Eugenie and Jack: Wedding Suggestions and Musings Thread


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just for curiosity: did Eugenie have another boyfriend before Jack? She was only nearly 20 when she met him.
 
Last edited:
Mirabel said:
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
Click to expand...

I doubt this one, just rumours frankly and he is such a social climber I feel Eugenie would have been able to see that.

rmay286 said:
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
Click to expand...


That's him! I remember that picture. I knew we'd seen at least one other boyfriend.
 
Now that that is settled, there should be *NO* more vile discontent over who is paying what or how much it cost as that is only on a need to know . I am hoping that Eugenie and Jack will have the wedding of their dreams and all goes well for them...and I so want to see the gorgeous bride in her gown.
 
Y'know, I'd like to see the statistics of how much security runs when there's an event in Windsor such as Ascot, Garter Day and the Windsor Horse Show. How much more expensive is it to secure the area for Eugenie's wedding? There's always events going on in Windsor that require security and crowd control. Is Eugenie's wedding that much different?

All of the above are pretty much tourist attractions that draw crowds. :D
 
Also as pointed out in one of the links...the security are public servants (or whatever they call them there) and are getting paid regardless...so what difference does it make where they guard?


LaRae
 
The local police and council budget in the security for annual events. It is the 'special' events that cost extra that cause issues and this year with CHOGM, Trump, Harry and Eugenie's weddings there has been a lot of extra security needed over and above the usual.

The Garter ceremony doesn't go into the streets of Windsor so the security isn't that much more than a normal day. Yes there are some extra police in the castle grounds but not that many more (have been there both on Garter Day and an ordinary day and really didn't see that many more police on the Garter Day visit to other days).

If there was no carriage ride then there wouldn't be a real problem as the security would be about the same as a normal day at Windsor.

Sadly the minor members of the family do have to think about the costs of things if they don't want to see a vocal minority turning into a majority at the costs of things like security.

The police maybe 'public servants' but on events like these most of them are on overtime as they don't draw them from regular duties but cancel their rights to leave or insist they do an extra shift and overtime is quite expensive for any budget.
 
Nothing has been said about it ...but most likely not.


LaRae
 
Maybe they should think twice about the carriage ride?

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!

I'm not sure how accurate his statements were, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were on the mark.

There are loads of comments that Andrew is the one who should pay for any increased security costs, because if it falls to the taxpayers, there's going to be a surge of bad PR.
 
Mirabel said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Honestly, at this point, I think they should deal it all in, meaning the wedding is televised. IMO, it would look tacky and would definitely cause some backlash if the public has to pay 2 million for a carriage ride, but can't even watch the wedding. Also, the wedding is no longer private, 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. Anyways since this wedding seems like a step down from Harry's and will not have as much interest, I say the best way to broadcast it would be to give all the rights inside the church to BBC1, who usually cover moderately notable BRF events and live stream it on the Royal Family Channel.
 
Lumutqueen said:
They weren't invited in for Peters wedding.
Click to expand...




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 .
 
Mbruno said:
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 .
Click to expand...

They can't seem to decide whether it's private or public!
 
Lumutqueen said:
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.
Click to expand...

The only difference between Prince Michael and Princess Eugenie is Eugenie is the grandchild of the current monarch. Michael is also the grandchild of a monarch.

Agree 100% about Gabriella's ex.

Mbruno said:
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 .
Click to expand...

Mirabel said:
They can't seem to decide whether it's private or public!
Click to expand...

Perhaps it should be a bit of both.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where’s the public ‘outrage’? I see the same old republican MPs complaining, just like they complain about all things Royal.

Windsor doesn’t seem to be complaining. It’s a very traditional, very monarchist place.

It’s like any other royal event, people can watch/follow it or not tune in and ignore it but the wedding is going ahead as planned.

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.
 
Last edited:
Rudolph said:
In addition to seeing a who’s who of ‘celebrity Britain’, I’m looking forward to seeing William and Catherine.
Click to expand...

The press has been saying that Pippa's baby is due about the same time, and Kate may not attend because she'll be with Pippa.

I know, I know. That seems very unlikely to me, especially if it's true that Charlotte and George will both be participating in Eugenie's wedding! :D
 
Marengo said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is a difference in terms of public events. Some will be seen as more justified than others. There are grumblings over the cost of the Cambridge and Sussex weddings by a few, but most expect it. However the York princesses are a different story as they haven’t been branded as part of the working Firm and the future faces of monarchy. They are expected to live a private life paid for privately. So that’s a bit of a different situation. And of course, the cost of security for other public events are considered differently. For political and government situation like a foreign head of state visiting, that is seen as necessary, and obviously not comparable to the wedding of someone that’s not expected to dedicate their life to working for the monarchy. And of course the general level of interest also matter.

At this point, I’m really surprised that it hasn’t been decided to be televised. It’s out of touch to expect the public to not be annoyed at having to foot the bill, and I’m not just talking about public in Windsor as Windsor is likely to ask for additional funding like they did for Harry’s wedding to cover the cost, and not make it a full on national event. But I guess that also depends on the overall interest level in the couple themselves.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Marengo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except none of these can be seen as a "personal" event for one individual. And I have to wonder what the cost of a football match and such are. Events like Olympic games are different as they would bring in worldwide attention and tourism during the period. Like I said, public interest do also matter in events. Princess Eugenie having a private wedding is not going to be met with the upset as FIFA cancelling an important game because local police force want them to pay for the security privately.

Jamie Samhan wrote a piece on this issue, and it pretty much sums up my point now and before as well. As time goes on, I suspect pieces like this will be come out more. The good thing is that the tabloids are relatively controlled in terms of inflating the numbers since this is on the heels of Windsor authorities releasing costs of the Sussex's wedding, which came in at about 10% of what was reported. However, I think most of us can agree the 2 million pound number sounds rather realistic.

Opinion: The public should not be paying for Princess Eugenie’s wedding security bill – Royal Central
 
The fact is the public is paying for the security costs, just like they pay for the security for ever royal wedding.

Not to mention the numerous royal events throughout the year. Can you even begin to imagine the precedent this would set and where would it stop?

If Harry and Meghan visit her mom in California on a private visit should they pay out of pocket for the massive security bill.

Royal central bloggers, daily Mirror reporters and republican MPs can complain to their hearts content. Not going to change a thing.

If The Queen wasn’t on board, it wouldn’t be happening in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
Princess Eugenie, Jack Brooksbank and Family, Current Events 2: Sep 2022-
3 4 5
Replies
145
Views
15K
Snowangel
Snowangel
Marengo
General News for the Wales Family 2: March 2024-
5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
29K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Assigned Moderators - Royal Weddings Forum
Replies
0
Views
171
Marengo
Marengo
Marengo
Queen Camilla Jewels 2: February 2024 -
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
MARG
MARG
Marengo
  • Locked
Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 2
15 16 17
Replies
501
Views
53K
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom