There's a lot of chatter about the fact that Kate Middleton is the first commoner to marry an heir to the British throne for about three hundred years. There have been several commoners marry into the Royal family, such as Sarah Ferguson and Mark Philips - only they were commoners but they certainly weren't common, moving in the same circles as royalty. Diana Spencer wasn't royal, which was noted when she married the heir, but she was definitely blue-blooded, wore her family tiara to her wedding and had more English royal blood than her husband.
Kate, on the other hand, is truly a commoner. Some snobs are looking down on this, others (inverted snobs) think the family have stepped "above their station" but I for one, think it's great that it doesn't seem like an arranged marriage, and that Prince WIlliam genuinely loves her (unlike another groom I could mention).
So I'm a little disappointed that her father thought it necessary to have a family crest hastily designed for the wedding. Ok, I know quite a few seemingly regular people who have a family crest so that's not my beef. What I feel sad about is that although everyone thinks it's great that Kate's a commoner, it's just not quite good enough is it? They've had to run out and buy themselves a crest to put on the wedding stationery, (and apparently on all their business stationery).
the explanation, which in itself is quite sweet.
What do you think? (If you care, that is.)