Eugenie and Jack: Wedding Suggestions and Musings Thread

[O-H Anglophile]

I think Eugenie wants (and will apparently have) a higher profile wedding than Peter because she runs in a higher profile circle than Peter and Autumn did. Personally I hope they have the reception on the grounds at Royal Lodge rather than Frogmore...just to avoid the most recent comparisons. It is her home. Other that the seasonal difference (which should dictate the foliage and decor, E&J could also have their ceremony in late afternoon, a carriage ride and and then direct to the reception at Royal Lodge. becasue they wont have the dignitaries there really isnt the need for the afternoon reception. but i expect plenty of sparkle.

There were not any dignitaries at the most recent royal wedding. All the guests att he wedding ceremony were invited to the afternoon reception, close friends and some family were invited to the private evening dinner.

 

[jacqui24]

If something going ahead has ever stopped anyone from discussing it, most of the threads would be 90% shorter.

Agree that it would be a late morning or noon wedding. Although, I supposed both Frogmore and Royal Lodge can be options for the evening reception. The comparisons will be there no matter what. It has already happened with this announcement. A lot of headline had to drag the Sussexes into it. Specifically Meghan even though Harry is the one related to Eugenie.

 

[Osipi]

If its the tabloids screaming the headlines, they're just being the tabloids they always have been and always will be. Their aim is create disention.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

If not being a UK citizens exclude us from talking finances, then most of us shouldn't be talking on this board.

I didn't say not being a UK citizen excludes any of us from talking about royal wedding finances. I simply observed that you seem quite adamantly opposed to the security costs in a way that seems out of proportion to your lack of responsibility for paying British taxes.

I was pointing out from a public relations standpoint, which is the reason being listed as this is good, that this wouldn't go over well and why. I do agree that the York princesses are disliked not for their own behavior as they've not done much wrong, except for maybe a few weird outfits, but it doesn't rise to the level of mockery thrown at them. It does have to do with the behavior of their parents over the years. I'm just saying this is not making anything better. In fact, it's probably better for them to keep a low profile as private individuals unless they want even more scrutiny on themselves.

I disagree with your stance on this. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie truly should not be blamed for their parents' mistakes. I think their parents are both at least trying to improve their public images. And I also think both parents dearly love their two daughters. I hope neither parent puts a foot in it in the lead-up to the wedding.

I'm looking forward to seeing a happy family celebration, and I do hope it will be televised. Not the least because aside from Beatrice, this might well be the last royal family wedding to be attended by both QEII and Prince Philip (especially the latter, as the Queen may still be around if Beatrice marries within a few years).

As royal princesses, Eugenie and Beatrice are simply by birthright and happenstance of their father's wishes never going to be simply private citizens. They will always hold a relatively higher profile than the Phillipses due to their royal status. They could attempt to be lower profile, but the cameras will always follow them to a certain degree. They can't escape their status unless they renounce their titles and flee to a private island somewhere, which I can't see either of them doing. ?

This situation is somewhat similar to the heightened interest surrounding the wedding of Prince Andrew and Fergie coming five years after the huge romantic wedding of Diana and Charles. In 1986, there still existed great interest in and aura around Diana (the rumors of rifts between her and Charles hadn't widely circulated across the pond at that point). This time two British royal weddings for the subsequent generation are happening in the same year! I say, why not take advantage of royal wedding fever, and the heightened positive interest surrounding the British monarchy as a result of the Sussex relationship/wedding?

 

[MaiaMia_53]

... I supposed both Frogmore and Royal Lodge can be options for the evening reception. The comparisons will be there no matter what. It has already happened with this announcement. A lot of headline had to drag the Sussexes into it. Specifically Meghan even though Harry is the one related to Eugenie.

The tabloid media will always be squawking regardless of anything the royals do. I tend not to click on the more trivial rantings designed to stir up nonexistent 'competition' between the royals or between any of the royal ladies in particular.

