coverage recorded to view over the next few days.


----------



## Rocketslc (Jan 5, 2004)

I recorded all three networks, ABC, NBC, CBS. I am going to transfer just the wedding portion of the broadcasts to a dvd so my 84 year old mother and 4 year old grand daughter can watch it.
I can not tell if all of the footage from inside Westminster Abbey is from one single feed. I have no way of watch each recording simultaneously to compare. Has anyone found any information about this ? I am apparently Google challenged.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Rocketslc said:


> I recorded all three networks, ABC, NBC, CBS. I am going to transfer just the wedding portion of the broadcasts to a dvd so my 84 year old mother and 4 year old grand daughter can watch it.
> I can not tell if all of the footage from inside Westminster Abbey is from one single feed. I have no way of watch each recording simultaneously to compare. Has anyone found any information about this ? I am apparently Google challenged.


I would think there would be a master feed from the "host" broadcaster (BBC??) Can't imagine they would have tons of cameras for multiple broadcasters from scores of countries setup in there.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Wow, it really _was_ a big deal. Even the Doctor was there:


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The guy on the far left stole one of Michael Jackson's outfits.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

busyba said:


> Wow, it really _was_ a big deal. Even the Doctor was there:


Because the first time he wasn't and things went very awry.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> There was no local news shows on tv in Philadelphia. I was astounded. At 5:00 am every local station that normally carries news at that time had this stinkin' wedding coverage.


I think CW-57 had the local news that normally airs on Channel 3.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Rocketslc said:


> II can not tell if all of the footage from inside Westminster Abbey is from one single feed. I have no way of watch each recording simultaneously to compare. Has anyone found any information about this ?


I was swapping back and forth between ABC and BBCA. The feed from inside the Abbey was exactly the same.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Ouch... let's hope not, this time:


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I ended up recording NBC and CNN for some reason... I'm glad I did CNN because I don't think I recorded the whole thing on NBC (I only did the 4-7am one), and the CNN one was a 6 hour block. I'll watch it later or over the weekend. 

It turns out I couldn't even record the SD feed off BBCA because Comcast doesn't offer that to their lowest digital package.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Did any American government official attend representing the United States?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

mrdbdigital said:


> Did any American government official attend representing the United States?


Considering that USA is not part of the commonwealth I don't see why there would need to be a representative.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Can someone explain to me why the Queen's husband is not the King? I just don't understand the whole Royal ascension thing.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Howie said:


> Can someone explain to me why the Queen's husband is not the King?


He couldn't provide the long form of his birth certificate.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

Looking forward to recording this tomorrow. Tivo set!


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

busyba said:


> He couldn't provide the long form of his birth certificate.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Howie said:


> Can someone explain to me why the Queen's husband is not the King? I just don't understand the whole Royal ascension thing.


OK, I am NOT an expert here, but this is my understanding.

The Queen is part of the Royal Bloodline.

She is the ruling monarch based on accession - in other words, there was no male heir in line so she was next. This queen had no brothers, and she was the oldest daughter, that is how she became Queen when her father the King died.

Only the Monarch can bestow a title. I guess she COULD give her husband the title of King. If she does, he is in charge. (I am not even sure if she can do this, but why would she? I wouldn't!) So instead, he becomes Prince Consort - but he is NOT the King.

Now - next in line is Charles - so when this Queen dies, he becomes King. But I am not sure Camilla will ever be Queen - I don't think so, but I am not sure. Even if she is, if Charles dies before her, she is not in charge. That would be William, because he is next in line.

Got it?


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

OK, ninny. I still don't really get it, but God Save the Queen.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Howie said:


> OK, ninny. I still don't really get it, but God Save the Queen.


Honestly, you don't? How can I clarify?


