Eugenie and Jack: Wedding Suggestions and Musings Thread

[ACO]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Do you believe that Prince Philip will attend the wedding?

Of course he will. Why wouldn't he? These people are adults. The only way he is not there is if it is impossible for him to be there.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Do you believe that Prince Philip will attend the wedding?

As long as his health permits, I can’t imagine him missing it.

[Rudolph]

The wedding details are on the BBC news website. It’s on Sky news and ITV.

As we get closer to the date the hype will build. Eugenie has a lot of famous celebrity and aristocratic friends. The senior royals will attend.

I think there’s going to be quite a bit of interest tbh.

[Countessmeout]

If Philip attended Harry's so shortly after surgery, I don't see any reason to doubt he would attend Eugenie's. As long as his health permits.

We will see most of the royals, the ones we saw at Harry's. I'd expect a few extras like Freddie and his wife, as I suspect her goddaughter Maude will be a bridesmaid. And James Oglivy (Princess Alexandra's son) and family as James is her godfather.

I would also be expecting some aristos and even minor royals from the continent. Beatrice and Eugenie move in those circles more then their cousins, and often attend weddings on the continent. They attended the wedding of people like Prince Christian of Hannover.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Curryong

m



As for Eugenie's gown, is it going to be £250,000, which is what Meghan's gown was priced at, according to the DM guesstimate? Because, if it is, considering that the York family is not very popular, that's likely to pile on the ill will as well.

Security I can understand as that’s paid for by the taxpayer however Eugenie, IMO, can wear whatever she likes as whatever cost. The taxpayer is not paying for her dress. Whilst the cost of the dress doesn’t make it more beautiful if Eugenie finds “the one” or has the one made then that’s her choice. She should only marry once.

Originally Posted by Osipi

Let's face it. No matter what Eugenie and Jack decided to do with their wedding, there will always be those that look for *any* excuse to jump on the complaint bandwagon.

EXACTLY!! This right here sums up everything, I can almost guarantee that if it was anyone else’s wedding we wouldn’t be having half these discussions.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

EXACTLY!! This right here sums up everything, I can almost guarantee that if it was anyone else’s wedding we wouldn’t be having half these discussions.

Anyone except her sister. It might be worse for Beatrice.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Anyone except her sister. It might be worse for Beatrice.

Thank you!
Proves my point, it’s only the York sisters. Genuinely baffles me.

[Curryong]

There were plenty of discussions about the price of things including security in the Harry/Meghan threads here and elsewhere in the run-up to their wedding. Links were given on articles on the prices of many things guessed at by the media.

And Meghan's dress didn't cost £250,000 or anything like it. That's the point. It was an allegation made by the DM, complete with fantasy illustration weeks before the wedding. And her dress wasn't paid for by taxpayers either, but by herself. The couple were attacked and attacked bitterly in some quarters, so it's not just the Yorks who are treated unjustly.

[Princess Larisa]

I agree there will be interest. If not for Eugenie herself, people will want to see the Queen, the Cambridges, the Sussexes, etc. And then you have traditional royalists or people who are just interested in royal weddings in general. I know plenty of Americans who watched Swedish royal weddings, so can’t see how this is any different.

[jacqui24]

Onto another topic of the wedding. I wonder if they are waiting to see the results of the application from those to attend to convince the stations to televise it? I think if it has to be debated on, it really calls into the question if there is the interest. I don't remember any royal wedding that's televised in recent history to not have been decided from the get go that it'll be televised or not.

I can't remember how the Wessexes decided on who to let on the ground of Windsor Castle that day. Has an application system been done before?

[Rudolph]

For people who follow Emily Andrews and Scobie, they said on their latest podcast they’d be surprised if the wedding isn’t on television.

They said it’s a great PR opportunity for the monarchy.

[ACO]

I guess we shall see. It will depend on if the networks feel they can benefit from it. It would be great PR but that isn't all that plays into it. Personally I would love it.

At least have the BBC air it. Maybe not a massive global airing.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I don't believe she is having a similar wedding to Peter's. I thought she would, but that's not what we are seeing here. I know Peter didn't have a carriage rides through public streets, and I'm pretty certain I didn't read about people on the grounds to watch the wedding. It's more like Edward's, except for maybe being televised live. I think everyone is ok with normal security when the wedding isn't public, but now we are talking about a much bigger operation when the public streets have to be secured for the carriage ride.

Despite the planned roll-back on HRH titles, Princess Eugenie is an HRH, perhaps with a less higher profile than her cousins (William and Harry), but with prominent connections to the Queen. She's part of the immediate royal family as a granddaughter to the Queen. It was Princess Anne's choice for her children to not have titles in order for them to be able to maintain a relatively private lifestyle. Prince Andrew decided differently.

Even with all of that notwithstanding, why all of the side-eye toward Eugenie planning the wedding that she wants? Frankly, I think that Eugenie and Jack feel inspired by the love between the Sussexes, and that the entire royal family is looking forward to celebrating another royal family wedding at St. George's Chapel in October. Let Eugenie and Jack do it in the way that they please. Protection would be necessary at Windsor, regardless of them having a carriage ride or not through part of the town.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

Despite the planned roll-back on HRH titles, Princess Eugenie is an HRH, perhaps with a less higher profile than her cousins (William and Harry), but with prominent connections to the Queen. She's part of the immediate royal family as a granddaughter to the Queen. It was Princess Anne's choice for her children to not have titles in order for them to be able to maintain a relatively private lifestyle. Prince Andrew decided differently.