Frogmore House is one mile away from Windsor Castle, and Royal Lodge is three miles away. It makes logistical sense to have the reception at Frogmore (where Peter Phillips also had his reception in 2008). I doubt that any of the royals care one whit about silly comparisons being drummed up by the tabloid press. After all, none of the public are exactly going to be invited to the reception, just as none of us were present at either of M&H's receptions. And don't we wish we were! I know I do, especially the one at Frogmore House.

Let's see whether Jack and Eugenie exit Windsor Castle a la 'James Bond style' like M&H? Probably, they will do things a tad differently in a vehicle with 'Just Married' paraphernalia perhaps. It's all just going to be a cause for happy celebration. I'm lightenend up about it all. There's already enough sadness and strife going on in the world today. I don't see any reason to be overly uptight or critically negative about what Eugenie is planning for her wedding.

Again, I’m talking about it from this “PR” angle that’s been brought up. And let’s face it, the royal family is a brand. And they try to protect it. There will be times that you take a hit for what you want, and take away from some goodwill that’s been built up. But I fail to see how creating a spectacle for someone who isn’t popular, and who is supposed to be a private citizen carrying out a private life as many of us have used to defend Eugenie, is helping the brand.

I don't think there's anything much to protect against in terms of the royal brand and plans involving this royal wedding. If anything, another royal wedding in the same year enhances the brand. And they are not going overboard with the planning, as far as I can see.

I don't see the Yorks taking a huge p.r. hit, nor the Queen either for ensuring that their daughter/granddaughter respectively, has the royal wedding of her dreams. Quite the contrary. I think many in the British public will be sharing in celebrating Eugenie's dream wedding. ? Every bride is popular on their wedding day.

 

[Susan D]

Would it be better if she were Lady Eugenie and they had a private society wedding. Why is she anything to do with us?

 

[jacqui24]

I didn't say not being a UK citizen excludes any of us from talking about royal wedding finances. I simply observed that you seem quite adamantly opposed to the security costs in a way that seems out of proportion to your lack of responsibility for paying British taxes.

Royal finances have always seem to be a hot topic and I'm simply pointing out the obvious about expenses for a nonworking royal would cause backlash since people don't seem want to pay for RPO for her either. I have my opinions and state my reasoning behind it. If there is something that's said that I don't agree with, I state why like I do for all my opinions. That and I always enjoy a good debate. Simple as that.

I disagree with your stance on this. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie truly should not be blamed for their parents' mistakes. I think their parents are both at least trying to improve their public images. And I also think both parents dearly love their two daughters. I hope neither parent puts a foot in it in the lead-up to the wedding.

Yes. Given that Fergie has already gone all over the place talking about it on social media and then write an open letter to Eugenie in Hello magazine. Let's do hope there is anything else that comes up before the wedding. I do find it the double standards for the parents of the royal one of the couple and the nonroyal to be quite odd. If a nonroyal's parent did this, it'd be far worse. But there seems to be little controversy when it's the royal's parent.

And yes, I agree children shouldn't be blamed for their parents' mistakes, but everyone lives with the situation they are in. Each person makes the decisions for the life they desire. If they chose to have a private wedding, there might be a few articles here and there about the cost related to the wedding (dress, flowers, etc), and I would've rolled my eyes at all of them and moved on. But this does open another can of worms.

As royal princesses, Eugenie and Beatrice are simply by birthright and happenstance of their father's wishes never going to be simply private citizens. They will always hold a relatively higher profile than the Phillipses due to their royal status. They could attempt to be lower profile, but the cameras will always follow them to a certain degree. They can't escape their status unless they renounce their titles and flee to a private island somewhere, which I can't see either of them doing. ?

This situation is somewhat similar to the heightened interest surrounding the wedding of Prince Andrew and Fergie coming five years after the huge romantic wedding of Diana and Charles. In 1986, there still existed great interest in and aura around Diana (the rumors of rifts between her and Charles hadn't widely circulated across the pond at that point). This time two British royal weddings for the subsequent generation are happening in the same year! I say, why not take advantage of royal wedding fever, and the heightened positive interest surrounding the British monarchy as a result of the Sussex relationship/wedding?