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Wait - maybe this is clearer:

One becomes a reigning monarch, a sovereign, by inheriting that position from the former sovereign according to certain rules of primogeniture. Elizabeth II became queen upon the death of her father, King George VI because she was the oldest child and had no brothers. If she had had a brother, even a younger one, he would have become king. As it is she, being the oldest daughter, became queen. When a king is married his wife becomes queen simply by virtue of being his wife but she is only the queen consort, queen by virtue of being the consort of the king. She is not the sovereign. Elizabeth on the other hand, because she inherited the position, is the sovereign which is a very different thing. There is no such thing as a king consort. A man is either king, the reigning sovereign, or he is not. Generally when a man marries a queen he is accorded the title of prince, that is prince consort. Elizabeth is married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Prince Philip is related to the royal family of Denmark, the former royal family of Greece, and several royal families of Germany. He is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. Styled a prince at birth, he renounced his royal titles before he married Princess Elizabeth. Her father created him Duke of Edinburgh and gave him several other titles the day before the wedding.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

nyny523 said:


> Wait - maybe this is clearer:
> 
> One becomes a reigning monarch, a sovereign, by inheriting that position from the former sovereign according to certain rules of primogeniture. Elizabeth II became queen upon the death of her father, King George VI because she was the oldest child and had no brothers. If she had had a brother, even a younger one, he would have become king. As it is she, being the oldest daughter, became queen. When a king is married his wife becomes queen simply by virtue of being his wife but she is only the queen consort, queen by virtue of being the consort of the king. She is not the sovereign. Elizabeth on the other hand, because she inherited the position, is the sovereign which is a very different thing. There is no such thing as a king consort. A man is either king, the reigning sovereign, or he is not. Generally when a man marries a queen he is accorded the title of prince, that is prince consort. Elizabeth is married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Prince Philip is related to the royal family of Denmark, the former royal family of Greece, and several royal families of Germany. He is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. Styled a prince at birth, he renounced his royal titles before he married Princess Elizabeth. Her father created him Duke of Edinburgh and gave him several other titles the day before the wedding.


I feel like I'm back in school. Very good.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

daveak said:


> I feel like I'm back in school. Very good.


I love this sh*t.

I am a self-confessed history geek.

That is why things like this wedding are so fascinating to me.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Thanks ninny. I think I might understand now.

On another note, Kate's sister looks really hot.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

nyny523 said:


> Only the Monarch can bestow a title. I guess she COULD give her husband the title of King. If she does, he is in charge. (I am not even sure if she can do this, but why would she? I wouldn't!) So instead, he becomes Prince Consort - but he is NOT the King.


Like you said, she could give him a title of King Consort but that is historically not done. She has actually never given even him the official title Prince Consort... he's just a plain old Prince. 

It all boils down to weird rules about who can share whose titles. Men cannot share the rank/titles of their wives, but women can share the rank/titles of their husbands.



> Now - next in line is Charles - so when this Queen dies, he becomes King. But I am not sure Camilla will ever be Queen - I don't think so, but I am not sure.


I don't think she will be either.

I read an article a little while back where Charles said she might be, but when they got married, they made a big deal about how she would be titled Princess Consort, not Queen.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

nyny523 said:


> I love this sh*t.
> 
> I am a self-confessed history geek.
> 
> That is why things like this wedding are so fascinating to me.


Me too!  :up:


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

robojerk said:


> Considering that USA is not part of the commonwealth I don't see why there would need to be a representative.


That's why President Obama doesn't get an automatic invite. This wedding isn't an official state event because William is NOT the next in line to the throne. So, since this isn't a state event, protocol doesn't dictate that heads of states from non-commonwealth nations be invited. If it were a state event, protocol would have been different.

However, I believe all of the ambassadors in London WERE invited, so I think the US ambassador was there.


----------



## jneugeba (Jan 20, 2004)

laria said:


> I read an article a little while back where Charles said she might be, but when they got married, they made a big deal about how she would be titled Princess Consort, not Queen.


Camilla will technically be Queen, the question is whether she decides to use the title or use Princess Consort (much in the same was she is The Princess of Wales but she chooses to use the title Duchess of Cornwall.)


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

jneugeba said:


> Camilla will technically be Queen, the question is whether she decides to use the title or use Princess Consort (much in the same was she is The Princess of Wales but she chooses to use the title Duchess of Cornwall.)


I know, but I read an article where someone asked Prince Charles if she would be Queen, as in the title, and he said maybe... which is a departure from what was released when they got married (where they said she would be Princess Consort).


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Rocketslc said:


> I recorded all three networks, ABC, NBC, CBS. I am going to transfer just the wedding portion of the broadcasts to a dvd so my 84 year old mother and 4 year old grand daughter can watch it.
> I can not tell if all of the footage from inside Westminster Abbey is from one single feed. I have no way of watch each recording simultaneously to compare.





Jstkiddn said:


> I was swapping back and forth between ABC and BBCA. The feed from inside the Abbey was exactly the same.


