Just for curiosity: did Eugenie have another boyfriend before Jack? She was only nearly 20 when she met him.
Have Bridal attendants actually been officially confirmed?
Just for curiosity: did Eugenie have another boyfriend before Jack? She was only nearly 20 when she met him.
Google certainly doesn't think so, or if there was we didn't know about him.
She used to date Hugo Taylor, who recently married Millie Mackintosh.
Here's an old article that mentions that romance:
Hands off! Flirty Fagin is all mine, says Princess Eugenie | Daily Mail Online
Yes, there was another boyfriend. I remembered him, but forgot his name, so had to Google. It was Otto Brockway, nephew of Sir Richard Branson, who the Yorks are close to. Apparently they only dated for 6 months. I think Jack was Eugenie's first "serious" boyfriend. Princess Eugenie and the smile that says there IS life after Otto | Daily Mail Online
I just read that full article by the former boyfriend of Lady Gabriella Windsor; he mentioned that there were constant cuts for perks for the minor royals living in KP.
He also said they lived in constant dread of being turfed out!
especially since members of the public have been invited onto the Windsor grounds, which I have not found any evidence was done for Peter's wedding.
They weren't invited in for Peters wedding.
Peter is not a royal. Eugenie on the other hand is. It makes sense that her wedding should be more of a public event than Peter's .
His article was quite clear, in my eyes, a revenge piece because he'd been turfed out not only from the inner circle but he's now been abandoned by anyone who he was connected with back then. This ex boyfriend dated Ella at minimum from 2003 to 2006, and chose the year of two royal weddings to give a story to the paper 12 years after breaking up with her.
I believe there is also significant difference between the Michaels and their situation and the Yorks as grandchildren of the monarch.
Peter is not a royal. Eugenie on the other hand is. It makes sense that her wedding should be more of a public event than Peter's .
They can't seem to decide whether it's private or public!
In addition to seeing a who’s who of ‘celebrity Britain’, I’m looking forward to seeing William and Catherine.
The "outrage" is mainly fueled by tabloids eager to sell their rags. But why do they focus only on the royals?
Perhaps they should cancel all public events where the state needs to provide security? Why single out royal events alone? Football matches, concerts, sport events, village fairs etc. And perhaps best to start with rallies of politicians.
Why this wedding -a public event with lots of spectators- would be treated differently and the state should suddenly be absolved from their obligation to provide security to its citizens is a mystery to me.
Many public events will not be televised. And yet, the state still provides security. Many public events can be cancelled if necessity is a requirement. Nobody needs football matches, the Olympic games, concerts of popstars etc. And yet, the taxpayer pays for the security of all these things and more. Why focus on this couple alone? It seems rather random and petty.