If they aren't private citizens, then I will no longer use this to defend them when something unfair comes up. And I will point that out if I see that defense in the future that they aren't private citizens and thus fair game. If they wish for the criticism and the scrutiny to die down and lead private lives, having a public wedding isn't the way to go. And yes, the stories will go away once they are stop seen coming out of clubs and become less

Andrew and Fergie were from a different time as I was often reminded and the excitement over Sussexes' wedding is completely different. Harry is a very popular royal and and both of them are expected to do work on behalf of the Firm for the remainder of their lives. Eugenie is not. The Sussex wedding was also of great interest on a global stage, which if we are going to talk about tourism revenue, that's very important. Even then, there were complaints about the cost. As I've pointed out before, even just going by the coverage by the royal correspondents on this, the interest isn't that high even in UK. Again, I don't see how putting on a spectacle for a non-working member of the family while costing public money would be a good imagery from a cost standpoint, which is always a sore spot.

BTW, what is the precedent for the wedding of a grandchild of a monarch that's not expected to be a child of a monarch (I imagine the last examples would be the Queen's cousins)?

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

BTW, what is the precedent for the wedding of a grandchild of a monarch that's not expected to be a child of a monarch (I imagine the last examples would be the Queen's cousins)?

The precedent for such a wedding would be a televised public occasion at one of the large cathedrals in the UK such as York Minster or Westminster Abbey, with attendees including politicians and foreign royal families even reigning heads of state such as King Olav of Norway, who attended Princess Alexandra's wedding in 1963. The only difference from the wedding of the children of the sovereign would probably be little to no foreign politicians and no balcony appearance, but that doesn't necessarily mean there were not large crowds but a difference did need to be shown so I guess it was not included.
Here is a link to the wedding of the Duke of Kent:

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Would it be better if she were Lady Eugenie and they had a private society wedding. Why is she anything to do with us?

Eugenie should stay Princess Eugenie and have the gorgeous wedding of a royal Princess. Her joy has a right to be shared with the people.

 

[jacqui24]

The precedent for such a wedding would be a televised public occasion at one of the large cathedrals in the UK such as York Minster or Westminster Abbey, with attendees including politicians and foreign royal families even reigning heads of state such as King Olav of Norway, who attended Princess Alexandra's wedding in 1963. The only difference from the wedding of the children of the sovereign would probably be little to no foreign politicians and no balcony appearance, but that doesn't necessarily mean there were not large crowds but a difference did need to be shown so I guess it was not included.
Here is a link to the wedding of the Duke of Kent:

The times have really changed. I don't imagine the public would have any appetite for this AT ALL today. But then again, I don't think people turn out for royalty like they used to either.

 

[Osipi]

The times have really changed. I don't imagine the public would have any appetite for this AT ALL today. But then again, I don't think people turn out for royalty like they used to either.

I think the huge difference in back then and now is that for the most part, if you wanted to see the royals back then, you actually had to *be* there. Now things are easily streamed around the world and the entire UK was able to view the modern royal weddings and events sitting in their armchairs in front of the TV or in their local pub or on a bus or... the list goes on. Its not the interest that has died out but rather more convenient ways of "being there".

 

[jacqui24]

I think the huge difference in back then and now is that for the most part, if you wanted to see the royals back then, you actually had to *be* there. Now things are easily streamed around the world and the entire UK was able to view the modern royal weddings and events sitting in their armchairs in front of the TV or in their local pub or on a bus or... the list goes on. Its not the interest that has died out but rather more convenient ways of "being there".

I suppose people also have less time as women are now in the workforce.

 

[Osipi]

I suppose people also have less time as women are now in the workforce.

Well that can figure into it all too. The work place has dramatically changed also in the past couple of decades. When I was growing up, no one worked on Sundays. Its not solely women being more prominent in the work force but more that the work place has changed dramatically.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

If they aren't private citizens, then I will no longer use this to defend them when something unfair comes up. And I will point that out if I see that defense in the future that they aren't private citizens and thus fair game.

BTW, what is the precedent for the wedding of a grandchild of a monarch that's not expected to be a child of a monarch (I imagine the last examples would be the Queen's cousins)?