I recorded both the ABC and NBC feeds last night and from the parts I saw when switching back and forth, I concur w/the above.

However, the picture quality of the ABC version for me is significantly worse w/more artifacting. The 3 hour 1-4 am recording of the NBC feed is ~20 gigs while the ABC one is only 13.7 gigs. I'm not sure who is responsible for the lower bitrate: my local station, the network, my "cable" provider (Frontier FiOS), or someone else.

I'm not done watching but so far it looks great. I was in London for the first time in December and was outside Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey (didn't go inside but recognize the gift shop next to the entrance), Big Ben, etc.


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

Here is some info on Camilla becoming Queen from the Daily Mail:

For the first time, Prince Charles has said publicly that his wife Camilla could be crowned Queen.

During a revealing television interview, the Prince of Wales was asked outright whether the Duchess of Cornwall will be made Queen if and when he comes to the throne, rather than Princess Consort. In an uncomfortable moment, he stammered: Thats, thats, well see, wont we? That could be.

His words will set alarm bells ringing at Buckingham Palace, where from the moment the couple married in April 2005 senior courtiers have always been at great pains to insist Camilla would become Charless consort. They are acutely sensitive to the public affection that still exists for Princess Diana, and to Camillas role in the break-up of her marriage to the prince. But they are bound by convention, and by virtue of being married to the King, she is entitled to call herself Queen if she wants. Their fear is that if the public believe that Camilla is to be crowned Queen, it will damage the Royal Family. 

Prince Charles, 62, has always told friends and senior aides it is his wish for Camilla to be Queen, but this is the first time he has given any public expression of his desire. Women married to a monarch have historically been crowned Queen Consort, with the exception of Queen Mary II who, with her husband King William III, reigned as joint sovereign from 1689 to 1694.
The timing of Charless deeply personal interview with U.S. network NBC could not be more dramatic. It comes at the end of a momentous week for the Royal Family, in which Prince William and Kate Middleton announced they will marry, meaning that a new future Queen has entered the public arena.
Meanwhile, a poll published by the Daily Mail today reveals that the former Mrs Parker Bowles, 63, would be a most unpopular Queen. Only 14 per cent of the public think she should be crowned, compared with 52 per cent who say she should not. And fewer than a third of those polled believe the Prince of Wales should definitely become the next King.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Well, they (the public) don't have much of a choice about Charles being King.

If he is still alive, he will be King when the Queen dies - and as I said in another thread, I do not believe he will abdicate.

They are stuck with him.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

What a cool move it was for William and Catherine to leave Buckingham Palace in a vintage Aston Martin.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

I noticed that at 2:13 mark of the 1 am Pacific Today show (NBC feed), there are some serious lip sync problems when they show the priest talking. The ABC feed at the same point has no lip sync problems but as I mentioned, my ABC recording is of FAR worse quality.

I advanced back and forth back up to this point on my NBC broadcast and the result is unchanged.

Earlier on in the NBC broadcast, when they show various reporters talking, there are no lip sync problems.

Anyone else w/a NBC recording or other network see this?


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

Yes! But I thought it was me. I first noticed it when they were showing the congregation singing a hymn as no one seemed to be singing the right words. And then the officiant was way way off. I paused my recording and restarted. When next I saw someone talking close up--the vows maybe?--all seemed to be back in sync.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Tracy said:


> Yes! But I thought it was me. I first noticed it when they were showing the congregation singing a hymn as no one seemed to be singing the right words. And then the officiant was way way off. I paused my recording and restarted. When next I saw someone talking close up--the vows maybe?--all seemed to be back in sync.


I too noticed the singing seemed off when they were showing the audience but I didn't pay close attention since the church is huge.

You're right. On my NBC recording, while the vows were being given and they're saying their prayers, everything was back in sync. Maybe it was something the engineers fixed on the fly.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

jsmeeker said:


> What a cool move it was for William and Catherine to leave Buckingham Palace in a vintage Aston Martin.


It's dad's car. It's not William's. 

But surely you know that, if you watched hours of wedding footage? How Charles had it altered to run on ethanol or bio something or other . . .  But yes, it's a cool car. I think that was all part of being the younger, hipper monarchy.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

I primarily watched the NBC coverage and skipped quickly thru the ABC coverage (worse picture quality). 

