Why not dream a little?
No, you’re not Meghan Markle or Catherine Middleton, and you can't realistically plan to have a soiree at a site of a past royal wedding location in England.
But you can pretend.
There have been 10 different sites for royal weddings over the past 100 years (we won’t get into the list of sites over centuries). However, two of them didn’t take place in England. Prince Edward married Wallis Simpson at Chateau de Cande in France in 1937, while Prince Micheal married Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz at Viena City Hall in Austria in 1978.
That leaves eight choices in England to conduct your dream ceremony.
All the pros and cons of the sites are below the poll, but be sure to scroll back up to vote, once you have decided.
Pros: This by far has been the most popular site for royal nuptials since 1919, with the building playing host to 10 royal weddings. The last was when the now Duke and Duchess of Cambridge married here in 2011.
The floor area is 32,000 square feet and it can seat 2,000 people, so it has the space for plenty of guests.
Cons: Ugh, the traffic! If you don’t like a lot of commotion, this isn’t the place for you. It’s in the heart of one of the world’s biggest cities, London.
St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle
Pros: Prince Harry and Markle have chosen this as the site of their wedding, as did Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank, who will wed here in October. Prince Edward married Sophie Helen Rhys-Jones here in 1999. It features Gothic-style architecture with a series of steps that make for grand entrances and exits. St George’s is also located more in the country with lush acreage prevalent throughout the area.
Cons: The venue is small with it being able to seat only 800 guests. Would you prefer a more quaint list of only 800?
St Paul’s Cathedral
Pros: Home to the wedding of Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana in 1981, the facility has been kept up nicely over the years because it is a popular tourist destination. It can hold 3,500 people, which is 1,500 more than Westminster Abbey.
Cons: You'll need a massive guest list and budget for this big space.
Pros: Prince Edward married Katharine Worsley here in 1961. It is the second-largest Gothic cathedral in Northern Europe, featuring a length of 525 feet and a height equivalent to an eight-story building. York Minster is illuminated in color, is filled with medieval stained-glass windows and often hosts plays.
Cons: You'll have to dig deep into your pockets to pay for everyone's gas since it is almost 200 miles north of London.
St James's Palace
Pros: The place where Prince Henry married Alice Montague-Douglas-Scott in 1935, there are two chapels to choose from: the Queen’s Chapel and the Chapel Royal. The palace also could easily house wedding guests with its complex of buildings, apartments and rooms to stay in.
Cons: It's not the trendiest place given it hasn't hosted a royal wedding in 83 years.
Pros: The site of Princess Anne’s wedding to Capt. Timothy James Hamilton Laurence in 1992, this Scottish church is a dream venue if you want traditional, quaint and quiet. Being in Scotland, this place is nearby some of the most famous golf courses in the world, a great leisure activity for guests in the days leading up to the wedding.
Cons: The size of this church makes St George's Chapel massive in comparison. It doesn't look like it could fit 80 guests.
Pros: Prince Charles married Camilla Parker-Bowles here in 2005 and Sir Elton John had his civil partnership ceremony with partner David Furnish here as well. The building also has a museum for guests to view and would make for a posh reception since it often has banquets hosted by local politicians and the royal family.
Cons: It's hard to imagine that a lot of people dream about holding their weddings in buildings that aren't true churches.
St. Andrew’s Church
Pros: The host of Prince Richard’s vows to Birgitte van Deurs in 1972 is an intimate and traditional setting that tailors to the desires of those who want more low-scale ceremonies. Located two hours south of London, it is also close to the English Channel, which should create possibilities for pictures.
Cons: The last royal wedding it hosted was almost 50 years ago, and some of the pictures indicate the church hasn't been updated all that much since.