So if something unfair to say Charles, or Harry or George comes up, it is okay because they are not private citizens?

Princess Alexandra was married at Westminster Abbey and it was considered a Royal Wedding. It was broadcast on television.

The Duke of Kent was married at York Cathedral and it was also considered a Royal Wedding. I don't know if it was broadcast but it was filmed.

 

[Osipi]

Actually, I believe that Peter and Autumn very well could have had a wedding at Westminster Abbey if that was the venue of their choosing. As WA is a royal peculiar, all they would need is the Queen's permission. ?

 

[jacqui24]

So if something unfair to say Charles, or Harry or George comes up, it is okay because they are not private citizens?

Princess Alexandra was married at Westminster Abbey and it was considered a Royal Wedding. It was broadcast on television.

The Duke of Kent was married at York Cathedral and it was also considered a Royal Wedding. I don't know if it was broadcast but it was filmed.

And you think they aren't right now? We can never use the reason that they are private individuals and thus off limits regarding what they do and how they look in public.

And I've conceded time has changed. Princess Alexandra and Duke of Kent are both working royals, but I can't see that happening for any grandchildren of a monarch that's the children of an heir now or in the future either.

Actually, I believe that Peter and Autumn very well could have had a wedding at Westminster Abbey if that was the venue of their choosing. As WA is a royal peculiar, all they would need is the Queen's permission. ?

The question isn't the location. Although we were told it would be problematic if Harry were to marry in WA. But the question of if it's a public wedding or not and what would it cost taxpayers. That's where it gets to be if it's public's business or not.

 

[Osipi]

I would define Eugenie and Jack's wedding as a private family wedding with courtesies extended to the public that have an interest in it.

The guests in the Chapel, the guests at any reception and all the events such as a rehearsal ahead of the wedding are strictly "invite only". Those members of the charities that will be invited to the grounds of the Chapel are by "invite only". As it stands right now, the only "public" aspect of this wedding is the short carriage ride. Those that congregate in Windsor because of the wedding are gathering on public land and have the right to do so. They're not "invited" to line the streets.

In what other ways would you deem this a "public" wedding, Jacqui? Why the extreme focus on the "cost to the taxpayer"? The taxpayers are not going to be billed any extra or pay extra taxes because of this wedding. They pay the same if this wedding was to be held on the grounds of Balmoral and the wedding not even announced in the public domain until after the fact.

Now you got me wondering just how much it costs the taxpayers to have the "Beast" flown over to the UK for the recent working visit. Bet that sum of money could float quite a few "public" courtesies extended by the BRF.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Royal finances have always seem to be a hot topic and I'm simply pointing out the obvious about expenses for a nonworking royal would cause backlash since people don't seem want to pay for RPO for her either. I have my opinions and state my reasoning behind it. If there is something that's said that I don't agree with, I state why like I do for all my opinions. That and I always enjoy a good debate. Simple as that.

Which still doesn't address why you yourself seem so overly concerned about the costs. In most of your responses to back up your critical opinions you keep citing the points of view of others besides yourself, as if deflecting or downplaying your initial critiques. The issue of the British public not wanting to pay for RPOs for the York sisters is a separate issue from the minimal security costs associated with an abbreviated one-time carriage ride in the town of Windsor.

Why should anyone wish to criticize Eugenie/Jack's desire to share the happiness of their union with the public? Sure there may be people who are going to criticize, but I don't think that should stop Eugenie & Jack and their families from enjoying their wedding day, along with royal fans who are interested. I do not see Eugenie's plans being overly extravagant.

Yes. Given that Fergie has already gone all over the place talking about it on social media and then write an open letter to Eugenie in Hello magazine. Let's do hope there is anything else that comes up before the wedding. I do find it the double standards for the parents of the royal one of the couple and the nonroyal to be quite odd. If a nonroyal's parent did this, it'd be far worse. But there seems to be little controversy when it's the royal's parent.

... If they chose to have a private wedding, there might be a few articles here and there about the cost related to the wedding (dress, flowers, etc), and I would've rolled my eyes at all of them and moved on. But this does open another can of worms.