Even with all of that notwithstanding, why all of the side-eye toward Eugenie planning the wedding that she wants? Frankly, I think that Eugenie and Jack feel inspired by the love between the Sussexes, and that the entire royal family is looking forward to celebrating another royal family wedding. Let Eugenie and Jack do it in the way that they please. Protection would be necessary at Windsor, regardless of them having a carriage ride or not through part of the town.

That is completely untrue. It's one thing to protect the royals inside the castle, it's another when it's a public spectacle.

By all intents and purposes, there is nothing different between Andrew's children and Anne or Edward's children at this point. They are private citizens. If we all use that to defend them when they are being treated unfairly, then they need to live as if they are private citizens, and that does not include protection cost for their wedding carriage ride for their wedding. If Andrew wants to absorb the cost, that's a different story.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

That is completely untrue. It's one thing to protect the royals inside the castle, it's another when it's a public spectacle.

By all intents and purposes, there is nothing different between Andrew's children and Anne or Edward's children at this point. They are private citizens. If we all use that to defend them when they are being treated unfairly, then they need to live as if they are private citizens, and that does not include protection cost for their wedding carriage ride for their wedding. If Andrew wants to absorb the cost, that's a different story.

I agree and I think that SOMEONE, the Queen or Andrew, will have to absorb that cost or any goodwill towards Eugenie will go up in smoke. There is no appetite among taxpayers to foot the bill for this.

[Somebody]

I don't accept the premise that there is no difference between royal highnesses and not titled family members of the queen. For family occassions there is no difference between any of the queen's grandchildren (that includes the dukes) but for royal purposes there are various categories that we could work with.
1. The core royals (adult direct line and spouses; so queen, prince of Wales and duke of Cambridge & spouses)
2. Secondary royals working for the firm (queen's other children, duke of Sussex, dukes of Gloucester and Kent & some spouses)
3. Other royals limitedly working for the firm (prince and princess Michael of Kent, duchess of Kent, princess Alexandra?, princesses Beatrice and Eugenie)
4. Non-royal family members
5. Children

[muriel]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

That is completely untrue. It's one thing to protect the royals inside the castle, it's another when it's a public spectacle.

By all intents and purposes, there is nothing different between Andrew's children and Anne or Edward's children at this point. They are private citizens. If we all use that to defend them when they are being treated unfairly, then they need to live as if they are private citizens, and that does not include protection cost for their wedding carriage ride for their wedding. If Andrew wants to absorb the cost, that's a different story.

If the Queen is happy for the couple to have a carriage ride through the centre of Windsor, who are we to whine?

[MaiaMia_53]

Right @muriel and @Somebody.

Let's also remember that it was Princess Anne's decision for her mother, QEII, to not give her first husband a title. Had he been given a title, Anne's children likely would have been styled the children of an Earl, ie., Viscount/Lady. Anne made that decision knowing full well that she did not wish her children to hold any titles, despite the fact they would still be privileged to a degree as members of the royal family.

Prince Andrew felt differently. And in the case of Prince Edward, the decision was made that he would inherit his father's title one day, so that he was named the Earl of Wessex in the interim. His children are entitled to be Prince/Princess, but again, the decision was made (likely with the full approval of the Wessexes) for their children to not be styled HRH Prince/Princess.

Because Prince Andrew felt differently, both of his daughters are HRH Princesses. IMHO, there is a lot of positive public interest right now in the royal family due to the relationship between M&H and their subsequent wedding. Jack and Eugenie likely have had an understanding for awhile, and then Prince Harry found the love of his life and beat them to the altar. I see nothing wrong with royal wedding fever.

It's a very happy, celebratory time. There's enough bad things happening in the world. Why not celebrate love on a large scale when it happens to be possible? Eugenie is a princess in her own right. I'm happy to see her have a royal princess wedding in whatever fashion she desires. And I hope the same for Princess Beatrice one day.

Big deal about the carriage ride and protection costs attached. With all of the revenue that the British economy is enjoying as a result of Meghan joining the royal family, surely the protection costs for Eugenie's more abbreviated carriage ride will be worth it. I do not see why all the criticism of Eugenie's plans in this thread. As I said before, I do not think either couple are in any kind of competition mode regarding their respective nuptials and love stories. Why should royal observers be complaining in such a 'competitive-focused' manner? I think we get more than enough of that from the tabloids.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I don't accept the premise that there is no difference between royal highnesses and not titled family members of the queen. For family occassions there is no difference between any of the queen's grandchildren (that includes the dukes) but for royal purposes there are various categories that we could work with.
1. The core royals (adult direct line and spouses; so queen, prince of Wales and duke of Cambridge & spouses)
2. Secondary royals working for the firm (queen's other children, duke of Sussex, dukes of Gloucester and Kent & some spouses)
3. Other royals limitedly working for the firm (prince and princess Michael of Kent, duchess of Kent, princess Alexandra?, princesses Beatrice and Eugenie)
4. Non-royal family members
5. Children

I think fairly accurate except Princess Alexandra should be with the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester--and the Queen's children do more than her cousins at this point in their lives.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by muriel

If the Queen is happy for the couple to have a carriage ride through the centre of Windsor, who are we to whine?

Then she can pay for the security cost and no one would say anything about it.

In talking about promoting the monarchy. I can understand making a spectacle of a popular royal or a core member of the family to promote. But why would you spend all of this on someone that's not so popular, or something that there isn't that much interest from the people? Especially for a family that's already seen as entitled and spoiled. Does them no favors.