I noticed that the ABC coverage seemed to give more explanations. They pointed out the Sultan of Brunei, for instance. They also explained the seating arrangements (e.g. royal family in the front right and the Middleton family across the aisle to the left). At 1:51 into the 4 am broadcast, they explained the complicated order of succession and various folks getting bumped, for various reasons.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Magnolia88 said:


> It's dad's car. It's not William's.
> 
> But surely you know that, if you watched hours of wedding footage? How Charles had it altered to run on ethanol or bio something or other . . .  But yes, it's a cool car. I think that was all part of being the younger, hipper monarchy.


At the time, the NBC people weren't sure if it was Prince Charles' car or not. They made no mention of it being biodiesel or whatever. I did assume that it was borrowed from someone.

I too noticed lip sync issues at the start of the service. The congregation was singing. They would cut to the Queen or to Elton John or something. It looked like they were just mumbling. Thought that was weird. Then, when one of the priests or ministers started, it was obvious it was an audio sync issue. But it got fixed.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Tracy said:


> Here is some info on Camilla becoming Queen from the Daily Mail:
> 
> For the first time, Prince Charles has said publicly that his wife Camilla could be crowned Queen.


I'm not sure what it matters whether she's called the Queen or not. She's not in line to inherit, so when Charles dies she will NOT become the sovereign, no matter what her title is while Charles is alive. When Charles dies (or abdicates), William (assuming he's still alive) will become King and Kate (assuming they're still married) will be Queen (or Queen Consort or whatever).

But, I'm not British so I assume there's some deeper meaning in the title that escapes my practical mind


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Oh, hell, I forgot to SUID the live recording on my cable DVR and all that I have left is the 20/20 special. (Ugh).

Well, the classic British warplane flyover was cool. And the crowd seemed to be very happy. Some of the hats were hysterical.

God save the Queen.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

I especially loved the little things you couldn't "hear" but you could see them saying:

Prince Harry peeking back to see Kate walking down the aisle (William was not allowed to turn) and saying to his brother "Wait until you see her"
William, when finally seeing her, saying "You look beautiful, beautiful"
William saying to his now FIL "Just a small family gathering"
Kate saying "I'm so happy" to William in the carriage.
And Kate's "Oh Wow" when she walks onto the balcony for the kiss.

*Sigh*


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> I too noticed lip sync issues at the start of the service. The congregation was singing. They would cut to the Queen or to Elton John or something. It looked like they were just mumbling. Thought that was weird. Then, when one of the priests or ministers started, it was obvious it was an audio sync issue. But it got fixed.


There was a loud pop in the NBC feed I recorded just after the priest started speaking with the lip sync issues. After the pop the problem was gone. I assume that NBC switched to a backup feed when the primary feed lost lip sync.

I heard somewhere that there were 40 cameras in the church. You could see them everywhere up on the walls. I only saw robotic cameras, except for the one camera on a boom they had in the side hall. I believe all the cameras in the church were provided by the BBC as part of the pool feed. It's amazing how small they can make the robotic HD cameras nowadays.

I also thought the audio engineer/mixer did an incredible job on picking up the audio of the service. The priests were wearing wireless microphones, but not William or Kate.

Sir Elton John looked dashing with his purple tie!


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> Oh, hell, I forgot to SUID the live recording on my cable DVR and all that I have left is the 20/20 special. (Ugh).


There are a bunch of highlight shows w/portions of the wedding being rerun. Just do a wishlist title search for royal wedding.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

I'm pretty sure William was wearing spurs with that uniform. I thought that was funny for an Air Force officer. 

ETA: Oops, I meant spurs, not stirrups.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

loubob57 said:


> I'm pretty sure William was wearing stirrups with that uniform. I thought that was funny for an Air Force officer.


I saw them on Prince Phillip's uniform, but didn't notice them on William's.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Question 1. The United States Ambassador to St. James Court attended and had a nice interview on MSNBC.
Question 2. The Queen is the sovereign. (I am not British so someone from the UK please chime in with any corrections) so her husband is the Prince Consort as was Albert when Queen Victoria reigned. If you are a woman reigning in your own right, then your husband is not the king. The King makes a Queen, as William will make Kate Queen. It is up in the air as to what Camillia's status will be. Many think she will be Queen of England when Charles is made King.
I thank all the gods in all the pantheons that my ancestors fought in a revolution and succeeded.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Here's a pic. William and Harry are both wearing spurs.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Those are spurs? I thought they were kickstands.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

I can't believe I hadn't seen this ad. I happened to catch it while going through one of my 20/20 recordings that was before the wedding.