If the royals aren't worried about cans of worms being opened, why should you be? Big deal about Fergie. No one ever accused her of being the brightest bulb among the royals. She's made a lot of missteps over the years, which is unfortunate. Meanwhile, I'm cutting Fergie some slack as being a very proud mother of her beautiful daughter Eugenie and her handsome soon-to-be son-in-law Jack. At least Fergie is championing her daughter and not cutting her down. Nothing Fergie does or has done should adversely reflect upon her daughters.

If they aren't private citizens, then I will no longer use this to defend them when something unfair comes up. And I will point that out if I see that defense in the future that they aren't private citizens and thus fair game. If they wish for the criticism and the scrutiny to die down and lead private lives, having a public wedding isn't the way to go. And yes, the stories will go away once they are stop seen coming out of clubs and become less...

? Mmmm, you seem so invested in how the British public views the York sisters. I can't claim to really know for certain exactly how they are perceived by a majority of the British public because I've never read about any official surveys having been conducted.

Whether or not the York sisters are largely considered to be private citizens and nonworking royals, they are still British royal princesses with status and privilege that comes with OTT scrutiny. And they also do attend some public functions, in addition to working with charities. So what that they enjoyed going out to clubs a lot in their early young adulthood. So did William and Harry. I'm sure all the royals still enjoy some private down time with their friends. Don't we all? It's just that pap cameras aren't intrusively snapping us regular people 24/7. As the York sisters have grown older, they seem to be settling down a bit more and engaging in more well-received activities.

I agree with @Osipi's rebuttal jacqui24. I'm struggling to figure out what your objections are all about. As someone mentioned earlier, it's really nothing to do with us. Those who aren't interested in the Yorks don't have to follow the stories and the wedding plans, nor tune in to watch if by chance the wedding happens to be televised (which I hope it will be). If you don't think there's going to be much interest, why are you so invested in your objections?

 

[jacqui24]

In what other ways would you deem this a "public" wedding, Jacqui? Why the extreme focus on the "cost to the taxpayer"? The taxpayers are not going to be billed any extra or pay extra taxes because of this wedding. They pay the same if this wedding was to be held on the grounds of Balmoral and the wedding not even announced in the public domain until after the fact.

Now you got me wondering just how much it costs the taxpayers to have the "Beast" flown over to the UK for the recent working visit. Bet that sum of money could float quite a few "public" courtesies extended by the BRF.

Uh, which part isn't public might be faster at this point. Peter's wedding was a private wedding. This isn't. And there is always extreme focus on cost to taxpayers. I'm not sure why it's a problem now. I think the public do differentiate between costs that are seen as necessary and those that are unnecessary. Cost of security so a private citizen who is allowed to go into for profit careers? I would say that's different than cost of meeting between heads of government/state. No?

Which still doesn't address why you yourself seem so overly concerned about the costs. In most of your responses to back up your critical opinions you keep citing the points of view of others besides yourself, as if deflecting or downplaying your initial critiques. The issue of the British public not wanting to pay for RPOs for the York sisters is a separate issue from the minimal security costs associated with an abbreviated one-time carriage ride in the town of Windsor.

Why should anyone wish to criticize Eugenie/Jack's desire to share the happiness of their union with the public? Sure there may be people who are going to criticize, but I don't think that should stop Eugenie & Jack and their families from enjoying their wedding day, along with royal fans who are interested. I do not see Eugenie's plans being overly extravagant.



If the royals aren't worried about cans of worms being opened, why should you be? Big deal about Fergie. No one ever accused her of being the brightest bulb among the royals. She's made a lot of missteps over the years, which is unfortunate. Meanwhile, I'm cutting Fergie some slack as being a very proud mother of her beautiful daughter Eugenie and her handsome soon-to-be son-in-law Jack. At least Fergie is championing her daughter and not cutting her down. Nothing Fergie does or has done should adversely reflect upon her daughters.



? Mmmm, you seem so invested in how the British public views the York sisters. I can't claim to really know for certain exactly how they are perceived by a majority of the British public because I've never read about any official surveys having been conducted.

Whether or not the York sisters are largely considered to be private citizens and nonworking royals, they are still British royal princesses with status and privilege that comes with OTT scrutiny. And they also do attend some public functions, in addition to working with charities. So what that they enjoyed going out to clubs a lot in their early young adulthood. So did William and Harry. I'm sure all the royals still enjoy some private down time with their friends. Don't we all? It's just that pap cameras aren't intrusively snapping us regular people 24/7. As the York sisters have grown older, they seem to be settling down a bit more and engaging in more well-received activities.

I agree with @Osipi's rebuttal jacqui24. I'm struggling to figure out what your objections are all about. As someone mentioned earlier, it's really nothing to do with us. Those who aren't interested in the Yorks don't have to follow the stories and the wedding plans, nor tune in to watch if by chance the wedding happens to be televised (which I hope it will be). If you don't think there's going to be much interest, why are you so invested in your objections?

I'm not sure why you are so interest in psychoanalyzing me as I believe it is inappropriate and against the forum rules since this isn't about me. If you have a point to what I said regarding Eugenie's wedding, please make it. Otherwise, don't pretend to know what I'm thinking. I don't do this to you, I'd appreciate the same respect.

As for Fergie, my point was the double standards between the reaction to parents of royals and non-royals.

As for attending public functions, the Phillips and the Wessex children all do. I do find them to be equals and I don't think there is any difference in the HRH status other than in name only at this point. It would've been different in the 80s when they were born. Why does any of us have disagreements over royals and criticize them as a lot of things are none of our business? By this logic, half of the posts on this forum wouldn't exist.

And btw, I never said going to clubs is an issue. It's called being young. Although, that is when the tabloids would be interested and thus cause more scrutiny. It's not simply a royal thing, but all famous people issue. And Harry has had his fair share of critique over partying, but it's been years since we've seen him go in or out of a club.

 

[Osipi]

The *only* thing that the taxpayers pay for directly is for security. Security for these events are funded by the Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard and I would imagine, the local Windsor law enforcement. Their funding comes directly from the taxpayers.

Anything else pertaining to the British Royal Family in their public life is financed by the Sovereign Grant which is determined by the Treasury and then goes through the House of Commons. This amount is decided at a set time and expenses go under review.

Anything that is deemed private is paid for by the royal family's personal wealth which has absolutely nothing to do with the taxpayers at all.

All costs pertaining to Eugenie and Jack's wedding are provided and paid for by her family. The *only* thing the taxpayers will float is the security done through the local Windsor law enforcement department. This deems the wedding a private, family wedding.

Would you really think its a wise idea for people to show up in droves in Windsor because of the wedding and there *not* being any semblance of security?

 

[jacqui24]

The *only* thing that the taxpayers pay for directly is for security. Security for these events are funded by the Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard and I would imagine, the local Windsor law enforcement. Their funding comes directly from the taxpayers.

Anything else pertaining to the British Royal Family in their public life is financed by the Sovereign Grant which is determined by the Treasury and then goes through the House of Commons. This amount is decided at a set time and expenses go under review.

Anything that is deemed private is paid for by the royal family's personal wealth which has absolutely nothing to do with the taxpayers at all.

All costs pertaining to Eugenie and Jack's wedding are provided and paid for by her family. The *only* thing the taxpayers will float is the security done through the local Windsor law enforcement department. This deems the wedding a private, family wedding.

Would you really think its a wise idea for people to show up in droves in Windsor because of the wedding and there *not* being any semblance of security?

I'm well aware about who pays what as we've discussed that to death over the Sussex wedding.

Except for the carriage ride, it didn't seem necessary for Peter or Zara's wedding. And I'm aware Zara was married in Scotland.

 

[Osipi]

Well. One thing I bet is that all the shopkeepers and businesses in Windsor are totally over the moon about that carriage ride. Windsor Castle is a huge tourist attraction and the businesses of Windsor cater to that. Their law enforcement department also are very well practiced in this kind of crowd management because, as you probably know, events happen in Windsor all the time where the crowds gather to watch and participate in things.