Skip to the 1:10 mark to see the see the Harry and William lookalikes.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Super hi-def zoom around in procession photo-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13200114


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

When they sing "God Save The Queen", the Queen doesn't sing. Kinda odd in a way. Sure, it's about HER, but it's also the de-facto national anthem.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> When they sing "God Save The Queen", the Queen doesn't sing. Kinda odd in a way. Sure, it's about HER, but it's also the de-facto national anthem.


She should at least sing "god save _me_"


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

busyba said:


> She should at least sing "god save _me_"


Heh that's what I said to my SO, after commenting that if it was me, I would feel super awkward having all these people singing about me.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> When they sing "God Save The Queen", the Queen doesn't sing. Kinda odd in a way. Sure, it's about HER, but it's also the de-facto national anthem.


When they started singing that I said to my daughter that I wonder if the Queen sings that song. Right about then the camera showed the Queen, thereby giving us our answer. LOL


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

loubob57 said:


> I'm pretty sure William was wearing spurs with that uniform. I thought that was funny for an Air Force officer.
> 
> ETA: Oops, I meant spurs, not stirrups.


I didn't notice Williams just Harry's but looking at pictures, they both had them. Makes sense as both were wearing army uniforms. William is a Colonel in the Irish guard so he had that option. Besides, look better in pictures.

Not clear why they had the portions of the uniforms for a sword since neither had one. At least I think that's what the parts hanging down toward the left leg were for.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

cwerdna said:


> I noticed that at 2:13 mark of the 1 am Pacific Today show (NBC feed), there are some serious lip sync problems when they show the priest talking. The ABC feed at the same point has no lip sync problems but as I mentioned, my ABC recording is of FAR worse quality.


The CNN feed had similar problems - sometimes the audio inside the Abbey was in sync, and sometimes it was not.



laria said:


> I read an article a little while back where Charles said she might be, but when they got married, they made a big deal about how she would be titled Princess Consort, not Queen.


I think "they" said that the only time she would be Queen is if Charles dies before her. Presumably, calling her "the Princess Mother" doesn't sound right. (But what I am not sure about is, could/would she be ever styled as "Her Majesty"?)



jsmeeker said:


> When they sing "God Save The Queen", the Queen doesn't sing. Kinda odd in a way. Sure, it's about HER, but it's also the de-facto national anthem.


One thing I remember from (I think it was) Prince Edward's wedding was, when the Queen Mother was alive, she didn't sing it either.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> I think "they" said that the only time she would be Queen is if Charles dies before her. Presumably, calling her "the Princess Mother" doesn't sound right. (But what I am not sure about is, could/would she be ever styled as "Her Majesty"?)


I believe only the monarch is "Her [or His] Majesty". Diana would have never, ever been the monarch.

I Charles died before his mother, William would have been next in line. Wether his mother was still alive or still married to his father, would not have played any role.

At least, this is my understanding.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Someone just told me the significance of the "L" on the front of the car. I guess William (or Charles) is learning to drive?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

loubob57 said:


> Someone just told me the significance of the "L" on the front of the car. I guess William (or Charles) is learning to drive?


he's learning how to be a newlywed. that's the joke here.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Why is Kate in the driver's seat?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)




----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

That Don Guy said:


> Presumably, calling her "the Princess Mother" doesn't sound right. (But what I am not sure about is, could/would she be ever styled as "Her Majesty"?)


I don't think she'd ever be the Queen Mother if Charles died.  She's not William's mother.


----------



## jneugeba (Jan 20, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> I believe only the monarch is "Her [or His] Majesty". Diana would have never, ever been the monarch.
> 
> I Charles died before his mother, William would have been next in line. Wether his mother was still alive or still married to his father, would not have played any role.
> 
> At least, this is my understanding.


Diana would have been referred to as Her Majesty The Queen even though she was not the sovereign.

Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, was referred to as Her Majesty The Queen until her husband died. She was then referred to as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. She added "The Queen Mother" as the current Queen was also named Elizabeth.

Queen Mary was referred to as Her Majesty Queen Mary until her death.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

loubob57 said:


> Someone just told me the significance of the "L" on the front of the car.


[wink wink nudge nudge say no more]


----------