 

[M. Payton]

I'm well aware about who pays what as we've discussed that to death over the Sussex wedding.

Except for the carriage ride, it didn't seem necessary for Peter or Zara's wedding. And I'm aware Zara was married in Scotland.

I have read this thread on the carriage ride that you don't like and yet you haven't said really why you are so against it? What is the problem with the carriage ride by Eugenie and Jack? This is not the 1st carriage ride nor will it be the last one either. Is it perhaps because it is what another royal wedding did that maybe it is deems as being copied or what? This is Princess Eugenie of York and she is the granddaughter of HM and the daughter of Prince Andrew of York and Sarah, Duchess of York......she is by birth a blood royal princess.........and all brides deserve what they can have on their wedding day, carriage ride or scooter ride if they want. Some here keep asking for the reasons of your not wanting a carriage ride and no feasible answer yet.....so why? She is as much important to the royal family as all HM's grandchildren are, not just the few who are closer in line to the throne.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

As for attending public functions, the Phillips and the Wessex children all do. I do find them to be equals and I don't think there is any difference in the HRH status other than in name only at this point. It would've been different in the 80s when they were born. Why does any of us have disagreements over royals and criticize them as a lot of things are none of our business? By this logic, half of the posts on this forum wouldn't exist.

Yes the Phillips and Wessex kids do attend royal events but Beatrice and Eugenie attend more, where the 'family' aspect of the BRF is needed, such as garden parties, B.P. receptions, and in the future most likely state banquets. The girls are currently fulfilling the roles blazed by Prince Michael, which was already expected of Eugenie as the second child.

 

[Thena]

BTW, what is the precedent for the wedding of a grandchild of a monarch that's not expected to be a child of a monarch (I imagine the last examples would be the Queen's cousins)?

The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra were covered already, and newsreel footage of their weddings are available online. Prince Michael of Kent had a civil wedding on the continent since he couldn't legally marry Marie-Christine in the UK under the current laws, and they had a few royal guests. I've found pictures but no newsreel footage. I suspect he could have had a Westminster Abbey wedding if he had married a single Protestant woman.

Then-Prince Richard of Gloucester had a small country wedding at Barnwell Abbey. There was newsreel footage of the arrivals but cameras were restricted from the church and the reception at the family's country home.

Then there's the Earl of Harewood, son of the Princess Royal. The newsreel footage points out Douglas Fairbanks as one of the guests. I was interested to note that Queen Mary did not attend the church ceremony but did go to the reception at St. James Palace, and large crowds turned out there for her arrival.

His younger brother, Gerald Lascelles, also had large crowds and newsreel coverage of his wedding. The Queen was a last-minute no-show due to a chill, but Prince Philip and Princess Margaret attended alongside the Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent.

Princess Margaret's children also fit the qualification of monarch's grandchildren that were not expected to be children of the monarch. I would say that their weddings were comparable to the Lascelles ones. Like Gerald Lascelles, Viscount Lindley and his bride were married at St. Margaret's, which was described in as "the society church." The arrivals footage focuses heavily on Princess Diana and Jerry Hall.

I can't even find footage on YouTube of Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones's wedding to Daniel Chatto other than short clips of Princess Diana's arrival, but they also had a London church wedding.

One thing I noticed when you look at this list: the older Kents had the most elaborate weddings with the most coverage, but they also married in the 1960s once the days of post-war austerity were over. Also, Prince George and Princess Marina were a glamorous, popular couple before the duke's untimely death in the war; their children inherited a great deal of public goodwill. That wasn't the case with Princess Margaret's children and the York princesses. The Lascelles brothers had public goodwill, but one married in the bleak post-war years and the other in the shadow of the king's death. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester could have had a Westminster Abbey wedding, but they preferred something simpler and had a laid-back '70s vibe to their arrangements. The Armstrong-Jones children also married in the early '90s when things were going off the rails for the royal family as whole, giving them a lot less public goodwill.

 

[jacqui24]

I have read this thread on the carriage ride that you don't like and yet you haven't said really why you are so against it? What is the problem with the carriage ride by Eugenie and Jack? This is not the 1st carriage ride nor will it be the last one either. Is it perhaps because it is what another royal wedding did that maybe it is deems as being copied or what? This is Princess Eugenie of York and she is the granddaughter of HM and the daughter of Prince Andrew of York and Sarah, Duchess of York......she is by birth a blood royal princess.........and all brides deserve what they can have on their wedding day, carriage ride or scooter ride if they want. Some here keep asking for the reasons of your not wanting a carriage ride and no feasible answer yet.....so why? She is as much important to the royal family as all HM's grandchildren are, not just the few who are closer in line to the throne.

I simply brought up that this is not a good view based on a variety of factors (I'm not going to restate all of them as you can look at older posts). While all of HM's grandchildren are equally important to HM as grandchildren, they aren't the same in terms of public roles. As for being blood princess, I've also discussed my views on this regarding the York princesses and Anne and Edward's children.

Yes the Phillips and Wessex kids do attend royal events but Beatrice and Eugenie attend more, where the 'family' aspect of the BRF is needed, such as garden parties, B.P. receptions, and in the future most likely state banquets. The girls are currently fulfilling the roles blazed by Prince Michael, which was already expected of Eugenie as the second child.

Peter Phillips have also attended royal garden parties. I'm assuming on things like this, it depends on their schedule availability too rather than he's not royal enough.

 

[Countessmeout]

The difference: Eugenie is the granddaughter of the REIGNING monarch.

Margaret's children were the niece and nephew of the monarch.

The Kents and Gloucesters were the cousins of the current monarch when they were married.

George V and VI and Edward VII weren't alive when any of their grandchildren married. The last would have been grandchildren of Victoria who married in her life time who would be in a similar position to the Yorks.

 

[Denville]

I have read this thread on the carriage ride that you don't like and yet you haven't saidnd all brides deserve what they can have on their wedding day, carriage ride or scooter ride if they want. Some here keep asking for the reasons of your not wanting a carriage ride and no feasible answer yet.....so why? She is as much important to the royal family as all HM's grandchildren are, not just the few who are closer in line to the throne.

She can have what she can.. but it would looke better if she paid for it herself. Having said that I don't grudge it to her, I hope her wedding is nicely done.. but I don't see any reason to have a big one or teleivise it...

 

[M. Payton]

I simply brought up that this is not a good view based on a variety of factors (I'm not going to restate all of them as you can look at older posts). While all of HM's grandchildren are equally important to HM as grandchildren, they aren't the same in terms of public roles. As for being blood princess, I've also discussed my views on this regarding the York princesses and Anne and Edward's children.

Peter Phillips have also attended royal garden parties. I'm assuming on things like this, it depends on their schedule availability too rather than he's not royal enough.

I seriously doubt that HM thinks in the terms of who is important as to whether they work for the firm or not, nor their public roles when it comes to their wedding. Princess Eugenie has some public duties, maybe not as much as William and Harry yet that does not make her any less important in the family now. She has a full time career only and still has her favorite charities that she supports and goes to while William is the heir and Harry of course has his charities and NO full time career outside of the firm. I think Eugenie works darn hard and has made something of herself besides what the firm would like her to do. After all a full time career on top of her charities is more then full time IMHO. And for me here, I honestly think that both William and Harry could be doing more for the firm then they are. Yes William also has very small babies at home and that I know takes time also...so your points of why you do not think well of this carriage ride does not hold up here with me. I really do not like it when Eugenie or Beatrice get bashed around here, there is no darn reason at all for it. Neither has ever done anything horrible in life to anyone, and yet they get bashed all because of their parents who, well not going in that direction right now.......Treat them as they are, separate adults, with careers of their own and still members of the royal family and still doing things for the firm on the approval of HM I am sure. Numbers of duties on the court list does not count in my book, their character as human beings and how they treat other people says a heck of a lot more about them. And oh, don't think I am bashing Harry or William here for I am not, I just pointed out things that I look at personally.

 

[angieuk]

Lovely couple; hope the sun shines on their big day!